Tom Burns

Professor Matassarin
Writer’s Seminar
11/12/06
Fuel of the Fire
This is going nowhere fast. Here in the twenty-first century where political
incorrectness is a stone’s throw from a felony, the topic of prejudice has become
increasingly overt. And unfortunately, those who test paper thin boundaries of political
correctness find themselves on the fleeing end of a witch hunt backed by finger pointers
who rarely understand the values they seek to defend. It is simple to be the victim of
prejudice, even simpler to be prejudiced, but to understand this elusive, polysyllabic word
requires a greater effort. Perhaps a change of focus— from punishing those who trespass
on the sacred land called political correctness, to understanding why this object is so
highly regarded—would yield benefits to a general public. The quest for equal rights, the
odyssey towards tolerance, and the search for interethnic harmony are only a few paints
on a larger canvas. The task is not to prevent prejudice from persisting in its evils, but
rather to understand the drive behind such a potent force. Our society sits aboard a bus
driven by political correctness, and fueled by prejudice. Just like coal, gasoline and
petroleum, fuels are sophisticated items; there is more than what meets the eye.
So what else does prejudice encompass? What lies within the unexcavated nooks
of this powerful and omnipresent device? Some people refer to prejudice as though it
were a personality trait, “he’s tall,” “she’s smart,” “he’s prejudiced,” but such a tone
undermines its magnitude. Prejudice is more than just a characteristic; it is the product of
three things—isolation, societal hierarchies, and humans’ innate suspicion of foreigners.
Isolation can be a dangerous thing. It can skew perceptions, taint vision and
disrupt opinions. Isolation can also assist in the breeding of prejudice. Joseph Conrad
illustrates this point in his novella Heart of Darkness with the character Kurtz. Kurtz
perceives himself as a god after exerting so much force and control over the native
Africans. Kurtz’s actions are cyclical; his megalomania leads to his hunger for power,
leading to his desire to exert his prejudiced power over the natives, which in turn
stimulates a greater megalomania. However, this cycle would not have begun had Kurtz
not been so isolated in the depths of Africa. The isolation allowed for Kurtz’s godlike
syndrome to develop, it allowed for his power, and therefore, prejudice over the natives
as well. Had Kurtz been in an open society with structured laws and regulations, he
obviously would not have had the opportunity to exert such authority and racism over a
group of people. But because he found himself stationed alone, down the Congo river, his
inner racism is revealed via such severe isolation.
Lorraine Hansberry also depicts an isolation-induced prejudice in her play A
Raisin in the Sun. The struggling Younger family finally finds the chance to move out of
their tiny apartment and into a nicer neighborhood called Clybourne Park. Upon their
departure from the two-room apartment, Karl Lindner, from Clybourne Park, intrudes in
an attempt to bribe the Younger family from moving into what has always been a White
neighborhood. Making every effort to conceal his apparent racism, Lindner is unable to
deter the Youngers from stepping up in society. Lindner’s presence in the play is a vivid
example of how isolation assists in the engenderment of prejudice. Because the Younger
family intends to move into an isolated, homogenous neighborhood, their integration into
Clybourne Park is very obvious. Whereas, had Clybourne Park not been so narrow
minded regarding its preferred tenants, the Youngers would not have been so viciously
discriminated against by Karl Lindner.
Isolation is dangerous, but it does not give rise to prejudice alone. The creation of
prejudice comes from more than just isolation; it comes also from societal hierarchies.
Civilization has never existed without rankings of power and importance. For centuries
all around the world there have been emperors, kings, dictators, presidents, prime
ministers, etc..People need authority to underpin societal laws and rules, otherwise
mayhem occurs. For example, roads without speed limits would make car accidents
commonplace; streets without police forces would yield sinister behavior; and companies
without executives would produce nearly nothing. Unfortunately, the hierarchies man
has created have become biased. Caucasians have become the presumed leaders of
American hierarchies. What better evidence for this than the White House? Forty-three
consecutive White, Christian men have sat in the Oval office as President of the United
States. Obviously others outside of this tiny description are capable of running a country.
The characteristics of someone suitable to run a nation are confidence, intelligence,
morality and class; none of which have any correlation to ethnicity, gender or religious
preference. Franklin D. Roosevelt exuded confidence as well as anyone, Abe Lincoln
presented unparalleled wit and morality to the presidency, and John F. Kennedy is
considered as classy a man as can be found. It is these aspects of these people’s
characters that made them effective leaders, not their skin color, sexuality, or religion.
But because such a precedent has been set for presidents, women, Jews, African
Americans, Buddhists, Asian Americans, etc. will have great difficulty running for
president. Obviously, such a pattern will stimulate anger in all those who do not fit the
Caucasian, Christian male profile, and such anger will beget prejudice towards White,
Christian men.
Julia Alvarez alludes to society’s hierarchies in her short piece “A White Woman
of Color.” Alvarez’s description, “It was not until years later, from the vantage point of
the United States and an American education, that I realized that this hierarchy of beauty
was dictated by our coloring” (Alvarez, 18), shows that even degrees of beauty have been
predetermined via a hierarchy.
At the other end of the spectrum, those who do not fit the the criteria of an
American leader are often suspected of malice. Brent Staples refers to this matter in his
short piece “Just Walk On By.” Staples describes himself as “a softy who is scarcely able
to take a knife to a raw chicken—let alone hold it to a person’s throat” (Staples, 535);
however because he is a large-framed, African American man, others make unwarranted
assumptions about him. Stating, “I could cross in front of a stopped car at a traffic light
and elicit the thunk, thunk, thunk of the driver—black, white, male, or female—
hammering down the door locks” (Staples, 536), and “I entered a jewelry store on the
city’s affluent Near North Side. The proprietor excused herself and returned with an
enormous red Doberman pinscher straining at the end of a leash. She stood, the dog
extended toward me, silent to my questions, her eyes bulging nearly out of her head”
(Staples, 537) and “I had no way of proving who I was” (Staples, 537); Staples
demonstrates how he fell victim to others’ conjectures. Staples goes on to say “Black men
trade tales like this all the time” (Staples, 537), to point out that the racism he feels is not
personal, but worldwide.
The combination of isolation and societal hierarchies certainly lead to prejudice;
however they are not the full story. Part of the drive behind prejudice is humans’ intrinsic
and natural suspicion of foreigners. Ever since birth, we cannot help but take refuge in
our kin. Consequently, we form ambivalent relationships with strangers, characterized by
distrust and doubt. Today, German Americans and Jewish Americans cannot help but
suspect each other, however far removed from World War II. It is these relationships
which begin the descent into prejudice. For example, suppose two black men share a joke
about their ethnicity—they have no reason to feel insulted by the joke, since it originated
internally. However if a white man offers the same joke to a black man, the black man
has every right to feel offended and express disapproval towards the white man.
Situations like these in conjunction with the instinctual seed of prejudice embedded
within us all are what create societal prejudices such as racism.
Simone de Beauvoir, a french author and philosopher, once said “women and men
must liberate themselves from such ingrown prejudices.” Beauvoir’s words do not exude
originality with the exception of “ingrown.” By her diction, she seems to agree that part
of racism is the innately developed prejudice found within all of us.
Tracing the roots of prejudice is only half the battle. The challenge ahead involves
discovering and executing a plan to decrease prejudice and hopefully stop it entirely.
Without doubt, the difficulty in this task is practically immeasurable; it involves
extensive education, Job-like patience, and gorges of time. It requires tremendous effort
from those who wish to make a difference to understand such a complex force as
prejudice. This goal already presses the boundaries of feasibility. Behind strength lies
determination, and behind determination lies persistence, therefore with great persistence
prejudice can become a thing of the past.
Prejudice is still making its maiden voyage through the sea of controversy. Until
the early 1990’s, prejudice lingered behind the scenes of news channels and magazine
headlines, but now prejudice is a widely accepted evil, foregrounded by the
overabundance of misunderstanding in society. Taking all this into consideration, perhaps
the most efficient way to kill prejudice is simply to wait. Maybe the difficulty in putting
an end to such a power is too daunting, the necessary effort too overwhelming, and the
hope of such a goal too idealistic. The only method of ceasing the racism, homophobia,
sexism, classism in the world is to wait for people to realize the absurdities of prejudice,
and the stupidity of close-mindedness. It has been over four-hundred years since the
death of two star-cross’d lovers showed what a scourge is laid upon hate—so hopefully
the end is near.