Assimilate or Recreate?

Before and after the Transatlantic Slave Trade, enslaved Africans and their ancestors had to decide whether to “assimilate or start over.” Because emancipation did not mean sudden acceptance into white American institutions and culture, through a series of complex choices, people of color had to navigate the white world—a world in which they were not welcomed; a world that was not constructed for them. While some people chose to prove their legitimacy and capabilities by assimilating into white culture, others decided there was no point, and that a more beneficial move would be to simply create something new. If every institution in the United States held (and still does hold) bias and has a deeply rooted history of oppression, it makes sense that someone would rather just create their own version of that institution—one that not only accepts and helps them, but one that celebrates and understands them. Those same choices ring true today. Historically excluded groups must still decide whether to integrate, reform, create or leave.

Even seemingly ‘neutral’ institutions, such as those in the science or medical fields, have roots in the Slave Trade and other systems of oppression, and continue to operate on their (subconscious) biases. For instance, today on average, patients of color receive less pain medication than white patients and women (especially/particularly women of color) are given less pain medication than their male counterparts—both of which can be traced back to historic oppression. Stereotypes that black people don’t feel pain (rooted in ideas that black people are not human beings), and women are too emotional and constantly overreact (rooted in misogynistic ideals that kept women out of the workforce, political sphere, etc.) have created large disparities in statistics that show the difference in experiences between white male/women/people of color. While oppression is so deeply rooted in our institutions that many of us fail to notice it, many people have and do, and have chosen to not participate in systems that do not take them seriously or fail to recognize them as full human beings who deserve equal rights and equitable treatment to those in dominant groups. The question often is, “If an institution isn’t made for me, why would I be a part of it?”

Following this train of thought got me thinking about the responses of whites, and other dominant groups, to the rebellion vs. assimilation idea. Often, people in a position of power respond to protests and more ‘radical’ actions by saying things like, ‘Why can’t protestors just have civilized conversations instead?’ Or, ‘I would never condone violence.” Or, ‘Why can’t people just accept compromise?’ Frequently, the people that propose such questions don’t actually themselves engage in those ‘civil conversations.’ Instead, they don’t talk about pressing issues at all, and their ‘middle-ground’ or even ‘heroic’ response is just a cop-out. If those people really did care about achieving that middle-ground, they would probably reach out to protestors and attempt to have honest conversations (only to realize that ‘civility’ isn’t always possible, and that nothing besides noisy protest will work). Additionally, if our whole country is centered around rebellion, why are some groups’ rebellions ‘brave’ and ‘courageous,’ while others are, ‘uncivil’ and ‘animalistic?’ A protestor’s race, class, gender, religion, citizenship status and sexual orientation most certainly impact people’s conceptions of them, their actions and the causes they support. Finally, the last question I propose is this: If a group has been ignored time and time again, what are they supposed to do to be heard? It is critical to take into account context, what has worked historically and very real social dispositions/dynamics when considering the best ways to effect substantial change.

WC: 610

Pledged: Annie Jaffee