Lawrence Hill is one of Canada’s most distinguished and published authors. In this extensive interview, we discuss everything in Hill’s purview. In his words, “I have to say that I don’t think I’ve ever been interviewed by somebody who had such a profound grasp of such a wide variety of things that I’ve shared, written, or spoken about whether they are personal, professional or things to do with my books or my family life.” This series will explore his life and philosophy, just for you, part 6.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have the Rwandan genocide, Cambodian genocide, The Holocaust, and the Spanish Inquisition. Each relates to the ideas about the impurity of others’ blood. It justifies murder and subjugation in the mind of the murderer and subjugator. What other dangers exist with blood being associated with race or religion?
Lawrence Hill: That’s a complicated question. I wrote about this in Blood: The Stuff of Life (2013). In a nutshell, we have these ideas about blood, which are unscientific and unrelated to reality. Even as recent as the Second World War, the American government made it illegal for blood from black donors to be given to white recipients.
Even though, at the time, it was completely understood that compatibility between donor and recipient has nothing to do with race. Do the blood types match? That’s the question. If it’s a black donor and white recipient, or white donor and black recipient, it doesn’t matter.
Politics trump science. It becomes law because there’s fear of black people in white America. Bad science and bad social policies touch on this fear of blacks in white America. If you have wretchedly bad science forming wretchedly bad social policy and political interventions, even if it’s not a matter of genocide, it can lead to foul policy.
Also, it can lead to divisive ways of thinking about people. Over and over again, let’s say people in North America, have come to imagine, erroneously, that race can be equated to blood. That one’s blood parts can be counted up in racial bits. That you might be half black, quarter Japanese, and quarter Korean.
It doesn’t make any sense. However, we talk about racial mixtures. The language about racial mixing comes down to blood quantification. We’ve come to imagine that identity and racial identity can be defined by blood parts, which leads to vicious ways of thinking about people.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy most appeals to you?
I don’t have an answer in my back pocket.
(Laugh)
(Laugh)
Clearly, we can draw a great inspiration from the great religious traditions. Not harming people, and showing respect and love is a great start.
Jacobsen: That sounds humanistic to me. Does that seem accurate to you?
Is that opposed to religion?
Jacobsen: There’s humanism in and of itself.
Yes, that is accurate. It is possible to borrow, embrace, and accept the great traditions from religious texts without accepting the religious beliefs on which they are predicated. If I have to go to an ethical philosophy, not doing harm and trying to do good, and not showing hate and showing love toward all people in the world would be a good starting point.
I am going to confess. I don’t know the real meaning of humanism. You might attribute specific meaning to the term. I attribute the meaning in a general way. If humanism means that to you, that is wonderful. However, you might have a more complex and nuanced definition.
—
Original Publication (1, 2, 3, and 4) in www.in-sightjournal.com.
—
—
Photo Credit: Getty Images