How would Frederickson recalculates the definition of 'self-evident Essay - 1

How would Frederickson recalculates the definition of 'self-evident truths' - Essay Example George Frederickson differs that he defined the truths although may appear as self-evident has to be contextualized according the existing order of the day. Civil right which is inherently natural right of man for Locke has to be defined according to the four models of ethnic relations for Frederickson which are hierarchy, assimilation, pluralism and separatism. Both Locke and Frederickson may have advocated the emancipation of man but their methods and perspective are different. Both recognized eurocentrism or the perceived superiority of the individuals in America that came from Europe but Frederickson was more benign compared to Locke who was predisposed for cultural pluralism â€Å"that is fully inclusive and based on the free choices of individuals to construct their own ethnic identities† (642). Locke however just like his predecessor Hume reflected the general thinking of the day where the American colored Indians are to be classed with â€Å"children, idiots and illit erates† because of their lack of facility to reason (Shohat 88). And Locke defined this to be true and self-evident which needs no justification because it is the natural order of man. ... These theories define how people differed from each other and how they should interact. a) Hierarchy This type of social relations has been the dominant entity in defining truth in the early part of American history. This ethnic relation has claimed rights and privileges that are confined to a particular group and excluding others as unfit to be equal. This type of social relationship defined the Indian conquests and black enslavement during the colonial period. It holds that people who differed from the old-stock Americans of British origin are inferior. b) Assimilation Assimilation may be more benign and less racial in the classical sense compared to ethnic hierarchy definition of social relations but it is still hinged on the premise of the superiority, purity and unchanging character of the ingroup (Frederickson 635). Thus it follows that the outgroup is inferior and needs to conform to the ingroup through assimilation to achieve equality and stability in society whose truths are defined by the dominant ingroup. c) Pluralism The pluralistic point of view of social relations celebrates the differences among the various groups in society and does not judge a certain ethnic origin to be inferior or obliterate them through assimilation. Truth is not monopolized by the dominant ingroup because ingroup’s cease to exist in a pluralistic society. It posits that the cultural diversity does not defeat the notion of equal rights and mutual understanding but is in fact desirable to sustain a democratic nation state. The distinction in this theory is not race or color but rather the degree of â€Å"civilization† an individual has attained or how they have evolved from â€Å"barbarism† to being civilized. d)