Reflecting on "The Ethical Demands for Integration" - Luis

By

 This week when opening Instagram, I noticed many organizations calling out politicians and politics on various posts for washing down King's message to American society. Luckily the reading "The Ethical Demands for Integration" allowed some exposure to King's beliefs and philosophy towards desegregation during the 1960s. I agree with King's assertion on how we as a society can move towards a United States that stays true to its constitution. The truth is that "desegregation alone is empty and shallow," and we also need integration (118). 

  However, King's three needed recognitions for the demanded issue left me with some thoughts and questions. Starting with his first point, which centered around the "recognition of the sacrednesses of human personality," he left me questioning the importance of integration (118). I agree with King's analysis of religion and politics when discussing how each individual within the human race is an "image of God" because it emphasizes the need for desegregation. King debunks the argument that there needed to be a racial hierarchy when he explains that there is "no divine right of one race which differs from the divine right of another" (119). In addition, because of the prominent idea during the 1960s that the Black race was inferior to the White race, King's insight showed that there were present barriers (segregation) not enabling all the creations of the Creator to become equal. But where does the element of integration fit into this ethical demand?

    First, I started by reflecting on King's definition of integration, which he defines as "the positive acceptance of desegregation and the welcomed participation of Negroes into the total range of human activities" (118). Looking closer at King's reasoning, he brings Immanuel Kant into the conversation by focusing on the Categorical Imperative, which shows the dehumanization of one person in relation to another. The concept of using others "as means" rather than "ends" contradicts the positivity of integration because it belittles someone to do something "rather than a person" (119). If we don't view someone as a person, then it follows that we don't value the "sacredness of human personality." Thus there needs to be that integrated society— the welcoming aspect that strays away from only viewing someone for their performance and not their wellbeing. While King didn't explicitly state how the value of human personality calls for integration, I understand that without it, Black folks were not seen as God's "image," which in turn makes them unequal to others in society. 

However, I would argue that providing more concrete examples would make for a better argument. For example, discussing the legal opportunity for Black citizens to vote and their barriers from those who view them as individuals undeserving to cast a vote. Another point that King could have discussed is the connection of an integrated society and guaranteeing people's inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

     Furthermore, King also focuses on another ethical demand for integration, the "solidarity of the human family" (121). At first, the statement reminded me of the analogy of religion and politics because of the central idea that in society, "we are all one." However, the idea that the Cro-magnon birthed civilization when it decided to be mutually cooperative is interesting. More specifically, its ties to the idea of taking responsibility and community, which King defines as a part of having freedom. King states that in a community, there is "the mutually cooperative and voluntary venture of man to assume a semblance of responsibility for his brother" (122). I think King is alluding to the idea that when an individual has needs to fulfill that require a partnership, there needs to be a level of trust for the other actions and the assurance of aiding each other in developing the final "goal." One immediate thought was the idea of an accountability buddy in life, academics, or professional careers. So when thinking of "advantageous cooperation" and responsibility, I think about a mixture of innocence and selfishness because of the idea that you need others to reach fulfillment. 

      Overall, King's essay provided the image of why society needs both desegregation and integration to become the nation we dream of having. In addition, it shows the calling for integration by breaking down the meaning of having freedom, which was my favorite part. Lastly, his information on nonviolence provided a nuance of diminishing anger and moving towards a desegrated and integrated tomorrow. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more