Hello, friends. Starting with this column, I will be presenting an outline for a new philosophy called Humanism. Although the term Humanism is well established in the English lexicon, these ideals are not meant to be linked to any other definition of that word. I certainly have drawn from the original Humanists and many other sources; but the compilation is going to be understood best if you, the reader, simply accept this philosophy as requiring its own definition. Let me say right away that none of this is new. There are very few new ideas in the world and Humanism can best be viewed as a combination of ideas already in existence and the current state of America and/or world. I feel it is important to stand up and be counted for the things I believe in and try to add to the discussion.
Humanism is a philosophy which concerns itself with the very real problems of humanity and focuses entirely on real solutions to solve those problems. I want to point out that it is not in any way anti-religious. There should be nothing in this philosophy which conflicts with religious teachings, with one proviso: if your religion teaches hatred, disunity or aggressive (as opposed to defensive) violence, then these ideals will conflict with it. What humanism seeks to do is identify truths about humans and human nature and then use those to establish guiding principles; to stress our common bonds; and, to have a vision for the future and create a path for getting there. And while this philosophy is not inherently political, the realities of politics as an over-arching societal force cannot be ignored. Future columns will focus on going through the process from philosophy to guiding principle and real world applications, but I am going to use a recent event to point out why Humanism is both necessary and relevant.
One of the guiding principles of our lives should be that no one is judged (do not be afraid of that word) based on his/her color, but strictly by his/her words and, even more so, actions. Before you read on, ask yourself if you agree with those statements. Read the article from Tuesday's issue of The Dartmouth about Dorothy Allison's speech ("Allison's keynote stresses civil, gay rights similarities," Jan. 17). Both she and several unnamed students felt it was improper that she, a white person, would be the keynote speaker in honor of Martin Luther King Jr., a black man. So, in a gathering of people that are supposed to be amongst our champions of equality, is being promoted exactly the kind of divisive racism that is endemic in the American collective conscious ness? It is incongruous with the words and actions of the person being honored. The only question should have been are her words and actions in line with Dr. King's?
But was Dr. King a black minister who was a role model for African-Americans? Humanism says that, while that statement is true in and of itself, it fails to get at the heart and ultimate truth of the matter. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great human who was a model for all humans. Should we say that Abraham Lincoln was a great white man who served as an inspiration to whites and the main commentators and eulogists should be white; or that Gandhi was a great brown person? Do you really think these humans would say, "Honor my color first and my humanity second?" Since skin pigmentation has as much to do with a person's actions and character as any other gift of fate, why didn't those same people ask why a man wasn't chosen to speak? Or why not someone with the same blood type? It is ridiculous, isn't it?
Humanism is about uniting people based on their common goals and illuminating a path to achieve them. It's about achieving peace, equality, the end of world hunger, etc. through non-violence and marginalization of those who are opposed to those goals. The people who want that world are of all races, religions and nationalities; those who oppose that ideal because of greed or anger or for any other reason are also of all races, religions, and nationalities. To stick with this current example, it must be pointed out that those who stood up for what Dr. King preached were white and black and brown; those who were opposed were white and black and brown. Therefore, we must unite based on our common goals and values! And when we fail to follow philosophies that we seem to agree on, such as not making decisions about people based on skin color, we leave that path, divide ourselves and keep our common dreams as far from us as the era of Jim Crow.
Allow me, gentle reader, to make one final point. If you are reading this and making guesses about my skin color, and from that guess deciding how you feel about my words, then you are still trapped. Free your mind; free your heart; then, and only then, will we move confidently in the direction of our dreams.
