A vulgar question

In our civilized society, there are many questions we know not to ask of people–of new acquaintances in particular. We know, for example, that it is generally considered rude or impolite to ask a mature woman for her age. We know that we should not ask a hefty woman for her weight. We know that we should not ask people about the intimate details of their private sex lives. We know it is not nice to ask, “How much money do you make and how much do you have in your savings, checkbook and other related accounts?”

Such questions are clearly boorish and unrefined. We know we should not ask people questions that are

really none of our business. We know better–or at least we should know better.

Yet despite our general civility and refinement, one crass, crude and utterly vulgar question often gets overlooked. Despite our general “civility”–if I may be permitted the presumption of assuming for a moment that the CNMI is in fact a civilized society–one question is frequently asked. That question is: “What’s your race?” Or, to put it even more crudely: “What are you?”

As far as questions go, this is, philosophically speaking, as vulgar as it gets. After all, what is the underlying purpose of this question? And why should any individual bother to offer a reply?

I am a Chamorro. I am a German. I am a Spaniard. I am a Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino–what does it matter? Why should any decent individualist dignify the question with a response?

Why should a person essentially say: “Sure, I would be more than happy to supply you with a convenient label, with a sociological construct, which you can then use to pigeon-hole me into arbitrary, increasingly obsolete, old world categories.” Why should a person lay down the basis for possible stereotyping and discrimination?

Granted, under Federal law, potential employers are barred from asking prospective employees such a vulgar question. In the employment context, the question has no basis and is entirely irrelevant. But note how the government still keeps tabs on race for its own questionable purposes. In reality, it is really none of their business.

The only people who would be happy to answer the race question are racists, nationalists and collectivists. The racist takes pride in a “distinction” he never earned and had no part in bringing about. The nationalist feels the same way and takes solace in the security of the group. Alone he feels useless and impotent, but with racial and ethnic pride anything, including genocide, is possible. The liberal collectivist is just as vile: He lives off pitting one group against another, the “oppressed” minority against the “powerful” majority, empowering himself through the welfare state and diversity programs.

What all of these collectivists fail to realize is that people are, first and foremost, human beings. They are discrete, individual persons before they are Russian, Sri Lankan or anything else. Their individual character as individual human beings should supersede any racial considerations. As Dr. Martin Luther King admonished, judge a man by the content of his character, on his individual merits, not by the color of his skin or the formation of his bones.

Of course, Dr. King probably would not have said that if he were White.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com