Recently, we’ve been witness to evidence that racism in America is alive and well, despite nearly a century of yeoman-like efforts to exterminate it like the lethal virus that it is. Two men, and I use that term loosely, Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling, have reminded us that now is not the time to stand down in the fight against racial prejudice.
I’m not going to waste your time or mine re-hashing their stunts. If you need a refresher, Google them. They’ve had their 15 minutes of fame and I hope as a society, we will soon be done with them.
What lies beneath their remarks, however, is a disturbing willingness to lump together people who share one or more common characteristics. Once the group has been made, in the mind of a Bundy or a Sterling, it is nothing more than a baby step to begin to assign traits, faults or flaws to the entire lot of them. Them. Them. Them.
Sort out. Divide. Label. Condemn.
“Us” is an equally dangerous word. It allows “us” to group ourselves with others based on the desirability of the traits we assign to a given group. For example, I want to be one of those columnists who’s considered witty, insightful, thoughtful and profound. I want to be part of that “us.”
“Us” and “them,” when used correctly, serve an important function in our spoken and written communication with one another. They are both invaluable shortcuts. For example, the sentence “The accomplishments of our grandkids delight all of us.” would run on ad nauseum if I had to mention all of the members of the group “us” who are delighted.
The incendiary danger any time groups are created, however, is that by assigning an individual to a group, the human uniqueness of the person is at grave risk. It becomes a tempting shortcut for some to erase the particulars and deal in perceived, or completely imagined, generalities.
“Are they better off as slaves?” – Cliven Bundy
“I ask you…not to bring them to my games.” – Donald Sterling
They, them.
Sort out.
Divide.
Label.
Condemn.
Think for a minute of the groups to which someone could assign you. Do you share all traits with the other members? Do you share their best? Their worst?
Within the last year, I’ve become an artist of sorts. If I had a day job, I’d be nowhere near quitting it, but I’m enjoying myself. I’ve taken lots of classes and tried my hand at graphite pencil, colored pencil and watercolor. I’ve learned about dimension, perspective, composition, design, flow and focus.
I’ve learned that two renderings of the same subject will result in completely different work based on the artist involved. I’ve learned that two renderings of the same subject by the same artist, but given a different day and a different medium, also will result in a different work.
I came across a lovely little paintbrush called a rigger. It is a delicate thing, used to add detail to a painting; to divide one section from another, one color from another, one perspective from another. The work of the rigger is successful when the viewer doesn’t see it, but only perceives that the artist meant for sections of the painting to be recognized as different from each other and the work as a whole.
When we begin to divide, sort out and label, we run the risk of losing the dimension, perspective, composition, design, flow and focus of the individuals we’ve grouped together.
Those are the qualities we need to know about each other. “Us” and “them” put those in danger.
I’ll keep you posted.
Marianne Mansfield has lived in southern Utah since 2010. She and her husband followed their grandchildren to this area code from Michigan. In her former life, she was a public school educator. More than half of her career was spent as an elementary principal, which is why her response to most challenges is “This isn’t my first rodeo.” She grew up in Indiana and attended Miami of Ohio, Ball State University and Michigan State. She is a loyal MSU Spartan and Detroit Tigers baseball fan. She has been writing fiction and opinion since retiring in 2004.
