The shroud of generalization

socionic-identity-cover

Social ethnic identity;

Superficial images, generalization of a group of like people and stereo typing have been around for a long while. This generalizing usually leads to a very narrow perspective of what or who these people are. These are the the three things that make life more difficult for those trying to break that barrier and for discrimination to thrive. Positive or Negative generalization can be very annoying even for that asian boy who is suppose to be smart or that black guy who isn’t 6 feet tall and doesn’t play basketball. To a degree all stereo types can be correct but a generalization of a whole Muslim population for example as a mafia/terrorist group is not how we were raised to see people. The idea is a gross example of how badly we can define a group of extremists that represent only a minority of the muslim population

Superficial images; ideal images are usually a platform we thrive on. We look at it as a possibility to obtain or work towards but there is a negative side and that is the risk that it may become a superficial vision cliched to the point that it becomes generic. And we dread generic content, been there done that – something about the absence of uniqueness sucks the life out of that paradigm you pictured in your head. It may be the subtle flaws that make realities realistic that we are driven to pursue a more vivid picture of our life. When we allow others to grow with time (the 4th dimension) we allow us to see a whole new perspective of them whether a certain actor for example seemed generic at the time playing different roles will give you depth of what he is capable of becoming.

Generalization of a group of peoples is the only way we can describe the groups of ethnicity that are out there. It is difficult to determine who is Canadian or American just by looking at a person’s physical features for example. There are many Asian ethnic groups and even minority of Asian ethnic groups in a Canadian population and to vaguely categorize them as being just Asians is suggesting they have the same dialect and language. Which is wrong because we do not see the Indian population, Chinese, and Taiwanese all getting together to talk about their power play against white people. In the same way we do not see the Polish, German and English getting together to gang up on the black community. We do not like over generalizing a people so why do we do it anyways? Chinese food is often a generalization for all Asian food in the English population. And Indian’s are apparently Asian. In a way we need to redefine the world and establish our identity if we want to get rid of these stereo types.

Stereo typing is another conflict that is similar to the above but it has to do with making people appear to be who they are not. You cannot categorize a Canadian born Asian among international students and expect him to relate and adapt to his new conditions and circumstance. You can encourage them and find this inspiring that a person could live abroad and put himself into an new learning environment but he is still alien as any other westerner. A person should not be judged by how he looks but how he speaks, acts and functions. After this evaluation then it is safe to assume who this person is and if he is someone you can call a friend. The suggestion of “a big man is strong” and “a woman is weak” can be an excuse for the woman to get out of hard work.. or an dis-opportunity for a man to become a tool of labor when he has a mind of his own too and not just brawn.

Life is not black and white. And if it were we would be ignorant. For life is a spectrum of many colors and shades of grey. There is depth beyond skin and it lies in the heart and head. As soon as we realize that a whole new world of opportunity opens to us and we are able to freely examine and reevaluate our situation. The world is not flat, not a square not even a sphere but an oblate spheroid which just means a sphere but theres a bulge along the equator. Then again if we get over technical things can get complicated but its just better practice and good to identify a certain group with their correct group of people. If we wanted to overgeneralize we would just name people by the color of their skin but we don’t do that out of respect for the ethnicity. I guess the medium of the two worlds is a better suggestion for the box of what we should call people: Asian, Caucasian, Black, Native, S. American, Indian is acceptable but it’s very objective from a very Caucasian perspective but not necessarily wrong but i believe a better alternative such as their geographic location could be a better solution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s