Blog Post 3: Aronson's Argument

  It's blog day yet again, reader. If you are returning, then you may already know a bit about the book I am reading, Race by Marc Aronson. For those of you who are new to my blog, this post may be able to help you learn a bit more about Race, although I, of course, recommend that you take a look at my previous posts. Today I will be talking about what I think Aronson's argument is since I am about 3/4 of the way through the book.

Because Aronson addresses the idea of race through events, stories, and ideas of the past, in a way, his argument is not entirely clear to me. Instead of coming out and saying exactly what he is thinking, Aronson gives the reader clues to what I believe his argument to be, that the idea of race is pushing people apart as much as it is bringing them together.

When I think of the word "race", I think of things like slavery, protests, and other injustices. In his book, Aronson does not only acknowledge the negative side of race but the positive too. The author tells the reader about how early versions of what would later become race depended on "Religion, not skin color" (pg 86). Although it seems far from our modern ideas, Aronson argues that religion could have been one of the starting points of race. As well as speaking about religion, earlier on in the book, Aronson mentioned tribe mentality. Both religion and tribe mentality according to the author contributed to what we now know to be race, as outsiders were considered to be not human. While early ideas were certainly limiting, they did two things with what could have been considered race. First, it brought the "in crowd" together and made them feel more like a community. Second, the "outsiders" were considered less than the others in most cases. Early on in his book, you could see that my interpretation of Aronson's argument is plausible, as it shows race as both a good and bad concept. 

This week I read to the point where I am about 3/4 of the way through the book. Although certainly not the main point of the section, Aronson in a way shows how race has brought people together. Speaking about the extreme dangers that someone who was not considered "White" Aronson says "Who is white? Now, Who is black? was another way of asking, Who deserves to be lynched?" (pg 173). Although I am certainly not an expert on the rules of our written language, one thing I noticed was the capitalization of the word "Who". I thought that this was showing how people in general being the subject, were just that, people. People who were part of the human race. In this case, it seemed like Aronson was trying to show the unity of racial groups. Of course, nobody wants to be included in something when there is a risk of being lynched but that isn't what I took away from this. Aronson seemed to be using the capitalization of the word who to not only show that these were real people but also to show that there have been historical events that many people have had to experience because of their race. In this case, they can come together because of shared experiences with a community that understands what they have gone through.

After reading this section of Marc Aronson's book Race, I believe that he argues that race is something that brings people together as much as it drives them apart. Thank you for reading my post. I hope you join me next week as well where I will be taking a look at the book's relation to current events.