Warped ideas of equality shape perceptiions of difference

Our notions of equality present a number of paradoxes which are undoubtedly connected to ambiguity or misinterpretation of the term equality itself. Some of our earliest ideas about equality were formed in early educational processes. For example, we learn that one is equal to one and not three. An apple might be paired with another apple in a matching game rather than an orange or pear. Consequently, we develop ideas about equality which are conceptualized in terms of sameness, and thus, assume that if something is not the same, we must make quantitative or qualitative judgments about its worth.

When our American forefathers stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," they surely held the aforementioned idea of equality as sameness as their standard. Only white men of a particular social and economic status were given power to participate in the American political structure. Many of these same forefathers later held that slaves were equal to at least three-fifths of a man despite proof that, if granted the opportunity, blacks could expand their mental capacities far beyond the limits set for them. Though the previous explication of a political structure that is now thought to be racist and sexist seems a bit elementary, our idea of equality has really undergone minimal transformation with respect to our conceptions of race.

Desegregation was seen as a practicable way to resolve inequities in the educational sphere. As subtle as the notion might have been, it was thought that black schools needed to be the same as (equal to) white schools. Blacks themselves failed to examine their ideas about equality. Such fundamental questions as "What will an `equal' education mean?" were clouded by the desire for equal facilities and economic resources. Social equality for blacks meant being able to go to the same places that whites did. Economic equality meant having the same job and housing opportunities as whites. Equality in these instances seems quite appropriate and just. But at the expense of what? Cultural affirmation? Empathetic sensibilities which often characterize an oppressed people?

Much of what is ingrained in Black Nationalism aims to achieve economic empowerment and social equality, yet fails to question the negative attributes which might be adopted with the power and privilege gained. Black Power for many black men meant control over their nuclear families and dominance in political leadership at the expense of subjecting black women to a subordinate status. In the quest for equality, many blacks have adopted the attributes of their white counterparts. Though not all of these attributes are undesirable, many are.

The right to vote and equal opportunity for housing and education are undoubtedly areas where equality as sameness can be valued. Intolerance, oppressive characteristics (i.e., hate, violence) and ideas about racial supremacy, however, should be vanquished. Those black nationalists who hold that blacks are superior to whites or that whites are innately evil merely adopt the characteristics of their oppressors. Empowerment does not mean espousing anti-Semitic, heterosexist and sexist ideologies. Such principles are counter-revolutionary for any group seeking empowerment. An ideal and wholistic approach toward empowerment subjugates and oppresses no one.

When equality means sameness, diversity and difference is discouraged and assimilation and acculturation prevail. Blacks do not wish to be the same as whites. Our unique cultural productions and political and intellectual contributions are part of what maintain a unique American cultural identity. When blacks say that we are proud to be black it does not mean that we hate whites or don't want to share our culture. We are merely expressing the pride and joy we gain, despite our hardships, from being of African descent.

Though the paradigms under which blacks and whites operate are neither mutually exclusive nor wholly inextricable, the differences which do exist are real and should be valued, not feared. Difference does not always mean that there is no common ground but that each group brings with it different elements which can empower and strengthen the whole. Our Western conception of polarized difference perpetuates our fear of otherness. We assume that if someone is different that they can aim to do nothing beneficial for us, but are threatening.

Thinking back on the way many of us learn about equality, I wish that educators and parents took time to emphasize that quantitatively one is not equal to three, yet given what each might represent in a particular situation, both can be equally good. An apple is different than an orange but both are equally flavorful. On a scale both fruits might weigh the same amount. Alternative or more complete ways of explaining equality and difference might prevent some of our ignorance and misunderstandings with respect to race, gender, and other identities.