I finally decided to read all the recent references to the child, Maria, feared to have been abducted by gypsies a few weeks ago in Europe. In the newspapers there that covered the story, she has been referred to as the “Blonde Angel”. They also continually reference the color of her eyes. Something about that irks me, and I know exactly what it is.
In the aftermath of the Newtown shooting a few months ago, someone with whom I have a Facebook connection proudly shared that he had just written an email to the father of one of the students murdered in that tragic episode. In and of itself, it was a commendable and compassionate action. It was a proactive demonstration of kindness, even from a distance and from a stranger. Nevertheless, his stated criteria for the selection of this parent (out of the many others who were also grieving losses), belied a more bothersome implication. He referred to her as a “blue-eyed angel” as he gushed. Her father had been selected and treated to this outpouring of love because of how his daughter looked and all that that entails. That upset me off and on for days.
There is little doubt that she and her classmates alike were innocent, and by virtue of that, angelic in the purity of their childhood. They were angelic, not only in absolute terms, but particularly in contrast to the evil that robbed them of their sweet lives, that victimized them all. But why could these positive labels, and feelings more importantly, not be extrapolated across the board, both in this instance and historically? Why do we permit such a loaded use of such meaningful words (angel) associated with these other, considerably less inherently meaningful words (blue, blonde)? The issue lies in the customary and presumptuous extension of adjective to noun, an extension that is applied both generally and generously to those with these traits.
Like most of you, I never got to meet Jesus in person or have a conversation with anyone who knew him. Regardless, based on what people in Jerusalem look like now and probably looked like then, it is so improbable as to be virtually impossible that he had either blue eyes or blonde hair. No – this brainwashing scheme has a decidedly earthly feel to it. I believe that the deeply engrained association of these classically Caucasian physical traits with something angelic is derived from the self-aggrandizing propaganda by those who were in a position to do it, and who’s interest such lunacy protected. They used religion, a bastion of hope and belief for the downtrodden, to further their racist, belittling agendas. The neither blonde-haired, nor blue-eyed masses lapped it up, and continue to have it injected into their subconscious in between feedings. A sense of balance and equality continually roofied and made pliable; their half-dressed self-esteem laying limp, then and now.
We are all born angels, just as none of us are. We are born unprogrammed.
interesting perspective..one I have honestly never noticed, but particularly interesting as i received three unsolicited comments from strangers yesterday, each in a different context, referring to our son as an angel….yes he has blue eyes and light hair. the comments surprised me as i have never had that ideal of him before….beautiful, yes, a miracle, yes, wonderful in every way, yes…but i always thought that was just a mothers’ bias. thank you for giving me a new perspective on this.
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful and personal comment, Lisa.
We are mot born unprogrammed.
Thanks for your comment, Peter. Perhaps you are referring to genetics. In that case, naturally we are “programmed”. In the context of this discussion regarding bias and the treatment of others, I argue that we are absolutely unprogrammed. Perhaps you will kindly elaborate on your thoughts.
One of my colleagues of long ago remarked that a newly born baby is a totally blank slate waiting to be be programmed by life’s experiences. Of course that is true. But the nature and characteristics of the slate are defined in advance by DNA, genetics, and even pre-natal events.