It is obvious, then, that any specific remarks I could make about race relations either in New Zealand, or elsewhere would necessarily be highly superficial and lacking in comprehensiveness. Instead of dealing with specific race problems and instead of directing what I have to say toward race relations alone, I would like to point out some of the factors I believe to be basic not only to race and minority-group problems but also to promoting better human relationships on personal, national, and international levels. My ideas—with no attempts towards originality—are given in the interest of discriminated-against groups regardless of whether they are based upon physical differences, religion, political ideas, cultural cohesion, occupation, or profession.

Black is Bad?

It is fairly self-evident that in English-speaking countries and countries dominated by English-speaking peoples the supreme value of light-skinned, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism is basic to the arising of discriminatory relations against persons and groups not falling within this category. Western civilisation has thoroughly absorbed, through Judaism and Christianity, ancient Persian mythology's dichotomy of light and dark—white is good and black is bad.

Along with the ideal of light (particularly in complexion though there is much talk about the efficacy of blood—evident in the great pride in family trees and such propaganda as Hitler's supreme Aryan race) as good, which gives rise to the fairy tale of innate white superiority, goes an ease and readiness to consider all persons belonging to certain specific groups to be characterised by particular popular stereotypes. From such quackery come the myths verbalised in the expressions Orientals have inscrutable faces, Negroes are more sexually immoral than whites, Maoris coming to the towns to take industrial jobs are "poor types," Negroes are inferior in intelligence to whites, Indian greengrocers are more dishonest than Chinese, persons that follow the cooking trade are foul-tempered, all Americans are wealthy, and that men are better auto drivers that women (the word men includes even those who do not drive?).

Some Japanese are squint-eyed and wear glasses—not all; some New Zealanders are in institutions for the care of the mentally deranged—not all; some Americans are gangsters but nothing like a majority of the population.

A factor which would contribute to an improvement in human and minority group relationships is a canging of attitudes and beliefs away from easily acquired and easily maintained popular stereotypes. In the place of such popular stereotypes should go a recognition of the fact that the physical and intelligence differences between persons within any one racial group are greater than are the differences between any two groups—to a recognition of persons as unique individuals. (The methods and techniques of education, of changing attitude and belief systems of either groups or individuals could hardly be considered here. The immediate aim is to produce a journalistic article—not a book or a short course in social psychology!)

Group Differences

But to consider human beings as unique personalities must not cause us to overlook group differences such as innate or acquired physical characteristics or differences caused by cultural [unclear: conditioning.] To give examples: (1) An appreciation of physical differences is exemplified by the war-time discovery in the United States that women are physiologically unfitted for certain types of welding on the outside of hulks of ships under construction. As a result laws were passed forbidding shipbuilders to employ women for the specific tasks involved. (2) In the administration of Japan the occupation government should be cognisant of the extreme intrinsic need of the Japanese on both a personal and a national basis not to be shamed.

In solving the knotty problem of producing better racial and other human relations on local, national, and international levels there must be a recognition that culture patterns of whatever nature—economic, social, political—must be understood and sympathetically and intelligently treated when planning and steps toward better relationships, and hence social progress, are attempted. An effective system of adult education in New Zealand would consider and deal with the adult Maori differently from the pakeha. Likewise the approach to the so-called Negro problem (an American sociologist aptly terms it the white problem) is not the same in Mississippi as in California and in producing better racial conditions in either entirely different methods have to be used. To use Mississippi as a further example since I know the situation there more intimately, any attempt by social reformers to hasten the change toward better Negro-white relationships and better social, economic, and political conditions must be cognisant of the cultural atmosphere of that state, including the historical situation which produced that culture. Progress comes mostly through understanding and working out an adequate and unique system of dealing with the existent behavioral and belief patterns; the fervent and fanatical belief—a belief acquired so early in life that possibly many Mississippians would claim that it is innate—in white supremacy; an insistence upon deference to whites by Negroes so thoroughly woven into the social fabric that even few Negroes question the practice; the extent that economic competition perpetuates radical racial prejudice particularly among whites of the lower socioeconomic levels; the refusal by far too many persons belonging to the dominant white group to see that depriving Negroes of opportunity to develop according to their intellectual, political, and technical potentialities is an economic and social liability to the community; the insistence by many that democratic principles can be promoted through providing so-called equal opportunity while still adhering to practices of segregation.

The Dominating Culture

As already mentioned, recognition and appreciation of the multitude of differences between groups of people eventually lead to an appreciation of the differences between individuals belonging to any one group. Though the members of any specific group necessarily share a variety of cultural patterns, the group members as individuals tend to absorb and conform to the values and ways of doing things of the dominant cultural climate. In Western civilisation we place invidious cultural emphasis upon such items as family, wealth, property owning, and occupation or profession. In occupations, for example, we have developed evaluative judgments according to artificial criterions of services rendered to the community. Thus plumbers may be considered to occupy a position lower on the social scale than the white collar worker. We therefore come to consider certain unfavourably economically and socially situated persons, and particularly dark-skinned racial groups, to be especially suited for particular occupations of low social value—with no appreciation for the capacity, ability, or potentialities of persons as unique individuals.

Any society in which persons belonging to a particular cultural or racial group more or less monopolise specific types of occupations or business activities (Orientals as greengrocers in Wellington and Negroes as domestics in the Southern States of the U.S.A.) smacks of a rigid caste structure in social organisation. Some New Zealanders might point out that legally the Orientals have equal opportunity with the dominant whites in socio-economic pursuits, but are there not subtle pressures operating which tend to keep Orientals at the bottom of the social ladder? One test is marriage—"Would you like Your Daughter to marry an Indian?")

Each Man's Dignity

If individual differences are thoroughly appreciated we eventually arrive at the conclusion that within any one group, community, nation, indeed the world, there is a great range of human capacities and potentialities—a great diversity in intellectual and physical abilities, in ways of doing things, and aspirations. If we live up to our professions of political, social and economic democracy, we will accord to every individual, no matter what his ideologies and ways of doing things, an important place in the group and the society of which he is an integral part.

Thus we arrive at an appreciation of human dignity—the emphasis upon the individual (person, group, nation) as a functioning member of the larger society.

As pointed out by analysis of human relations in the United States and exemplified in industrial and racial studies, political freedom and good economic conditions do not automatically solve all social problems. Better wages and working conditions do not prevent strikes. Among other things, discontents may arise against foremen or managers who represent impersonal absentee capitalists—employees are striking for satisfying working relationships and a satisfying place, a respectable status in the community. (Some labour unions in the United States are attempting to amellorate the psychological evils accompanying the depersonalisation of industry by providing outlets for self-expression and opportunities for satisfying personal service in union organisation.)

Financial help or a living wage for lower class whites and Negroes do not necessarily cause a raising of standard of living. Raising of standard of living seems to be involved with ascending the social ladder. Climbing the social ladder is difficult—so difficult many persons at the bottom of the social quagmire cannot develop the incentives and the techniques necessary for success.

Would it be expecting too much to suggest that the time may come when human dignity—the importance of every single individual, every person in the community, is appreciated to the extent that we will fail to place the present-day great emphasis upon invidious comparisons?

Could modern society maintain herself without the man who runs the machine that spreads the glue on the sole of your shoe? Or those social engineers—the lawyers? Or the fellow who pours cold water down his sleeve at 4 o'clock in the morning so that you may have fresh milk in your tea at eight? Or the secretary who keeps the machinery of an office well-oiled while the boss makes Rotary speeches?

The emphasis should be upon human dignity—each individual human being!

—Willie Mae Gillis.