I think it is a mistake to over generalize, because it fosters stereotyping; because with large groups it's difficult to factor out the other influencing variables; and because for some groups it's increasing difficult to identify pure-play members. I don't believe in political correctness for it's own sake, but I do believe strongly in treating a person as an individual and not as a representative of a group.
As points of discussion, you mentioned the seeming difference in athletic prowess between different groups: Black people seem to be more naturally athletic than whites who seem to be more naturally athletic than indians/chinese., and ask if I think it's bigoted to make the above statement. I think it is bigoted, although I grant that you don't mean it to be offensive. But that's the rub of bigotry, it's expressions seem so obvious. Yet they are also so very wrong. If you can get past defining who is 'black', 'white', 'indian' or 'chinese', and the (I believe impossible) task of factoring out other influencing variables, I believe the observation is still false. Blacks have certainly earned overwhelming success in most US major league sports, but they are under-represented in ice hockey and other winter sports. Chinese are renown for their martial arts, which are certainly very athletic.
As are all ethnic designations, 'white' is an evolving term. In his book Whiteness of a Different Color, Matthhew Frye Jacobson recounts how in 1922 an Alabama court case ruled a Sicilian woman to be not conclusively white. And were the Irish immigrants of the 19th century viewed to be 'white'? - I don't think so.
Anyway, you're right that we're all biased and bigoted in some way. In my opinion, we need to guard against those views, and determine to see each other as self-defining individuals. Maybe the next great ice hockey player will be 'black'. Maybe the next great basketball player will be 'white'. Maybe the next great Olympic champion will be 'Chinese' or 'American Indian' or 'East Indian'. Remember Jim Thorpe? |
