Prejudice

As a tutor, one of my students is writing his college-application essay on prejudice ... which has inspired me to take up this same subject. Here goes:

"Prejudice" really means to pre-judge something or someone. After viewing N events or characteristics of a particular group of people, it is human nature to draw a generalization from the preponderance of a trait exhibiting itself in this experience. This generalization is not prejudice. Prejudice is applying this generalization to the next or N+1 person or event. As an example, if after a life among Irishmen, one concludes that this group has a tendency toward over-imbibing ... the generalization ... then upon meeting a next Irishman, one assumes that he is a sot ... this is prejudice. You have unfairly prejudged him without any evidence other than your prior generalization.

There is an unfortunate mix-up in the use of the term prejudice in today's society ... and that is to call any generalizations about WASPs, Jews, gays, Muslims, Asians, etc. "prejudice." They clearly are not ... unless of course the person making such a generalization cannot resist the temptation to apply it in the N+first case ... at which point it lives up to this societal condemnation. I know this is a subtle and difficult distinction to make, but, to me, it is a very important one. I rankle when I am accused of prejudice if I am making a generalization. This is because the accuser assumes that I cannot abandon this generalization when dealing with my next encounter under this generalization. I pride myself on being able to shuck my generalizations in such situations. (Interestingly, in this case, my accuser turns out to be prejudicial.)

Now let's test this definition of prejudice in the real world. When a Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman stopped Professor Chip Gates from entering his house thinking he was breaking in, President Obama said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." This is clearly prejudicial for Obama is applying one instance (questionable at that) to the entire Cambridge police department. He, of all people, should know better since, I assume, he has experienced the pain of prejudice in his past life. And now the flip-side ... the Obama administration's unwillingness to generalize with the term "Islamic extremists" or "jihadists" when dealing with ISIS and their ilk, tells me that they are confounded by the distinction made above. (Although, if I met one such militant dressed in black robes and carrying an assegai, I think I would myself tend toward prejudice.)

The Long Knives

An assegai

W.C. Fields, as Egbert Souse' in The Bank Dick, claimed that the antagonist bank robber had attacked him with a long knife, an “assegai."  Fields loved to use strange-sounding words like this one (including such others as "Lompoc" and "Petaluma"), but claiming he was attacked by a long knife in this classic movie made him an accidental hero. 

However, I have been increasingly perplexed by the assegais that are being wielded by almost everyone in the media these days ... to reduce the ranks of potential Republican heroes, the aspirants to the Presidency.  First Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich and yes, even Mitt Romney are being sliced up by the press for any verbal gaffs and/or minor character flaws.  It's as though those media personae want to make their bones by taking down the current Republican front runner in the Presidential sweepstakes.

Thinking back to the last Presidential election, I can remember dozens of Obama's verbal gaffs and, not minor, but major character flaws that were glossed over by these same members of the fourth estate.  Such media inconsistencies have always perplexed me.  It's as though there is a subconscious narrative written in the stars that is then followed throughout the campaign by these too-often-pompous talking heads.  Some call this a double standard, but, to me, it is much more insidious and puzzling than this.  How does this happen?  Why can politics become a blood sport one day while, at other times, candidates seem to be adoringly carried on sedan chairs into office? 

This morning on Morning Joe, Mitt Romney was being savaged for expressing his private displeasure to Brett Baier of Fox News's Special Report for his tough interviewing technique. To me this is a mere bagatelle. Actually, this MSNBC morning show had previously become one that I looked forward to watching. Now, its seems to be nothing more than a pissing contest ... besmirching each favored Republican candidate in turn with clever pejoratives, snorts, and sideways scowls. As a result, I have started to switch more often to Imus in the Morning (gasp!!)