Ending Delusions of Superiority: Racism and Eugenics (Part I)

Two Jungian Analysts Working Together to End Racism and Dehumanization

Jul 17, 2025

Christopher Carter PhD (guest author) & Polly Young-Eisendrath PhD

I am writing this essay with my friend and colleague, Christopher Jerome Carter. We are both formally trained and certified Jungian analysts, a.k.a. “analytical psychologists.” This two-part conversation explores our individual dedications to ending racism. Christopher and I have spent much of our adult lives opposing systemic racism and dehumanization, while also working therapeutically with people on their own individuation through increased insight and self-awareness about these topics.

Part I, as you will see, is about exploring together our ideas about what works and doesn’t work in two different strategies: (1) colorblindness and (2) increased awareness of racism. Part II is a conversation critiquing eugenics and natural selection as “scientific concepts” that are still used (intentionally or unintentionally) to support the delusion of supposed superiority of groups or individuals. In that conversation especially, we explore some of the ways in which psychology, psychoanalysis, and analytical psychology have supported racism.

Christopher and I met only a few years ago and we soon recognized that we had been traveling the same road (ending dehumanization in all its forms) and that we’d like to work together on some projects. This is our first public expression of our collaboration. You may be noting that I am “white-presenting” and Christopher has brown skin.

Part I: “Race” Consciousness and “Colorblindness” — Potentials for Ending Racism

Here in Part I, I introduce some of my personal experiences in regard to “colorblindness” and Christopher responds with some of his ideas about how and why colorblindness might not work to end racism in 2025. Our ideas and assumptions rest on the fundamental fact that race is a construct that does not exist biologically or genetically although racism does exist —through attitudes and acts of discrimination motivated by racialized beliefs.

For those who are not familiar with the scientific facts about “race,” here is a brief summary:

Race is a socially constructed category used to classify people based on superficial characteristics, primarily skin color, facial features, and hair texture. These ideas are shaped by and used for social, political, and economic forces.
There are no clear genetic boundaries that separate humans into distinct biological races. Human genetic diversity exists on a spectrum not in discrete groups.
The categories we use in the US today (e.g., Black, White, Asian) were created in specific historical contexts—like slavery, colonialism, and segregation—not from biology or science.

Over the past three decades, I have deepened my study of racism, chattel slavery, white supremacy, and colorblindness (the ideal or aim of functioning without delusions of race in our perceptions; see Coleman Hughes’s work for foundational understanding and historical roots). I have also expanded the precision of my knowledge of how and why human beings dehumanize, oppress, abuse and kill other humans based on stereotypes, confirmation bias, blame, and other widespread habits that are not instinctual, but are socially acquired.

I completed my analytical training and became a Jungian analyst in 1986. Christopher completed his in 2021. In each of our trainings, as far apart as they are in time, we were shocked by the extent of racism in some of Jung’s writings and then the lackluster responses of some contemporary authorities in the Jungian community to address the problem.

Both of us have written and published about our experiences, recommending corrective actions to advance training programs and greater inclusiveness of diversity in Jungian associations and writings. We both embrace the value of the potential universality of analytical psychology — intensifying the need to oppose racist themes and other delusions of superiority, based on gender or social status. I have carried this ethos into creating the non-profit Center for Real Dialogue (for more, visit www.realdialogue.org) in which we educate in ways of speaking, listening and relating that enhance equality, dignity, and respect for diverse viewpoints, ethnicities, and people.

In Part II, my conversation with Christopher extends into specific ways to acknowledge and overcome racialized assumptions and meanings in mental health professions, but especially in depth psychology, psychoanalysis, and analytical psychology that have been influenced historically by eugenics and delusions of superiority.

Our conversations here are frank and interactive. They are not especially formal and we do not assert that what we say is comprehensive. Illustrating our ideas in greater depth and precision, Christopher and I will be teaching at least two live online webinars, upcoming, offered by the Center for Real Dialogue for APA-approved Continuing Education Credit for eligible mental health professionals:

(1) Talking About Racism: Why It Is Important and How to Talk About It (August 15, 2025; 10AM-1PM ET). In this course, Christopher and I will discuss how/why many people (especially in the US) continue to accommodate and assimilate harmful racialized concepts and beliefs in commonplace interactions, unconsciously participating in racism through behaviors that mistakenly align with attitudes of white supremacy (Carter, 2023), even while intentionally and consciously supporting diversity and inclusion.

(2) Human Biases and Enemy-Making Tendencies (October 3, 2025; 10AM-1PM ET).

In this course, Christopher and I will discuss the archetypal nature of enemy-making and the formations of unconscious biases. Race is a social construct, not a scientific fact. We will discuss how individuals come to adopt racism, ethnic bias, and othering through ego defenses – what Jungians call “shadow” -- social personas, projective-identification, and confirmation or implicit biases.

Each course carries 3 APA-approved Continued Education credits for eligible mental health professionals. To register go to www.realdialogue.org. Check there for all details about C.E. credits.

Register Today

PYE: Christopher, while reading your paper, “The Current Role of Analytical Psychology in Maintaining Fictitious Boundaries that are Promoted through the Race Lie: A call to dismantle the virtual wall that exists through attitudes of white supremacy” (2024), I got some important new insights about widespread cultural beliefs in Darwinism, especially Darwin’s The Descent of Man. I would find it hard, if not impossible, to unpack what I see with new eyes: the false narratives that led people into believing that we descended from the great apes and that some kinds of humans are “closer” to the apes than white Europeans and white Americans are.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, some scientists who were poised to defend their own moral or intellectual “superiority” (including some prominent psychologists and psychoanalysts) endorsed Darwin’s ideas and clearly established themselves as the types of human beings to be preserved over and above everyone else. For some, the motivation to prove their superiority was unconscious and self-deceptive. However, many of those defending Darwin’s ideas also made harmful-to-murderous assumptions about human beings and other living beings. The science of “natural selection” was applied first to plants and animals and then to human beings.

Even now, when I speak with colleagues about problems inherent in the theory of natural selection, especially for humans, they defend Darwinism, often fiercely. Some respond as though I haven’t read Darwin (I have). These colleagues seem to be oblivious to the possibility that Darwin’s natural selection may have been the first serious attempt to validate racism through science. But, I am getting ahead of myself.

CC: I find it fascinating that you have observed this, Polly. I imagine there is a defensive core to Americana that does not want the cornerstone of American racism to be uprooted. That cornerstone is the very word race which was formulated with an illusory glow (by slave owners and “masters”) as though race is a law of nature and to uproot it is to besmirch the sanctity of Lady Liberty (the soul of America), if not G-D. This excuse permits the underpinnings of the American caste system to remain unaffected by a critique that runs both deep into science and precisely from creating and rationalizing slavery.

In 2025, there seems to be a generalized readiness to acknowledge the Western history of enslavement in a watered-down, blame-free version of early America to shield younger generations from the shame and collective guilt that accompany a fuller acknowledgment of our history, past and present.

It is worth mentioning that, in early American history, white people (typically “indentured servants” coming to America) were also subjected to enslavement. The idea of “races” was leveraged as justification for granting white-skinned folk access to emancipation. This gave whites the possibility of lifting themselves out of enslavement and oppression that colonialist leaders determined was best suited for those who appeared not to be of white European descent.

This helped to secure slavery, as it lowered the risk of there being a revolt from a rebellious majority. It is important to re-educate all of us, especially leaders and clinicians, about the fact that race never existed although it seems as though it always did exist. Race doesn’t just harm People of Color. It harms everyone everywhere, especially in the US where racism continues to be systematized through individuals and communities who still accept race as factual.

PYE: As I said in the Substacks I posted on January 27 and February 21 this year, I personally now believe that “colorblindness” may be the best way to end racism and dehumanization. I think colorblindness is essential for building a society in which the idea of “race” is no longer a predictor of outcomes or identity. Like Coleman Hughes and John McWhorter I embrace colorblindness as an ideal and possibility, not as a perceptual or emotional fact. I have experienced colorblindness in my own life, right alongside racism.

You and I grew up in different parts of the US and neither of us were from wealthy families. I was from a working-class family in which both of my parents worked in a factory and met there and married.

According to what you have shared with me in the past, Christopher, both of our mothers told us that race does not exist. My mother was not an educated person, having never attended high school. But she conveyed her anti-racism through her actions and spoken beliefs, repeatedly instructing me to never use racist terms and to not believe in any racist ideas. Growing up in the 1950s and 60s (Akron, OH), I knew that my mother believed and embraced this fact.

Growing up, I was told by my father that his grandmother on his mother’s side was “full-blooded Cherokee” and I knew, from my own experience, that both my mother’s parents were Slovenian. As a child, I did not think of these categories as meaningful, because we did nothing that seemed “Cherokee” to me and Slovenia was not a country. It had been subsumed by Yugoslavia and I was aware of this fact from a young age. I could not see any reason that I should think I was Cherokee or Slovenian because the categories were not meaningful to me.

I was raised in a family with people who had different skin tones and ethnicities. For example, my aunt who lived next door for my entire 18 years at home (and in whose attic I lived with my parents for at least six months after I was born) identified as “Creole” and had a darker skin tone and jet-black hair that she oiled. I did not know what she meant by the term and I never asked. I did not perceive her as being in any way different from me and my mother although she looked different. I admired my Aunt Ruth – she was funny, brave, resilient, acerbic, and taught my mother that I could have greater freedom. I have had a deep lasting affection for her (and identified with her in many ways) which she reciprocated.

My mother, who was Slovenian-American, spent a lot of her free time with my aunt laughing and gossiping, both early in the day and in the evenings. Our houses were so close that it was like walking down the hall to get to the other house.

Sometimes my mother teased my aunt saying she was “mulatto” not “Creole,” but I did not know what either word meant. My aunt teased my mother because her family didn’t speak English. They were good friends who supported each other in their marriages to brothers (my father being the younger one) who could be violent. My father identified as Cherokee although his brother never mentioned it. The Cherokee mother and the grandmother were dead before I was born. I was dubious about my father’s claims. When I now look at his photographs, he looks entirely Native American, with darker-toned skin and jet-black hair.

My mother’s nine siblings and hordes of cousins formed her family. Most of them lived in Verona, Pennsylvania. They spoke Slovenian. I could not doubt their ethnicity, even though Slovenia did not exist. I did not feel close to them. I lived next door to Aunt Ruth and my five cousins and my uncle. I knew them well and spent a lot of time in my early years with them. I didn’t know the Slovenians well.

By adolescence, I was dubious about special claims to the “old country” or unique identities, because I felt these were ways of setting oneself above or apart from others. My mother definitely felt her Catholic Slovenian clan (in which “cleanliness is next to godliness”) was somehow superior to my father’s rag-tag crew (with the exception of Aunt Ruth) and she conveyed that to him regularly.

I went to public schools with other kids whose fathers (and sometimes mothers) worked in a factory like my father did. Many of my close friends were African-Americans. They came to my house and I went to theirs. Suffice it to say that most of the people I counted as friends seemed to be colorblind. The others I dismissed. I dedicated a lot of my young adult life to ending racism and became part of the Black Power movement in Greensboro, North Carolina, among other things.

CC: I think I see a glimpse of why you like the notion of colorblindness, Polly. I understand that your perception of colorblindness is informed by your personal experiences of communing with people of varying ethnicities in the absence of racializing behaviors.

I think what you are describing is not so much colorblindness as much as an attitude of inclusivity in which you were not consciously impacted by the principles of racism. I think this is common to many youth of varying ethnicities, unless matters of race are imposed upon them (directly or indirectly).

For example, I was watching a recent episode of the Kelly Clarkson Show that featured country music artist Kane Brown (age 31). If I recall correctly, Mr. Brown spoke of being unaware of the relevance of skin color in America; he would often appear white but his skin would darken after being exposed to the sun for extended periods of time. He shared that he thought he was “full white.” He also described himself as having been “colorblind” until he was called the N-word when he was ~8 years old. Now, Mr. Brown identifies as biracial.

He was raised primarily by his white mother after his part-Cherokee father was incarcerated when he was near 3 years old. I do not know what it means to identify as “full white” and to be colorblind. I can appreciate the fact that some children are not exposed to racism and do not feel a need to embrace a racialized identity, although they may have some awareness that racism exists. I think your expressed definition of colorblindness works rather naturally for the young, especially if one’s skin tone approximates white.

Those with skin colors with hues that are darker than “full white” benefit in discovering pride in their color, to be color brave, as finance executive Mellody Hobson says, because America will let you know, “You are not like us.” People of varying ethnicities passively and aggressively revoke others due to a variety of motivations.

Ethnic bias is a real thing, that is why there is also racism. In many ways, ethnic bias and racism are indistinguishable. But racism took ethnic bias to a whole new level in having misidentified its concepts as biologically-based. The impacts of both can be quite tragic, as we see daily.

I also understand why you are drawn to Hughes’ interpretation of colorblindness — judging individuals by character and achievements rather than by skin color. I find his notion to be fantastical and harmfully erroneous. It would seem that inclusivity would make space for more of our humanity, not less. We regard the colors of our pets, our homes, our outfits to match the persona we opt to present to ourselves and to others. I enjoy noticing variations of hair color, nail color, teeth color, eye color, and we may find that we have preferences. We can observe that some people have variations in their skin tones. Why would I not celebrate variations in skin tones or deny the value in noticing them? I understand the spirit of Hughes’ message, but I believe that race is something that needs to be addressed, not overlooked. Otherwise, it will continue to be used to harm, at least in America.

PYE: What you are saying here makes total sense to me. My own experience is different from those who were called the N-word although I was called “N-lover” repeatedly at school. Even with that, I thought those people were ignorant, just stupid or mean. It’s true that “inclusivity” sounds welcoming of differences and skin tones and so on, and yet it also signals differences. That signal itself also makes me apprehensive now that I understand more about our defensiveness of our identities than I did when I was growing up. As we will explore in our course on enemy-making, human beings are poised to make enemies of those they do not identity with. The question is how we handle our differences, not whether differences are real.

CC: Differences are important, and that is a sentiment that I imagine is innate to the notion of inclusivity. When at peace (if ever), a diversified humanity holds greater potentiality to be a stronger, healthier humanity. Colorblindness answers neither the matter of inclusivity, nor of equality, nor of equity. A colorblind America would be an America that dreads seeing color because of all of the seemingly irreparable guilt and shame it has incurred due to its history of mistreating colored folk.

In the episode of “Conversations with Coleman” that featured John McWhorter, Hughes distinguished colorblindness from race consciousness. He said that race consciousness is “the idea that your race is a deep part of who you are.” He distinguishes colorblindness as “the idea that race constitutes a trivial part of your identity.” I find that both of these stances fall short, as race is deeply embedded in our history and the structures of Western Europe and the Americas. It is not enough to overlook this matter and to pose some ground of equal opportunity. Also, they unconsciously spoke with language that validates the concept of race.

I asked ChatGPT for the quote from Dr. M. L. King, Jr. that is often cited in defense of colorblindness:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

This quote emphasizes the importance of evaluating individuals based on their personal qualities rather than their race, says ChatGPT.

Even this apparently benevolent quotation contains the same error that I find in Hughes and McWhorter. They fail to acknowledge that the cornerstone of systemic racism is the concept of race — a concept that appears in our laws, medical questionnaires and commonplace interactions between individuals. The very concept is racistly abusive. If we ignore it, we are at peril.

I believe we can do better by replacing race with ethnicity in our communications, except when intending to address racism and the history and impact of the concept of race, itself.

Race is not a biological matter. While it was consciously designed to justify mistreating other humans in order to sack and colonize others or to steal earth’s bounty, it remains a psycho-spiritual matter. The assumption is rooted in deeply unconscious feelings of inferiority and a drive for self-preservation (including greed). Race becomes a perfect alibi for groups and individuals to project an inferiority “shadow” onto others.

Because race is the cornerstone of a Western caste system, I believe it is healthier for us all (i.e., governmental bodies) to address this fallacy. It is better for the U. S. government to face this shame more thoroughly and correct its errors 160 years after the abolition of chattel slavery than to allow racism to continue to divide the nation and the world for another 160 years. I believe this is a psychospiritual matter with real implications.

We identify with race if we assimilate to racism (the belief in races) through formal and informal education. As long as we continue to have race as a referent, we actively engage in the systematization of race. Embracing the ideology of race is racism, regardless of one’s good intentions.

PYE: This makes sense to me in terms of cognition and language. As long as race is a referent of importance in ways that people talk about being human, they don’t depose the importance of the term. You are concerned that this will cause people to continue to overlook the non-existence of race — and in effect, embrace racism because of their good intentions. Is that it?

CC: Yes, in part. Not all have good intentions, but I am including them also. While I can appreciate the goal of this sentiment (colorblindness) in the matter of establishing equality, I find that it overlooks the matter of equity and does what is has often done in our government — overlooking the ongoing effects of hundreds of years of a racial pyramid scheme that tolerates minimal increase in the degree of equality and equity that is allotted to marginalized America (this includes people of various colors, ethnicities and genders).

This situation will continue unless the general population is reeducated and comes to learn that race is more a matter of biases and projective-identification than it is a matter of phylogeny. My perspective is somewhat in alignment with Robert Livingston’s rejection of colorblindness due to the concept’s historical usage and legal outcomes.

Another matter is the fact that colorblindness and racism are not mutually exclusive. If we take the example of your mother and aunt, when someone teases another’s ethnic identity (Creole) by calling them according to a race classification (mulatto), they are doing so because of colorism (race). This is not a matter of being colorblind, at all. While it may be unconsciously motivated, referring to a person as mulatto is to say, “You are not white. At least you are not Black,” This is a construct that was promoted through American eugenics that sought to whiten America as a compromise to the “race problem.” It is still popular among many who purchase skin bleaching products, world-wide. Relationships are complicated. Colorism categorizes people along the American caste system. It is the easy go-to when we want to refer to someone but are unaware of their ethnicity.

PYE: I understand your attribution to my Aunt Ruth and my mom, but I do not agree with it. I have heard many such attributions from DEI people in these past five years with present-time lenses or “virtual headsets” on. My aunt Ruth and my mother were on equal ground, as I read their power dynamics, at least.

My aunt did not “take shit” and did not appear to be worried about how she looked or what my mother was implying. My mother had one child. My aunt had five children, the first when she was 13 years old. She was younger, more vital, and felt superior to my mother in most ways. I could feel it. I liked her spirit and her resilience. Aunt Ruth learned to drive before my mother did, for instance. They made fun of each other and the example I gave above was an equal-opportunity one. There were many building blocks in our social/physical/family hierarchy and their teasing each other was one and it was affectionate, not tense. Affectionate teasing is one way to be close.

Here's one reason why I regard “equity” as someone’s ideal, based on their own experience: we are all self-promoting and self-protective on equity issues. While I embrace ideals of diversity and inclusivity, I do not embrace ideals of equity. I get concerned that equity, fairness and justice ideals will always lead to war.

In raising my own children, for instance, when they resorted to “That’s not fair because…” I learned quickly to see that the individual who was speaking was self-promoting and self-protecting. Typically the fairness proposition was not one that I could see or witness directly and it always created contentiousness. BTW this was a large group, overall: with my step-children and bio-children, I was involved in parenting six children. They were very close in age. They fought a LOT about equity and fairness, and I learned that it was impossible to solve those issues on their own grounds.

It’s a terrible suffering, but life is in itself deeply unfair. As humans, we can do our best to provide correctives, but often the solution is not reachable for equity. That is where I have landed. On the other hand, we can learn to speak and listen in ways that create and sustain unity and that is what interests me about colorblindness.

CC: Colorblind represents an attitude of equal regard between self and other, noncontingent upon color. But this does not mean color is actually not being regarded in the impact of the interaction.

Unconscious biases slip out in our facial gestures, in our intonations, in our shifts, in our fixations … in so many ways that may communicate to the observer those attitudes that we try our best to conceal. But in feeling greater comfort, often when our guards of self-awareness are down a bit, our biases present, jolting the ambiance of love that was intended.

PYE: I understand that yes, our gestures and tone betray our meanings (certainly, Freud thought that in the case of Dora), but the observer very often attributes those meanings also. Observations go back and forth and no one can be the final judge or arbiter. Unconscious meanings are in our eyes and ears as much as they might be on our faces and in our gestures. As soon as individuals become suspicious of being insulted or humiliated, they are on alert for evidence that it’s true. That’s why arguments over equity and fairness are, in my experience, not able to be settled.

CC: Your point about the attribution of meaning is well taken, Polly. Jung spoke of the personal equation. In a nutshell, this is the notion that our biases can influence our observations and interpretations. We understand things from the point of view of how we see/experience them. As a psychoanalyst, I embrace the concept of intersubjectivity (or at least the illusion of it). Intersubjectivity permits me to proceed with the notion that you and I understand what the other intends. I can feel supported with this sense of common ground, because we both speak English, are both analysts, and are both healers. I assume our intentions are not conflicting, even where our points of view contrast. This is because we both participate in the collectivity of Humanity, and we both have a collective unconscious flowing through us as we flow in it. I imagine the psychoanalytic view of subjectivity is different from that of the Buddhist perspective/experience. Perhaps we will discuss this more in the second part of this Substack, “Opposing Racism in Jungian Psychology and Other Depth Psychology.”

Yet, I believe that colorblindness beckons a degree of denial, a psychological defense that attempts to shield the individual from the impactful awareness of unpleasant factors in themselves or their relations and/or in their environment. Colorblindness is rooted in the idea of race. Race is a shared fantasy, a Mickey Mouse parade into which we were all indoctrinated when we were first learned of our racial affiliation.

In America, many strongly oppose racial bigotry. I am not talking about those who believe in white supremacism as a belief, often with religious zeal. They have locked into their choices. I am talking about those of us who believe in inclusivity and equity and equality, but who on a daily basis do one worse than the Supreme Court which erroneously prefers not to consider one’s inherited racial disadvantageous in determining equality, per the 14^th Amendment, as though our legal system opts not to support the notion of race.

We are as though colorblind until we are taught that race is real. Many Americans still think different skin color means different species of human being. It’s built into our inner secrets, when our eyes first focus on the meteorologist on TV: what comes into focus first, and in what order: their sex/gender, their ethnicity, their color? We may have read differently and gained some knowledge on the matter, but we still refer to race when identifying ourselves and others. In this vein one can be colorblind and be a racist, and not know it.

Who doesn’t want to be accepted as they are? We acknowledge the color in everything, including people, in speaking of matters of safety and in speaking of matters of pride. Color and ethnicity, yes! Celebrate them, as equals and in equity.

But don’t turn a blind eye to color, I say. It still matters very much, and agreeing that it doesn’t matter anymore is not the solution to racism. We already behave in ethnically aware and compassionate ways, many of us naturally so. Let’s stop miseducating one another by misidentifying one another according to the construct, race, but say instead what most of us likely intend, which is ethnicity.

The three extra syllables are worth it. It is not the full answer to racism. That requires exposure and ongoing education reminding us of the facts that were announced as early as the 1920s by anthropologists and the 1940s by geneticists.

Speech as Unity or Division?

PYE: Here I want to bring in the question of speech itself. This question comes from my adult experiences in Buddhism, especially with Tibetan and Himalayan people in India and the US. I have attended many teachings and trainings with Tibetan lamas, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama, before I became a formal student of any lama. Sometimes, I even taught with the lamas as a Jungian analyst and psychologist, typically at events hosted by a Buddhist magazine.

Thus, sometimes I was a consumer of Tibetan teachings, sometimes a colleague, and eventually an initiate. I have known Tibetan lamas in many different settings and saw them when they were relating casually, as well as formally.

Not once have I ever heard them mention anything about differences between us — skin color or culture or ethnicity. Instead, they emphasized our human similarities: we all suffer, we all want to be happy, we all want the best for our families. I never thought of them as different from me. I really never thought about that fact (no sense of categorical difference) even until recently in contemplating colorblindness.

Buddhism takes speech very seriously as intentional action because as humans we decide what to express, how to express it, and when to remain silent. Speech also moves us and changes the world. I learned from my first Zen teacher to ask myself before I speak “Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?” Typically, I would take the first two questions very seriously, but then often ignore the third, speaking unnecessarily about trivial things.

Divisive speech is harmful, from a Buddhist perspective, because it separates people and turns them against each other. Divisive speech separates us by our identities and makes us self-defensive.

Unified speech joins us, even across species. I want to share a true story about the unifying power of speech that was casually demonstrated at a retreat with His Eminence Ayang Rinpoche, a lama with whom I took refuge and who mainly taught the transfer of consciousness at the time of death, a practice called Phowa.

I had the great privilege of practicing with him in the United States, Canada, and India. Sadly, Rinpoche died on December 4, 2024. The last time I saw him was in Toronto, in the summer of 2019. That retreat was held in a Chinese neighborhood. Most of the attendees were Chinese. You might recall also that the Tibetan people have been oppressed and abused by the Chinese government although I have never felt that the Tibetan lamas have treated Chinese people differently than other people.

At the retreat, I was struck by how convivial the Chinese people were. I easily related to them, even when they were speaking a Chinese language, which I did not speak or understand. It seemed like some Americans and Canadians were more standoffish. At the beginning of the retreat, I noticed a Chinese woman carrying a very cute lap dog. I petted the dog and she told me his name. Notably, I had never seen any pet at a formal Buddhist retreat. The dog was quiet and well behaved and I forgot about him.

At one point in the ceremony, Rinpoche stood up before the group of about 150 people and reminded us that we had vowed to say a particular mantra x number of times. As I had heard him do at every previous retreat, he solemnly added, “If there is anyone here who cannot fulfill this promise, please speak now.” The dog barked twice. Rinpoche smiled and said “That’s true. Dogs cannot do mantras.” Because the dog was otherwise silent, I knew that the dog understood Rinpoche’s statement. It was not a random bark. Rinpoche, unfazed, clearly accepted the bark as the dog’s answer. I never heard from the dog again. Rinpoche could speak to the animals – even wild animals who often gathered around him – because his speech was unitive, not divisive.

The inclusiveness and warm welcoming from Tibetan people —indeed all of the Himalayan people whom I have met — has been remarkable. I have not felt uncomfortable about our cultural differences or even language barriers. Like the dog, I seem to understand even if I don’t know the language. But on one occasion I was in a DEI event with a Tibetan lama. We were engaged in an activity (which I have done in multiple settings) that instructed participants to “step in” or “step out” of an imaginary circle that involved identifying ourselves in terms of differences in education, skin color, background, traumatic abuse, socio-economic class, and other features. This activity was designed, I believe, to sensitize us to bias or stereotypes we might hold about others, but it also stirred up self-conscious and anxious feelings in me about divisions that were not bridged, at least not that I witnessed.

As I mentioned, there was a Tibetan lama attending. I believe he was a kind of emissary for HH Dalai Lama. He did not rise from his seat at all during the activity of stepping in and out of the circle which took at least an hour. He didn’t “identify” with any cues. Afterwards, he asked the instructors why they were focusing on differences or divisions. I believe he said something like “His Holiness (Dalai Lama) teaches that we should focus on unity, not differences.” The instructors did not answer him and he sat back down.

Later I spoke with him at length. He said that he was concerned about Americans emphasizing “only mindfulness” and not the ethical foundations of Buddhism. At the time, I wasn’t quite clear which ethical foundations he was referring to because I had not studied what is called divisive speech. Now, I have. Divisive speech is considered to be unkind because it creates separations or causes disunity or friction between people. The lama wondered why Americans ask participants to identify with their differences and then do not address our unity as human beings.

I remain impressed at the power of human speech for both unity and division. I also remain impressed how human speech can call forth compassion and wisdom, even in animals. Something I have remarked on many times, and feel very deeply, is that I never recognized or cognized that the Tibetan/Himalayan people were “different” from me in skin color and culture. Their sense of unity invited me to unify with them.

I wonder if our American tendency to sort ourselves into different identities, based on the underlying racism in our society, is perpetuated still by DEI activities. This is one reason I have been favorable about Coleman Huges and John McWhorter’s and even Robert Livingston’s approaches to conversations about ending racism. All of their approaches emphasize unity instead of divisions.

CC: There has been a longstanding, unsung movement toward embracing our shared-humanity in the West. Anti-racism is not a new thing. Anthropology denounced race science in 1928. The UN denounced race in 1950. C. G. Jung denounced race science in 1945. We still use it as a referent, because it is built into our governmental foundation.

We need to stop participating in the systematization of race ideology and we can do that by reminding ourselves, silently, whenever referring to another’s identify, “Not ‘race/ethnicity.’ Ethnicity will do.” I hope for amendments to the U. S. Constitution that formally replaces race with ethnicity going forward, and an American society that continues to deconstruct racist barriers that miseducate in promotion of division, greed, and psychospiritual imbalance. Of course, there will still be a need to address persisting racism and to seek greater equality and equity in an ever-diversifying nation. But this is, by no means, an insurmountable obstacle. We have the opportunity to learn and expand through the processes of establishing greater communal balance.

PYE: Yes, I agree with you about noting ethnicity instead of “race.” I also believe there is an option for “not identifying” with ethnicity, only with human being. That is what I felt as a child and still experience as an adult. I know that I come from Cherokee and Slovenian ethnicities, but I do not identify myself principally with them (I now mark “mixed race” on the census). Nor do I particularly identify with being a woman even while I am grateful for having given birth. I identify principally with being human. I also identify with Buddhist vows I have taken countless times since my early twenties: to save all beings, to renounce all blind passions, to penetrate the spiritual laws of my existence (Dharma), and to become an enlightened human being.