It
has always been impossible to define race. Most humans who have ever lived have
had characteristics that were recognizable for their race, although nobody
could ever figure out how many races there were. For example, are subsaharan
Africans all one race? Bantu people (e.g. Nigeria) look very different from
Ethiopians and San (e.g. from Namibia).
But
in many societies the dominant people found it extremely important to define
race with an exactitude that the concept will not allow. This was particularly true
for people of mixed ancestry, as many of us are. This resulted in such
absurdities as the one-drop rule in pre-Civil-War America, in which “one drop
of black blood” made you black, and if your mother was a slave, you were a
slave, even if you were only (like the children of Sally Hemings) one-eighth
black. The former Apartheid leaders of South Africa struggled with this concept
so much that, in their pitiful final days of rulership, they had to define
people from India as honorary whites. No more needs to be added to this, other
than that if you have not read Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead
Wilson (a slave and a master, who were both one-eighth black, were switched
in the nursery), you should.
Still,
look around you, and you will find that race is a useful shorthand for
identifying people. Even the bluest of liberals cannot avoid it. And, for me,
seeing all the different races helps me to rejoice in human diversity, more so
than I would if I (perhaps more accurately) saw each person as unique. On the
trams of Strasbourg, I enjoyed seeing Muslims and Jews, each in distinctive
garb, mixing with saffron-robed Buddhist priests.
But
many people want to make each race a category of blame. The most obvious modern
example of this is that millions of conservatives consider all Muslims to
deserve blame for the terrorist actions of a small number of them. The solution
to terrorism, they believe, is to keep all Muslims out of America. By which
they mean, all people Arabic ethnicity. (I’m not sure what they would do with red-headed
white Muslims from Turkey or the former Yugoslavia.)
But
I’m here to tell you, from personal experience, how evil this is. I am of
partial Cherokee ancestry. My sixth great grandmother was Nancy Ward, the
famous peace activist of the Cherokee Nation prior to the Trail of Tears. Her
cousin, Tsiyu Gansini, was the last holdout of Cherokee warriors, whose
Chickamauga warriors did not surrender until 1794 on Lookout Mountain,
Tennessee. Tsiyu Gansini and his warriors committed numerous atrocities, and Nancy
Ward could not stop them. Nancy Ward said “My cry is all for peace,” while
Tsiyu Gansini said, “We are not yet conquered.” Today we would call the
Chickamauga warriors terrorists.
And
yet the United States considered all Cherokees to be guilty of the Chickamauga
terrorism. In 1830, Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, and all
Cherokees, not just terrorists (of whom none remained by that time) were forced
out of their homeland by the United States Army in 1838. Even though the
Cherokees by that time had their own written language, newspaper, constitution,
Supreme Court, and they lived in white-man houses and had white-man
agriculture,
the
United States still considered them savages and took their land. It was the
category of “Cherokee” that allowed the government to hold all members of the
category responsible for the terrorist acts of a few.
When
I think about the really nice Muslims I have known, including the couple who
struck up a really friendly conversation with us on the tram in Strasbourg, I
know none of them approved of Islamist terrorism, any more than my ancestor
Nancy Ward approved of the terrorist acts of her cousin, Tsiyu Gansini.