3.1.2. Unity in diversity
There is no hesitation that humanity, taken in its concrete
nature, is really composed of different races. Human races exist, but this
needs not give room for any antagonism or racism. In effect, there is no need
for us to try to deny our differences. Teilhard de Chardin wonders:
Why should we deny them? Are the children of one family
all equally strong or intelligent? Peoples are biologically equal, as `thought
of phyla' destined progressively to integrate in some final unity, which will
be the one true humanity. But they are not yet equal to the totality of their
physical gifts and mind. And is it not just this diversity that gives each one
its value? One has this, another has that. Otherwise, why and how should we
speak of a synthesis of all?I
We cannot but acknowledge the fact that people are different
like chalk and cheese. Even the children of the same family are not all equally
strong or equally intelligent. People are equal by their biological value, as
"phyla of thought" destined to progress together; but they are not equal in
their physical and spiritual talents. This
I Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Vision of the
Past, London, I966, p. 2I2.
diversity is what gives merit to each and every one. If it were
not so, one could not talk about a synthesis of all.
In order to lay a foundation of a racial morality, we are
called to acknowledge our differences. People are all equal in dignity, but
each individual person is different from another in terms of talents,
temperament, character and personality. We cannot but accept this fact in order
to talk about the Civilization of the Universal, or about globalisation, where
there is a synthesis of all human races. It is therefore important for us to
point out here with Teilhard de Chardin, the error of feminism. Woman is not
man, and it is precisely for this reason that man cannot do it all alone,
without woman. A mechanic for example, is not a football player, or an artist,
or a farmer; and it is thanks to these diversities that the national organism
functions. Similarly, a Cameroonian is not a Frenchman, nor is a Frenchman a
Chinese or Japanese. This is most providential for the total prosperity and
future of man.
It is important to note with Teilhard de Chardin that these
inequalities and or differences may appear as detrimental so long as the
elements are regarded statically and in isolation. Observed however from the
point of view of their essential complementarity, they become acceptable,
honourable, and even welcome. Will the eye ever say that it despises the
hand?
Once this functional diversity of human races is admitted, in
Teilhard de Chardin's opinion, two things follow instantly. The first is that
the duty of each race is not to preserve or rediscover some indefinable
original purity in the past but to complete itself in the future, according to
its own qualities and values. The second is that in this drive towards
collective personalisation, aid must be sought from each of the neighbouring
branches of civilization.
| 
