Racism and Bigotry in Modern America
How many Archie Bunkers are there in "these here U-nited States"? Those of us who are well-aware of the discrepancy between appearances and realities, especially when it comes to our personal-relationships, will no doubt readily concede that in the span of our life-time we have come across a few of "that" sort: the type of person who in a matter of speaking vomit out their venom against "dem other people" audaciously, often aiming their sphew directly into the faces of politically correct minds. Those of us who pride ourselves on our liberality, in turn, point our fingers and chastise them for being such ignorant pigs, all the while laughing their stupidity and patting ourselves on the back for our commendable moral eptitude.
In fact, we as Americans often administer public trials for such purposes. The modern day phenomena, the "talk show", often exemplify similar trials that have been held in the America's past, episodes such as the witch trials of America's early history (of course those trials were extreme), and the McCarthy trials of the 60's, in which suspected "reds" or sympathizers of communism were singled out and ostracized for examples. The format of these trials are unsettlingly similar: a panel is brought before the public jury, stories of their deviant behavior, base ideals, and their moral ineptitude are punctuated by a host, a crowd rants out politically correct cliches in order to, in theory, to reform the panel (rather that truly is the motive is unclear), and the verdict is administered in colloquial terms. In the case of the "talk show" the panacea most often is "loving wutz in the inside not the outside." The crowd cheers on, the program concludes, and viewers and audience alike return to their niches for the most part entertained by the inadequacies of the panel-- which more often than not, consisted of bigots, and other such social pariahs-- and vitality of their ethics.
And yet Archie Bunker remains a pretty funny guy and many of us can even say we are charmed by the likes of him. How can we possibly reconcile this phenomena with what we as a society have established thus far? Isn't the liberal world vehemently opposed to such "pigs" so much so that, given the opportunity and the means, all such deviants would be scrutinized and reformed publicly?
Well the answer, from my vantage point, lies in his humanness. We accept him as a simple-minded fool... We laugh because he, as a dynamic character, seems real, real enough that he reminds us of people we know and love.. our fathers, our uncles, our brothers, our sisters, our friends... So what's the difference between panel of the "talk show" that is reviled and disdained publicly and Archie Bunker the man next door? Basic logic affirms that there is no difference. The next logical conclusion in that case is as follows: our notions of liberalism, equality, and morality are subject to what peoples are involved and how these people are linked to ourselves. Our treatment of such people and our actions in response to occasions in which our ethics are tested, therefore, vary accordingly.
If this is so, would not the same rules apply to Archie Bunker himself? For the sake of those of us now who are struggling with major decisions that play into racial issues-- inter-racial couple-hood in spite of unyielding, bigoted loved ones, for example - let us offer them some comfort as it relates to the theory mentioned above by playing with a hypothetical. Let us force the mighty Archie Bunker to cross the Rubicon. Let us reveal to Archie that Edith, his bungling, endearing wife, carried in her veins, not only the blood of her Japanese great great grandmother and the blood of an African American ancestor, for example. Which then also means that his daughter too is contaminated with the blood of a "jap" and a "colored". What would Archie then say about ""what is and ain't right in dis country ?" Armand Aubigny, the " Archie Bunker" 19c character of Kate Chopin's short story Desiree 's Baby, a nasty, cruel slave owner is presented with the such a "cursed" fate; he notices that his child looked much like a quadroon (one with 1/4 black blood) and immediately assumes the his wife Desiree was to blame for this "contamination". Desiree kills herself and her child, and Armand sets to flame all of his wife's possessions, to rid of the rancid betrayal and shame that she had plagued upon himself and his prestigious family. Armand learns later that it was his very own mother who was a black slave. Kate Chopin ends the story with that revelation, leaving the reader to ponder about the protagonist's next course of action. Will Archie, like Armand, turn Edith, the "meathead", and his Gloria, his only child, out of his house, home, and esteem? If he does so, what will he do if like Armand Augbigny, he finds that the "foreign" blood runs in his own veins? Perhaps he would opt to turn them out and live as a spiteful old man, abhorred by his situation to the point where he buries himself in hatred and self-pity, perhaps in the end killing himself for the shame of his crippled realities. It is more likely, however, that after the storms have passed, Archie will have eventually realized that each of them - Edith, Gloria, himself -- remained the same people regardless; neither one has changed as people; he would realize that he is human ... that his notions of morality and convention are subject to what peoples are involved and how these people are linked to himself.