Are We Just Stuck?

I hope I do not make my preference for Joe based on the roundness of Joe’s ears or house color. I hope hair size or hair color does not give me an insight of Joe’s intelligence. How it came that even things as insignificant as colors became the guiding principles of determining our preference for others is beyond comprehension. Should we blame our judgments for failing to realize the trivialities of these characteristics? Color and race now seem to permeate and pervade even serious major decisions on a global scale.

Not only has color and race become a characteristic of some cultures, it seems color and race has become an inevitable defining culture whose bounds are limitless and whose promotion is self worthy. The child in kindergarten grows to learn the ills of color and race, but quite often, fails to extricate his or herself from its ills. The omnipresence of color and race seems to make us ultimately to see it as a culture that should be ridiculed, but decisive enough to saturate every fabric of civilization.

Industrial revolution and science must have taught us amazing lessons. Decisions should be based on facts, proven facts or facts plausible enough to be accepted. While we should view every fact with a scientific acumen, we certainly should not abandon the social aspects that are often too complex to be scientifically analyzed. What should be done when the social environment continues to be dominated by things as silly as eye color, hair color, skin color and shoe color? What should be done when seemingly educated individuals, having gone through the rigorous educational scientific curriculums of factual analysis fail to apply them in a social environment? What should be done when analysts use shoe color and hair color to make so called “sound” judgments? Unfortunately, some choose to remain coiled-up in very uncontroversial things. Some actually create controversy over trivial things, and then seek to unravel an inexistent mystery of the intrigues of color and race. They call it advanced education and only best analyzed by them.

At age 5 little Joe characterized his friends by what shoe color they had and showed his preference for them in like manner. Joe loved the guy with purple winter boots half as much as he loved the guy who wore blue winter boots. At 15 and a teenager in middle school, little Joe’s preference had moved from shoes to suits. Joe loved and admired black suits followed by pink suits. If you were a black suit guy, you were Joe’s best friend. His friends in black suit to him possessed every good quality. At 20 in college, little Joe had moved from blue boots, black suits to skin color and race. His preference was the skin color he had. Interestingly, Joe in his opinion at every period in time seemed to have had indisputable reasons for his preferences. Although Joe moved from one item to another, his contrast level remained at the level of color. At 20, Joe looks back and ridicules how stupid it was for him to have chosen his friends based on shoe and suit colors. Joe is still growing and his contrast level is seemingly growing. Sadly, Joe’s contrast level has not changed; it has stayed at colors. At 5 Joe’s contrast level is color, at 15 his contrast level is color, and after receiving a robust education as Joe calls it “World Class Education”, his contrast level remains color. Is Joe stuck or still growing?

While some people determine their preference for others based on shoe color, preferred suit or house color, for others the preference is inspired by hair and skin color. How bizarre the evolution through which human intelligence has developed! On what scale is mankind evolving on? Tomorrow, Joe’s contrast scale will be based on the sky color others love. When you get really old, they say you stare frequently into the sky to see how close you got to touching it. They say ignorance is bliss.