Have you guys ever heard of the phrase American born Chinese? Or perhaps Mexican born America? From the very ancient empires to modern-day, no matter where we come, citizens from the world tend to have a certain stigma towards any other race in the world. If you were lighter-skinned you would be referred to as ____ (you fill in the blank), if you were darker-skinned you would be referred to as ____. Thankfully, the incorporation of slavery due to race and skin color is no longer appears as it once had been during the colonial and expansive Unites States. Now, by all means, I am not a humanitarian. I cannot firmly state that I seek to "improve the welfare and happiness of people." Partly because happiness is such a broad word. People find happiness through different means. Just because I am not actively seeking to make myself as well as others happy, does NOT mean I do not value personal and global happiness. In order to elevate the welfare of all people, we have to take into consideration all (people) not just one (person). That is the definition of a humanitarian after all. Therefore, I claim to say that humanitarians fail at their jobs. They try and try, the best they can, but it is just too much. I don't mean that they are bad people, but rather the description of their job is an overstatement branching towards almost a hyperbole. Look at the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Soviet Union, etc. They all failed to keep their people happy.
One or even a group of humanitarians cannot possibly save the whole world and blanket the Earth in a happy, care-free world. If that were to possibly happen, then everyone in the world would be considered humanitarians since everyone is happy. The goal has been accomplished.
My good friend Rousseau also has something to add to this matter. In fact, in his Discourse on Inequality the very profound thinker affirms that the first emotion man or humans felt was of self-preservation (Honestly, I wonder how many days and white hair strands he accumulated to just think of these ideas). I mean, how plausible would it seem that the first couple of babies that popped into this "lovely" world of ours, would automatically, naturally aid and provide for others before him/herself? The first people must have sought for their own survival, for the natural objects in nature is to well, live of course. Therefore, one can possibly go so far as to say that humans are born selfish; they express self-love. They can, of course, be nice and generous, but only once those needs have been satisfied. And it is only when they voluntarily reach out and help others, without thinking of themselves, can humans seek to be humanitarians. Unfortunately, the world is far from having an abundance of humanitarians pursuing happiness for the welfare of the citizens of the Earth.
But don't you find it peculiar that although we are all citizens of the same Earth and share the same genetic makeup (approximately 99.9 %), that we all think differently? I mean if I am 99.9% the same as to say, Joe from down the neighborhood, then wouldn't it make us twins? Heck, wouldn't it make us all twins then? Or what's the proper word for saying all 7.5 billion of us are the same? Despite having similar genes, humans argue over things (political debates, food, ideas, etc) more than we can agree. Does the fact we dispute more than relate show signs of familial bonds, such as one would expect from brothers and sisters? If that's the case we should be able to understand one another so much more. But we don't. Racism, stereotypes, poverty, hunger, and hate still exist. Some say that society is a lot better now and problems like those aforementioned are beginning to disappear. I find that these claims are made to hide the fact that we humans, who are so genetically and biologically similar, cannot solve these problems. We say that we are currently helping other nations become happier and live better lives because we can't just tell the public that we are actually far off from the actual goal.
