We live in a world where everything is classified into specific groups, and even individuals in those groups are further classified into subgroups. In science, this may be priceless, owing to fact that it makes research much easier, faster and simpler (no need for repetition of procedures). For example, not all plants have the same benefits, and even if we have plant species from different regions, they may not have the same [level of] constituents based on environmental factors. Likewise, not all disease-causing organisms act the same, and even some species become tolerant to therapy, and then form a new strain that needs to be classified into a different subgroup…
However, would classification be relevant in human social life? Whether we are aware or not, we classify ourselves every day as people, at the very least, we classify ourselves into families, and broader into various cults, communities, tribes, nationality, race, and maybe more. This may be advantageous in finding like-minds for a beneficial purpose. That would be good, but the disadvantages would be disunity and segregation amongst various classes of people, which will slow down growth and development…
It appears to get worse generally as humanity seemingly gets smarter, and we tend to have professional classes, which may become rivals, and even within a profession, there would be sects (or cliques) that may rival each other. It is almost like the curse we heard from the Bible myth on the tower of babel haunts us till date, that we begin to speak “different languages”, even though we often clearly understand the languages we use in communicating and airing our differences….
Sometimes, we even follow suit with these classifications without knowing… For example, if you were asked who the first man to land on the moon was, you’d say it was Neil Armstrong… But then, if you were asked who the first black man to land on the moon was, you may have to crack your head over that… That wasn’t to test your knowledge, but to show a salient example on racial identification. We don’t get to be asked the later question very often, but if at all it comes out from anywhere, you’d be curious to know, right? But, then would that be relevant at all? Did you care if Mr. Neil was white or black when you heard he landed on the moon?
Then there are headlines all over saying, “the first woman to do this, or get that and bla bla”… What really is the point of identification there? Other than to show that women are relevant in the society (and by the way, they’ve always been equally relevant from the onset of human existence), and that other women can take on the mantle to become whatever they want? That becomes a problem. What would be wrong if we the first woman to ever do something is regarded as the first person to ever do something (without first mentioning it was a woman)? Using Marie Currie, for example, she was identified as the first woman to ever win a Nobel prize, and the first person to win it in two different fields… Maybe in that era when women were regarded as second class citizens in most parts of the western world, the “first woman” part would be interesting to point out, but in our world of today, why do we still refer her as the first woman to win the thing? What would be wrong with just seeing her as the first person to even win the prize in two separate fields? After that, did you come to care about the “first man” to win an NP in two separate fields?
Of course, Marie was a woman… No doubts… But she was a human being most importantly. We don’t get to hear stuff like, the first person to discover gravity was a “man”… Why’s that, because it’s the norm for men to that. As such men are already the standard, especially if they are white (sarcasm intended)… Jeff Bezos, for example, was tagged the first person to reach 100billion in dollars some months back… He wasn’t tagged the first “white man”, so that when a black man reaches that level of wealth acquisition, he’d become Jeff’s equivalent of his race as regards that title. But, if Dangote had reached 100 billion in dollars first, I’m very sure many blacks all over the world, Africans, Nigerians and the Hausa/Fulani people would say, “I identify with the first man to reach $100billion dollars by race/continent/nationality/tribe, and of course village…” basically because it’s not something a blackman can [really] achieve [, therefore, I identify with this super-black man, even though we don’t share in his wealth]. Saliently, we accept our inferiority as a black race. In the same way, women accept their inferiority as a sex without knowing, each time they point out that a woman can do something a man can do, and even more… That’s because even if a thousand women awe the world with various feats men won’t even dream of achieving, the standard is still “man”…
I wonder why women who consider themselves strong call themselves “women with balls…” Don’t balls belong to men, and uterus or vagina for women? Why try to compete for those who have balls when you don’t actually have them? A man would be considered totally worthless if he called himself one with a “uterus”… So, how exactly are you fighting for womanhood when you are sidelining your major symbol, and adopting what the patriarchs have said is symbol for power? You’re just fighting for the patriarchy then… If you think the uterus isn’t so much of a power symbol, then you’re just a brainwashed punk who doesn’t even know what she’s doing… No offence intended… The more you actively try to become equal to men, the more you dampen the biological and psychological relevance of womanhood in society… What most so-called feminists fail to realise is that the patriarchs were nothing without the actual matriarchs. The powerful women were few, but still had more effect on all the patriarchs. They didn’t have to call themselves men or people with balls, a powerful woman has natural control over a man if she has the brain. They didn’t even have to form groups. They just influenced the power… Even in Africa were women faced a many challenges, the few women who became prominent moved more mountains than men, and they did it without comparing their achievements with anyone… Of course, women were put down in many parts of the world, but if it was a world with a civilized social structure, there were still women who had equal levels of powers than the men who looked down on those women… Similarly, these men looked down on fellow men they would consider below them irrespective of race and age. An American racist that would discriminate against homeless white Americans also was present during Martin Luther’s time… An white racist who would freely trade money and western stuff for black slaves with African chiefs did exist… Power resonates with power. The slavery was the way it was because blacks sold themselves. Kanye was right… And gender disparity and discrimination have become so because women let it become so…
So, basically (on a side note) the best way to achieve equality is to spell out the importance of the achievement or discovery, and then add the achiever’s discoverer’s details in their bio (the person who led the research that produced the first capture of a black hole was a woman. We all know that, but the science community hammered more on the importance of the discovery, I don’t know her name the same way I don’t know the names of the men who discovered stem cell transplant cures sickle cell anaemia). You can’t get gender equality by spelling out “equality”. The end product is a shift in the equation to favour the other side. The equality fight itself is asking for the world to be unequal, but the bias should be shifted towards the unpopular side. Maybe that would work, but is there a goal to reach before strict equality is practised when people are actually treated based on their talent and skill levels? And, say I’m a guy suitable for a position, but it’s only open for women, that means a woman gets the job even though I might have been a much better option…
In all, your classification and identity is actually irrelevant… Personal benefits, ya… Hard work should pay… But who you are, where you’re from, shouldn’t actually matter… Maybe a side story in your bio about your tough background could be published to encourage those from similar backgrounds, but the emotional facade shouldn’t foreshadow what you’ve discovered… You will die someday, but your discovery stands a chance to outlive several generations.
I’m not trying to change humanity, lol… (We’re way past that… No one can change earth for the better)… And from what I’ve found out, the classification is slowly affecting unity amongst people (on a larger scale, it’s impossible to dissolve disunity, and almost equally impossible to achieve total unity in a group as small as 2 people who find it hard to reach a compromise, even though there’s a chance they could)… First, there is tussle for which group should have the power, then there’s the god-complex that comes with those who feel more enlightened, and then there’s the tendency for some to set themselves as standards for others to follow suit… All of those and many more impair human development rather than foster it. The time needed for planning and working for growth is spent on fighting over who should king over who, and lead the growth and development process… So, evidently, one group fights the other and often than not, do not put in their best if called to serve the larger group, under the smaller group they once rivalled but now lead them…
Don’t get this wrong, classification is important in human culture too. For example, even if we adopted a single economic system for all people of earth, we’ll still need smaller groups to work as humans… But the groups should foster unity, rather than manifest divisions. Diversity is bliss. If I can science, then I should science for the good of the human race, rather than attempt to represent people of my age-group, sex, tribe, nationality, race or whatever.
A headline as such; “Igbo man from Nigeria becomes the first person to…”, causes more harm than good. His identity becomes more important than what he has unlocked. If I’m neither Igbo, nor Nigerian, why should I care about what this man has discovered when my inner rivalry is already asking me, “where is your tribe?” Or if I’m Fulani, I’ll just keep scrolling down the page, because to me, “Igbos are trash.”
Then again repetition dampens creativity. If a white man has landed on the moon first, the very mindset that the black community needs a representative in the Moon Landing Club that kicks in becomes detrimental to the creativity of moon landing business (same thing go to women who want to become the first woman to do something that’s already been done).. So, a human has landed on the moon… The question shouldn’t be about the race or society or whatever he came from. But about, how we should go further than just landing on the moon… More people should land on the moon, surely… But ideally, all human energy regarding space and astronautics should be spent on going further than that.
In such a system, technology is open source, and there is no competition. So, Nigeria can download, study and if they have the means, improve on it… If not, they team with the USA who made the tech and contribute their ideas towards achieving a better feat for the human race…
Similarly, in smaller groups, we could foster growth process by coming together with our different talents, ages, tribes and such, all amounting to different types and levels of experiences, which are basically ingredients for growth… When we fail to do this, we dampen out growth… Even though we grow, the growth happens slower than it should be…
In the end, though, humanity is totally wacko… And, yah… We are doomed…
Anyhow, this is more of an argument or personal opinion, rather than actual canon… Treat as such…
