My threory on Racial Relations

[Must_B_Free]

I was born in 1970 - a time when people believed in a better future for everyone. Growing up, we were infused with the spirit of progress from the recent events of that time.

Since leaving New England and moving south at an age where I finally encountered racism, I have always strugled to understand it. If you study it, you'll find the same pattern white over dark, no matter where you look - Varna in India, Europe, America, Japan, recent and ancient.

I wondered why. Here is the best I can think of:

Skin color is a function of the sun. In sunny areas it melanin protects the skin. Also curly hair releases the heat better than straight hair. So dark people come from lands of the sun and white people come from more nordic regions, where they would have had external protection from the elements that also covered them from the sun.

Also inherent in this difference is agriculture. In lands of the sun, things grow easily on their own. To feed yourself you just go out and pick up some food. In colder climates, its a tougher situation and you have to struggle against the seasons.

My threory is that lighter skinned peoples had to fight much harder to survive and perhaps their views formed in a world where you have to compete to survive. This may have led to a more warlike nature becuase these people are constantly fighting the environment and their fellow man for limited resources.

So this nature and world approach is built in to these people through culture and thus you have the vikings setting out from way up north to pillage and steal from lower regions. They also pick up slaves and use them to help ensure more work power and thus, survival.

These same Nordics are credited with starting Varnia in India as the "Aryan invaders" theory.

This is the only reason I can think of for why we see this continual pattern of whites oppressing darks...

It may be an oversimplification, but could there be anything to this theory?

[tobius]

1. no. nt

[Must_B_Free]

21. Rejected: lack of any substance

[AP]

2. The Africa that Never Was (1970 -- same year you were born).

Dortothy Hammone and Alta Jablow surveyed 500 years of Western writing on Africa and conlcuded that as late as the 15th century, Europeans in contact with Africa did not focus on race and made few judgments based on skin color.

However, by the 17th centruy, Europeans began acquiring Africans for slave labor. A that time they started coming up with all sorts of STUPID theories about why race made a difference.

What changed? Money, and how it was made. Trading with people, skin color doesn't matter. When you start enslaving people you need to come up with ridiculous theories to forgive yourself for what is so obviously evil.

Milton Allimadi writes abotu this on pp 14-15 of The Hearts of Darkness: How White Writers Created the Racist Image of Africa, which is available at Amazon.com.

[tobius]

15. how do Africans justify enslaving Africans today? nt

[Solomon]

25. Please permit me to answer this one.

If you study the institution of slavery historically, you will find that there was no worser form of slavery than that of the 17th through 19th centuries.

When people use the term "slavery" they think that slaves all throughout history have been treated the same way. Not so.
In past cultures, such as Rome, slaves were not treated the same way as in western slavery. They were PEOPLE, not just property. They had rights, and most of them could become citizens.

In african society, a tribe sometimes took the men of the opposing tribe as slaves for a period of time, and sometimes the slave would wind up becoming a member of the tribe. They were more like servants, not subject to whippings on a master's whim. They weren't treated brutally.

When the africans turned over their enemies to the europeans, they had no idea what they were sending brethren into. The sheer visciousness of the western system, never occured to them. Their concept of "slavery" was different.

[tobius]

33. I'm happy to hear that African slavery is so splendid. Maybe we can spread

the word to Sudan, they may need some reminding.

  
February 26, 1999
Web posted at: 12:02 a.m. EST (0502 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/26/slavery.01/

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Moctar Teyeb, a native of Mauritania, is a man in the United States, but he is "property" in his homeland.

Teyeb was among those who gave first-hand accounts Thursday of modern-day slavery experiences in Sudan and Mauritania at a symposium held by the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

Several hundred people listened to Teyeb tell a particularly harrowing story of his life as a slave in Mauritania.

People are "bought and sold like property and bred like farm animals," Teyeb said.

Teyeb, who has been living in the United States for the last four years, added, "I am still my master's property because I don't have papers to show my freedom."

Sure sounds like a wonderful existence. It's amazing, don't you think, that there are still apologists for modern day slavery. Especially if it is African on African slavery.


http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/mauritania11072002.html
M'bareck ould Bilal ould Braïkat, then 17, escaped in 2001 from his alleged enslavement by four brothers in Kaédi, leaving behind his three younger brothers, a young sister and his mother. He says he fled because he was subjected to beatings and constant verbal insults, as well as relentless and involuntary labor. The response of the regional governor's office, where M'bareck sought protection for himself and assistance in the release of his family, was to question him about his connection to SOS Esclaves (SOS Slaves), an unauthorized non-governmental organization. The members of his family reportedly remain in slavery.

A fourteen year-old boy died mysteriously after the man who had enslaved his deceased father abducted him in August 1999. The mother has brought charges against the man she accuses of kidnapping and killing her son, but there is no evidence that the police are actively investigating the case, nor has the suspect been arrested. On a previous occasion the man had told the young boy's mother: "This is my slave, and I will do with him what I want!"

the "enlightened" attitude of these modern day slave owners is so refreshing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3430305.stm
She only ate the scraps left by her mistress' family - "like an animal," she said.

Eating these leftovers on her own in the kitchen was particularly demeaning for her, as sharing food is a central part of her Nuba culture, where no-one eats alone.

She was often beaten and on one occasion, after preparing fried eggs instead of poached eggs, her mistress "seized the ladle out of the frying pan, and thrust the burning hot metal against my forearm.

"I cried out in agony, as she ground it, sizzling, into my skin," she wrote.

Her left arm is still badly scarred.

[AP]

36. If it wasn't so awful, why did Europe have to lie to themself about

the 'morality' of it in such a convuluted and stupifying way?

[Must_B_Free]

40. Who said it wasn't awful?

all he did was note some historical facts on the level brutality.

You can see that people are missing the point of most of what is being said here and responding with anger at their own projections.

It is understandable, but people please try to read a little better.

[tobius]

49. They were wrong and they knew it, that's why their arguments are so

inherently contradictory. And any person, culture, race , nationality that traffics in slavery today can not and won't even try to say what they are doing is moral because that debate has long ago been decided.

[Must_B_Free]

39. He didn't address modern day slavery really, you did

and he certainly did NOT apologize for it.

You missed the mark due to your own projections

[tobius]

48. thanks for your input. his response was to #15, my question

was specifically about today.
This is ridiculous, the idea that slavery by white people in the US was the worst form ever, this concept is very easily identifiable as apology for the Africans who participated. Google slavery and you will see the same report and paper at many, many different sites to water down the African view of slavery. People are turning there heads willfully or are just ignorant if they believe that slavery then was a good deal for the slave or that the selling of human chattel by Africans today is done because of some misunderstanding of what these people are being purchased for.

Violating human rights http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/12No1/EFitz.html

Modern-day slavery violates the fundamental right of all persons to life, liberty and the security of the person, and to be free from slavery in all its forms. It undermines the rights of a child to grow up in the protective environment of a family and to be free from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Trafficking also deprives thousands of Africans of their lives every year. Hundreds of children died on the high seas between West and Central Africa last year alone and over 100 women died crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to Europe.41 At least 168 foreign prostitutes were killed in Italy last year.42 An ILO/IPEC survey in Nigeria found that one out of every five trafficked children dies from mishaps or disease.43 Many trafficking victims die of heat exhaustion crossing the desert. Thousands of victims are killed in civil conflict for refusing to submit to forced labour or sexual slavery, trying to escape, or from diseases contracted or abuse endured during their enslavement.................

As a culture now we perceive slavery to be evil, why does it continue in Africa and other places? And as to my first question in #15, how do they justify it's continued practice Today?

What remains unclear is the manner in which we, in the twenty-first century, understand and work through the paradox of historical distance from the slave trade and the continuing reality of privilege not completely disconnected from the benefits of the trade in human flesh. Davis acknowledges that slavery had a long historical legacy, during which the existential and ontological positioning of the enslaved was altered to meet the needs of growing world powers. But what is unique about New World slavery is the manner in which moral perception shifted to a consideration of slavery as evil, as opposed to a natural state for some, as of the eighteenth century. Yet, this view was balanced by a pro-slavery perspective that considered perpetual servitude the proper position for those of African descent. Mindful of these competing claims, it becomes clear that slavery in the New World collapsed not solely because of economic and political considerations, but because of its "inherent" contradictions. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2838/2-3_37/110531684/p1/article.jhtml

[Must_B_Free]

53. Oh I see - wow that was hard get.

the question could be interpreted in two ways really. I guess he drew a different interpretation than you intended.

Anyway, reading this:

"What remains unclear is the manner in which we, in the twenty-first century, understand and work through the paradox of historical distance from the slave trade and the continuing reality of privilege not completely disconnected from the benefits of the trade in human flesh."

reminds me of Chomsky's points about America putting up illusions to maintain its unfair share of resources, relative to the rest of the world.

It's an extention of the same self deception.

Remember when they discovered the graves of the slaves who built Washington DC. they had been forgotten - erased from history. So it was a "discovery" to us. Amazing,.

[Solomon]

41. Why do you try to compare the Sudan of today, with africa of the

17th and 18th centuries? Look, you don't have to take my word for it. I studied this. Took a course on Roman and ancient slavery in law school, I was just as shocked as you are now to discover that what we think of as slavery (that which was done in the american south) was "normal" for slavery. But it wasn't.

American slavery was the most brutal form of slavery there was. Bar non. It bugs me everytime some body brings up this crap about africans selling africans. Get out of your American arrogant head and understand that other peoples just might have a different concept of something, than the one in YOUR head. They never saw american slavery, and they had no idea. Why would you assume they knew what they were doing?

[smcmike]

65. Ancient Rome

Slavery in ancient rome was quite a bit more complex than you indicate. While it was true that many slaves did actually lead OK lives (the ones with valuable skills), they were not treated well, and we have a famous anecdote about slaves being fed to the fishes for breaking a glass... and if you were an unskilled, agricultural or (worst of all) mining slave, your life would have been very very hard. Furthermore, your assertion that they were "people, not property" seems completely misguided. The idea of "equal rights" for people simply was not there in ancient Rome; basically if you were not an upper-class male head-of-household you were at best a second class citizen. Even freed slaves, who could become quite wealthy, and live wonderful lives, were looked down upon, as were their descendants. True, slavery was very different than american slavery, but the life of a Roman slave was generally quite harsh.

[Solomon]

114. Never said that slaves had it "good". This is an interpretation people

want to put on it to dig their heels in the sand. The only thing most people know about slavery is what they know about american slavery, and watching "Spartacus" get whipped in the movies. Of course Roman slavery was more complex. Because they had "rights".

I said american slavery was the most vicious form of slavery and I stand by that statement. Not only in terms of quality, but in terms of quantity too. Slaves in Rome had rights. Didn't say they were equal with patricians and such. They could get married, you couldn't just beat the shit out of them and other advantages. As far as a harsh life, sure, but you can say that about the "lower class" today.

Tobias is right that I misread his post though. I responded thinking about slavery in the past and I see now that his post is about today.
There is no justification or excuse for africans selling other africans, OR ANYBODY, for that matter.

[Must_B_Free]

22. response

it misses the mark in focusing only on European-African racism.

My question was referring to the commonality between European-African racism, Varna system in India as well as Japanese version of "the lighter, the more superior".

Why the commonality? Why always light skin considering itself above dark?

[achtung_circus]

3. read this book, it's as cogent as anything else I've found

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/102-1999983-6740122?v=glance>

[Must_B_Free]

23. Interesting, thanks

"History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."

Yet, clearly environmental differences lead to biological differences, so, doesn't this reinforce my idea?

And again, why the commonality of light oppressing dark if the environments are vastly separated?

[Must_B_Free]

42. "biological differences"

was actually a misnomer; i think the biological difference are arbitrary, clearly I am speaking about cultural differences.

I was imagining the culturization of people stealing eachothers' food to survive through winter, and then carrying this trend south.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

67. Visual identification of friend-or-foe has been used for millions of years

Cultures that are less 'physically affectionate' are more violent. And determining friend-or-foe has been accomplished most easily through visual identification for millions of years. Science!

"Receptiveness to being touched varies from culture to culture. Americans do not feel as comfortable touching one another as people in other cultures do, whether it be casual touching or affectionate caressing of children by parents.

The latter point could be significant, because cross-cultural studies have demonstrated that societies in which parents show more physical affection toward their infants and children tend to have significantly lower rates of adult violence."

-John J. Ratey, M.D. clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in his book, 'A User's Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the Brain.'

This excerpt is from the chapter describing how our senses inform the brain and initiate physical behaviours as part of the larger body systems designed to optimize chances of survival. Much of how our brain works is designed to identify threats and react quickly without thinking for too long. This is why people who look the same tend to group together against people who look different. So something as readily discernable as skin color hits the Different-Caution!-lizard brain button very easily.

It would also be easy for our species to associate daylight, warmth, and safety with Light while fearing the night time predators and cold of the Dark. That which can't be seen is most feared by primates who were not always at the top of the food chain.

Combined with the need to identify danger visually for millions of years of our evolution, it is easy to imagine that the colder northern climates required more clothing, less available skin contact, more competition for food, and a harsher perception of any deities that are invented to explain cosmological and moral issues.

Sexuality is also a primal survival brain issue and plays into American race relations with recent stereotypes about oversexed blacks threatening the virtue of white women. This old meme was used in the 'Saving Jessica Lynch' episode that once again had a white girl being rescued from 'those savages' as though in an old Western movie starring John Wayne. Once it was revealed that she had instead been rescued by them, rumors of rape were floated to keep up concern for her vulnerability in their caring but darker hands.

European culture has evolved while American culture has been hampered by immaturity caused by isolation from different cultures.

We need only look at the Ashcroftian reaction to Janet Jackson's breast along with the collective shrug over the Iraq War to be reminded that in this culture, violence is rewarded and sexuality is punished. Quite the opposite for European culture where a breast is common place and a military budget is a thing to be shunned.

[Must_B_Free]

72. More thoughts

There may also be an association of sunlight with satisfaction.

From living in Hawaii, I can attest that living in the sun is happiness.

Darkness is associated with depression. One treatment for depression that I am aware of inv olves a light box to expose the backs of the legs to light.

So living in more shelter is less exposure to sunlight. Also the seasons cause more focus on acquisition and storage.

I think if you have food growing continually and sunlight you feel happy and safe and you are less concerned with going out to try to steal from others to feel secure.

[Must_B_Free]

24. Interesting, thanks

"History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."

Yet, clearly environmental differences lead to biological differences, so, doesn't this reinforce my idea?

And again, why the commonality of light oppressing dark if the environments are vastly separated?

[sangha]

59. Please stop insisting on false assumptions

Yet, clearly environmental differences lead to biological differences, so, doesn't this reinforce my idea?

This statement is only true if the two populations are cut off from other populations so that there is no interbreeding between the two populations and any other populations. Your reasoning is similar to the simplifications racists use to justify *their* ideas of racial superiority.

Even worse, you are exploiting the differences in melanin, which do have an environmental basis, by conflating it with the idea that aggresive behavior is also influenced by environmental differences while doing nothing to demonstrate that with wrt the environment, there was an environmental difference between the cold and warm climes that made aggression more of a competitive for one over the other.

Racists do the same EXACT thing. They use the differences in melanin to show that environment does have an influence of racial genetics, and then apply that reasoning willy-nilly to all sorts of perceived differences without EVER showing that the areas they apply their theory to have an environmental basis. Like you, they just assume the environmental difference, as you assmed that people in the north could make better use of aggression because it was harder to grow and hunt food, and because it was colder.

:shrug:

[Must_B_Free]

68. Biological was not the right word,

because I don't support the idea that genetic differences between humans that affect behaviour on a cultural level. What I had intended to say was that the environmental differences lead to cultural difference.

But the reality may be that the entire realm of possibilities, plus physical separations of people are what lead to these cultural differences. But then we would expect more variation in the examples of one peoples oppressing another on the basis of color.

All of this is over simplification. What I would like to arrive at is a model of how human culture grew up out of Africa (if it did, as is suggested by archaology) and spread through the world. How did people become so physically different looking.

So as a learned scholar, are the answers out there? If enough of history is studied, is it clear? Or are there gaps and unanswered questions that merit speculation to find plausible answers? As far as I have ever learned, there are still many questions to answer. I don't think we have a clear model of the last, say, 200,000 years.

[corporatewhore]

4. MONEY MONEY MONEY

well the europeans back in the day justified slavery by saying they were sub human using pysdo scienceit is still goin on (just click on the links on my sig line) just hear savage go on about how Latinos are like animals.Also people even on DU dont seem to give a fuck about brown people being enslaved in sweatshops (but but we need freetrade the economy justifies it)Feelings of racism have been perpetuated by the ruling class to distract the white working class from being mad at the politicians/big corporations policies i have heard people say they have lost their jobs because blacks have the jobs the should right fully have or whatever

[Must_B_Free]

6. Forget Europeans

The question is why is it the same pattern throught the world and through out history. Why the same in Japan? Why the same in India thoudands of years ago?

If it were an arbitrary excuse to make money as suggested, why is it always light skin oppressing dark?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Ireland has a history of oppression, and I don't think there are that

many dark people. However, there was a point in history when being dark became a major liability. Probably has to do with the Moors and the Christian crusades? You hardly hear anything about Moors these days, because, like the Normans, they assimilated into the countries they conquered.

I have no idea if the above paragraph made any sense. It just came out like a stream of conscious.

[BEZARK]

10. It may not always work that way

When I had a class on Asia I thought the situation in southeast Asia was described as with the lighter more aryan (in the older prenazi sense) populations now being the hill tribes, the former possessors of the richer lowlands but now driven to the hills. The Montangnards (sp?) in Vietnam would be one example.

[AP]

11. Because of colonialism. I believe the British imported skin tone

racism to India.

Muslims had actually ended the classism of Hinduism. But the British ended the Muslim rule, and reintroduced it when they left.

Read War at the Top of The World.

[Must_B_Free]

26. I don't think so

Varna, or the Caste system, is way older than British rule in India.

" The Dravidians were India's first inhabitants. Archaeologists believe the Dravidians migrated to India from East Africa in prehistoric times. Aryan invaders from the north conquered the Dravidians about 1500BC. The Aryans were related to the Persians and Europeans. Their language, Sanskrit, is similar to Greek and Latin. Linguists classify Sanskrit as an "Indo-European language." Most of India's languages are rooted in Sanskrit or Dravidian languages. "

[AP]

37. ...and the caste system was destroyed by the muslims because the

muslim system unleashed so much inovation (by giving everyone an equal opportunity to contribute their efforts and be rewarded for them).

When the British came in, and then left, they elevated the Hindus and pitted them against Muslims, which renewed the sort of racism that had disappeared.

If you read the book I cited, you'll see the argument.

Bottom line: irrationality of racism was nearly eliminated until the British revived it for political and economic reasons.

[Character Assassin]

47. This is historically innacurrate and factually incorrect.

them muslim system unleashed so much inovation (by giving everyone an equal opportunity to contribute their efforts and be rewarded for them).

I assume by 'inovation' you mean 'innovation'.

No, it didn't introduce that, and what cosmetic level it might have introduced certainly either didn't, or wouldn't have, remained.

Bottom line: irrationality of racism was nearly eliminated until the British revived it for political and economic reasons.

The above statement is cosmetic bullshit, and unsupportable even with the most cursory review of the record.

[AP]

57. Take it up with Eric S. Margolis. I suggest you read his book:

War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet, Revised Edition
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415934680/qid=1079185445/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-8298429-5519032?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's his argument. And I agree with it.

His point is that the best ideas rise to the top, and when the muslims moved into india, their way of thinking competed with the way of thinking of the hindu rulers. The caste system is very inefficient. It condems many smart people to a life of inconsequence if they're born to the wrong caste.

Islam has not caste system. It gives people on one-to-one, unmediated relationship with god. The consequence: it found converts easily. The other consequence: once it converted a lot of hard-working, competent people whose labors formerly were unabled to meet the marketplace of goods and of ideas, muslims unleashed a torrent of progress. Not shutting out lots of people from contributing to society resulted in a golden age of architecture, art, science, literature, etc., in India which created so much wealth for everyone that nobody complained.

The sky was the limt for India. Then the British came along. When they pulled out, they wanted to leave a destabilized society behind which would be easy to control and exploit from London. As colonizers ALWAYS do, they destabilize by encouraging racial and religious divisions.

In Rwanda, for example, the French put the lighter skinned more European looking ethnic group in charge of the government NOT because they thought they were better skilled, but because they KNEW it would be destabilizing (and we saw where that ended). Where'd the French learn this? From the British (of course). The problems that India had after the British pulled out between Hinduism and Islam were TOTALLY orchestrated by the British (note that Hindus and Muslims had been cooperating for a couple hundred years before the british came to produce a real kick-ass society, so it really did take some British shenanigans to sabotage that).

You sound like you're really angry at me for pointing this out, but it's true.

[Must_B_Free]

69. CA likes to be vindictive

I have argued with him before - he has a habit of trying to make very personal attacks to cut the other person down.
he tries to belittle you.

I vaguely remember that Persian culture was the most advanced at one time and they had a tremendous library, for example.

What the heck is it about these British that makes them such dirty tricksters? From the time they dominated the earth, and then today they still have their fingers in this Iraq debacle of lies and pillaging. Did you hear that $4 BILLION has already been ripped off in Iraq by the interm government?

[AP]

76. That's a personality some grad students develop.

To shut down challenges to their narrow world views, the wield nasty personal attacks which are supposed to make you afraid to open your mouth less you be labeled, with excoriating wit (or whatever) as stupid.

Stand your ground. Don't let anyone shut you up.

Grad student like that end up never getting jobs.

[Character Assassin]

86. Standing one's ground is of paramount importance

Unless, of course, one has no ground on which to stand.

If you ever get to grad school, let me know.

[AP]

89. "If you ever get to grad school, let me know"

What's that?

Standing your ground?

Are you admitting that this is one of your rhetorical strategies -- intellectual bullying to frightent people into not opening their mouth?

Do you want to listen and learn, or do you just want to bully people into shutting up?

[Character Assassin]

92. You've missed the point entirely.

Are you admitting that this is one of your rhetorical strategies -- intellectual bullying to frightent people into not opening their mouth?

Are you kidding? I am not in the least 'bullying' you or anyone else, regardless of how you try to pitch it.

[AP]

93. Wasn't your point that I'm too stupid to get into grad school?

Or that my arguments are so stupid I couldn't possibly have a grad school education?

Is that how they debate ideas in grad school seminars these days? Intellectual intimidation?

I guess if you don't want to hear people talk about race in the seminar, you can get them to shut up by implying they're stupid or they can't spell, or whatever.

[Character Assassin]

97. Nope, that wasn't the point.

Or that my arguments are so stupid I couldn't possibly have a grad school education?

No, that wasn't the point, either.

Is that how they debate ideas in grad school seminars these days? Intellectual intimidation?

I wouldn't know.

I guess if you don't want to hear people talk about race in the seminar, you can get them to shut up by implying they're stupid or they can't spell, or whatever.

You seem to be displaying a propensity to be insulted when you have not been insulted.

[AP]

102. So what was the point about letting you know about my...

...education?

[Character Assassin]

73. No, I took it up with you, and yes, I've read that book.

And found the author rather less than well-versed in the nuances and shadings of history.

His point is that the best ideas rise to the top,

That one take on it, but the delicious irony I see here, with you agreeing with his opinion, is not lost on you, I hope.

...and when the muslims moved into india, their way of thinking competed with the way of thinking of the hindu rulers.

A. They didn't 'move into India'. They were ruthless invaders.
B. No one here is disputing that their thinking competed with the status quo of the time.

The caste system is very inefficient. It condems many smart people to a life of inconsequence if they're born to the wrong caste.

That has nothing to do with my comments on what you wrote.

Islam has not caste system.

Many variations of Islam most assuredly do have a caste system. It's based on tribal affiliation and gender.

It gives people on one-to-one, unmediated relationship with god. The consequence: it found converts easily.

This is obvious.

The other consequence: once it converted a lot of hard-working, competent people whose labors formerly were unabled to meet the marketplace of goods and of ideas, muslims unleashed a torrent of progress.

Progress that eventually died on the vine, whereas reform in the Indian caste system has led that country to a preeminent position over any Islamic country today.

Not shutting out lots of people from contributing to society resulted in a golden age of architecture, art, science, literature, etc., in India which created so much wealth for everyone that nobody complained.

So, then, what became of that 'golden age'?

You sound like you're really angry at me for pointing this out, but it's true.

You've pointed out things that are available in any history book, but you haven't supported your contentions.

[AP]

75. I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.

Margolis knows what he's talking about.

[Character Assassin]

77. I look forward to you actually supporting your own statements.

One day, maybe. Perhaps we'll BBQ and make an event of it.

I do not agree with the author you cited, and I don't have to. You made certain statements, and have thus far been unable to support them other than referencing the work of someone who doesn't address your specific points.

[AP]

78. You don't think India went through a golden age under the Mughal

rulers?

You don't think they tapped into a lot of creativity and intelligence and effort that was supressed by the racism and classism of the caste system?

You don't think the British brought an end to the mughal empire?

You don't think the British intentionally left behind in India a society that pitted Muslims against Hindus?

You don't think that that undid the arc of progress that was moving toward great things for India?

Whatever.

[Character Assassin]

79. Once again, you attempt to misrepresent my position.

You don't think India went through a golden age under the Mughal rulers?

I do, and I never said that I didn't.

You don't think they tapped into a lot of creativity and intelligence and effort that was supressed by the racism and classism of the caste system?

Zzzzzzz..... Of course I do, and this has nothing to do with the empty rhetoric you were posting.

You don't think the British brought an end to the mughal empire?

Duh. It had already ossified by then, but since you prefer to overlook that....

You don't think the British intentionally left behind in India a society that pitted Muslims against Hindus?

Frankly, no. They weren't smart enough, and it didn't bring them, and hasn't brought them, enough benefit.

You don't think that that undid the arc of progress that was moving toward great things for India?

There was no 'arc of progress'. If you really think there was, please support, in your own words, why this might have been the case.

Whatever.

The entirety of your case, summed up in one word.

[AP]

81. plain text

italics

plain text

italics

Once I got in a discussion with someone who felt that it was worth talking about foreign policy that might lead to nuclear war because nuclear war was survivable.

All I could do was walk away. How can you debate with someone who's willing to take things that far?

That's how I feel about debating someone about whether neocolonial strategies were intentional.

Of course the British pitted the muslims against the hindus so that they could still control India from afar. The french did the same in Rwanda. They do that EVERYWHERE.

To say that it didn't happen intentionally is just denial, in my opinion.

And to say that there was no arc of progress in india that the british interrupted is the same -- denying the obvious truth.

Look what happened to the US when we got out of the colonial relationship. And we wouldn't have been able to do even that if the US had had the sort of neocolonial relationship that former colonizers inflict on countries in Africa and Asia today.

[Character Assassin]

82. For the last time...

Support the statements you originally made, or this conversation is over.

Being topical, in this case, is a virtue.

[AP]

83. I think the conversation was over before it started.

If you don't believe that part of the neocolonial strategy is to pit racial and ethnic groups against each other in a conscious effort to destabilize nations, then I don't know what kind of conversation we can have.

[AP]

84. And speaking of topical, what if the bombers in Spain were Hindus

trying to stoke the flames of anti-muslim sentiment?

You might have to pull out Margolis's book and rethink a few things.

Now that's TOPICAL for you!

[Character Assassin]

87. What if? Who cares?

Support your original statements or stop this waste of time.

[AP]

88. It would be topical then.

You agree with everything I've said except that neocolonialists intentionally destabilize governments upon exit by pitting different ethnic groups against each other.

I say that if you don't accept that, you're a denier.

(But let me get this straight -- you admit that it happens, just not intentionally?)

Furthermore, I've seen "deniers" carry on similar denials at length, and with incredible stubborness, so I'm not sure what it's worth to engage "deniers" in this discussion.

[Character Assassin]

91. Quite incorrect.

You agree with everything I've said except that neocolonialists intentionally destabilize governments upon exit by pitting different ethnic groups against each other.

No, I don't agree with everything you've said. Quite the contrary, I am still waiting for satisfactory replies. You stated:

Bottom line: irrationality of racism was nearly eliminated until the British revived it for political and economic reasons.

Citing a book that doesn't support that contention is not an answer. You've made the claim, but have yet to support or validate it. It seems there is little here to be gained by further exchange.

[AP]

94. I repeat all my allegations.

I'm not sure that you saying the book doesn't support the contention is a good enough argument that it doesn't.

If you'd like to make your arguments, go ahead.

Either that, or let me know when your book hits the shelves.

[Character Assassin]

98. It is not up to me to prove a contention that you make.

And simply quoting someone's book doesn't cut it, for me at least, as some sort of standard of proof. I've read it. It didn't support the point you've been trying to make.

If you'd like to make your arguments, go ahead.

I see that you still refuse to address the point in any significant manner.

[AP]

103. The point I made was the point Margolis was making.

You haven't challenged it sufficiently for me to even begin know where to buttress it.

Except to say that you don't think that neocolonialism is what it is.

[AP]

107. I say it totally makes the point. Which means our discussion would be

me repeating the points and you denying the points ad infinitum.

I don't think you saying that it doesn't support my point is sufficient argument for me to have to say more.

In fact my only point is the point made in that book. No more, no less. I'm not using it to suppor an argument. The book is the argument. (Just as I cited that Amilladi book and the article or book he cites.)

If you don't like Margolis's book and his argument, take it up with Margolis and his editors.

[AP]

108. In other words, I rest my case. It's not up to me to continue over and

over to repeat an argument that hasn't be adequately rebutted.

[Character Assassin]

111. There is no case here, that I can see, to rest

You stated: "Bottom line: irrationality of racism was nearly eliminated until the British revived it for political and economic reasons."

This simply isn't true. There has been racially based hatred and violence in that area of the world since long before the the Muslims invaded, and they helped to exacerbate it by specifically targetting Hindu places of worship. This is simple historical fact. Such racially based behavior was not, magically, almost eradicated from the area or the sentiments of the denizens there before the British left, and that contention is not supported in the book you are referencing.

It is simply fantasy to maintain that anything was particularly different to such a point as to have been destroyed or in any real way altered by the British pulling out.

[AP]

112. That's the shorthand version.

That was your problem?

Sure live wasn't perfect, but the British DID set the clock backwards intentionally.

Margolis addresses all this. I encourage people to read the book.

[Character Assassin]

113. My problem was you made vastly overbroad and false statement

And still seem blind to the fact that you did, dismissing it by labelling it 'the shorthand version'.

If you cannot remain intellectually honest, we have nothing further to discuss.

[AP]

116. Sorry. There are three or four pages in that book describing what the

British did to exacerbate racial divisions, which they did to make sure society didn't move forward. Logically, if it took the british to make them worse, they weren't as bad before the British got their hands in their.

If it sounded like I was trying to claim that India was a nirvana of racial harmony before the British came in, it was only hyperbole intended to draw you in to the debate.

[The Backlash Cometh]

95. Ruthless invaders AND early pioneers of eastern civilization.

The Moors weren't the same kind of invading hordes like Genghis Khan and the Vikings. Historically speaking, they gave back far more than they took and are attributed for dispersing the kind of knowledge that leads to great discoveries.

[Character Assassin]

99. The Moors didn't invade India from the 8th to 11th centuries

It was the Arabs. And, while not like Genghis Khan or the Vikings, the ruthlessness of the invasions cannot simply be overlooked.

[The Backlash Cometh]

100. Yep. You can say the same thing about the Christian Crusades.

Ruthless bastards, the lot of them.

[Character Assassin]

110. You can usually say that about any invading force.

[The Backlash Cometh]

115. But that would only take the perspective of one side of the story,

wouldn't it? I hardly believe that the "invading force" would consider itself an "invading force." So as far as "invading forces" are concerned, at an historical level, the Moors gave back far more to civilization, than they took.

So, to be more accurate, the Moors were an invading force (or ruthless invaders) AND pioneers of eastern civilization, which is the point I made in the beginning.

[corporatewhore]

5. the same psycology behind patriarchy and homophobia

goes along with racism what is it is human nature i have no fucking clue just guessing

[BEZARK]

7. Lighter skin produces more Vitamin D

Black people are prone to Vitamin D deficiencies at high latitudes, even now in first-world countries like the US with vitamin D supplements in foods. Much of our Vitamin D comes via production by sunlight on exposed skin. So there was selective pressure in both sunny climates (too much ultraviolet exposure) and at high and winter-cloudy latitudes (too little sunlight).

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Africa is no walk in the park.

Tigers, Lions and Bears, oh my! Well, maybe just lions. But, the theory is that civilization did not develop so quickly in Africa because it was such a harsh land and there was no easy trade routes that would result in the exchange of ideas that you find in the early civilizations that lined the Mediterranean.

[H2O Man]

12. Your theory is weak at very best.

First, no one group of people has any significantly more "violent" nature than any other. The rates of violence tend to be closer in association to cultural factors. Hence, black hunters and gathers tend to be equal in non-violence to brown, red, yellow, and white hunters and gatherers. Agricultural people tend to have a substantial increase in rates of violence, due to accumulated wealth. Abel & Cain. Industrial societies depend upon accessing resources of rural peoples (primarily food & human labor hours), and will use violence to get it.
More important is that your "theory" has no foundation. There is no such thing as "race." It is a non-existant concept, much like the boundry between north and south dakota. It exists only for specific people, from a specific time period, but is not real. There are no "races." No science backs up "race." There is only one race, the human race. Yes, there are "tribes." There were black, brown, red, yellow, and white tribes. But even today, that idea has lost power. That's GOOD. We must move beyond a time when people invest time in silly theories about race, violence, and separation of human beings. One race.

[sangha]

14. You are too kind. WAY too kind

This "theory" is nothing but racist claptrap. It's based on the idea of a genetic difference between the races, which maks it BY DEFINITION, racism.

A more reasonable theory has been ofered by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He thinks the answer is geography.

[DrWeird]

17. He should be kind.

The poster was only trying to correlate obvious racial differences in society (which Diamond points out in opening of G,G,&S) with the obvious genetic differences in the races. Such as skin cancer (and malaria resistance, and lactose tolerance, etc. they do exist and it's not racist to discuss them).

Most people understand genetics very little and the history of eugenics even less, so naivete should be excused and the facts explained civily.

This, while unintentionally racist, is hardly the "racist claptrap" you'll find at any given NRA meeting, Bob Jones lecture, or republican national convention.

[H2O Man]

19. to friend Dr. Weird:

We should all be kind, even when dealing with people with mistaken beliefs. A common mistaken belief is that there is such a thing as "race." Most informed people, including Diamond, recognize that the human race came out of Africa. The friend who offered the original post appeared to be focusing on different adaptations of the human race to climatic variations. That is fine, until the "jump" to applying levels of violence to different "races." There are no different races. None. There are variations of one race, which for a brief period held some significance. (Please do not misunderstand me: I do not pretend everyone is exactly the same. No! I do believe we should recognize and celebrate the differences. Just as I recognize and celebrate the differences between individuals in my family.) These variances have historically separated us into different tribes. Yet we are all made up of the same genetic material, we all are part of the same organic life system upon this wonderful earth, and we are one race. The idea that there are different races is invalid, and can not be supported by any scientific evidence ... only by ignorance.

[Must_B_Free]

30. Totally wrong

"The poster was only trying to correlate obvious racial differences in society (which Diamond points out in opening of G,G,&S) with the obvious genetic differences in the races."

I am speaking of cultural differences due to living features of terrain. and why is this thing called racism so often light oppressing dark.

This is not a hard rule historically speaking, the lighter Indians were oppressed by a Dravidian resurgency at some point in time. It actually flip flopped at times.

Basically, Buddhism comes from Hinduism as a reawakening of Dravidian Hindu values that were suppressed by the Aryans.

So that detail may provide an answer. It may be that Nag culture is the grandaddy of most modern culture in the world. Essentially I am saying that the "theme" of light opressing dark is extermely anciant and was carried to the far east. I don't know enough about light peoples and how they originated, but perhaps far east asian form comes from ancient India.

All world religions have a Dravidian root.

[H2O Man]

18. to friend sangha:

Yes, a great book, which I think does a wonderful job putting this issue into a proper context. I would venture that geography has much to do with the pace with which peoples have gone from one cultural phase to another. Thank you for your post. I am always interested in what you contribute on here; perhaps it is because I so frequently find myself nodding my head in agreement with you, but I believe that you are one of the best resources on the d.u.

[sangha]

60. *blush*

Why, thank yoU! That was very kind of you. And you are a very reasonable person, yourself. I particularly lliked your "We should all be kind, even when dealing with people with mistaken beliefs"

That's definitely not one of my strong points.

[Must_B_Free]

28. You jumped to a nonexistant conclusion so quickly

that you embarass yourself.

Perhaps you could read the original post a few more times and glean what question was actually asked.

[Must_B_Free]

27. You missed

I am one of the biggest proponants of the "no such thing as race" fact, but it is used colloquily here to refer to feature differences between groups of peoples, which undeniably do exist.

And "violent" and "opressor" are not the same thing. Nor did I make any judgement of any peoples, I merely noted a a coin toss that seems to frequently come up heads. Clearly, the basis of oppression is arbitrary to some extent, but why this seemingly vast commonality instead of more variation in observances through history?

Plus, your argument essentially says, "why don't we ignore history all together, because it leads to racism?"

[H2O Man]

38. you are trying too hard....

.... to feign insight. Your claim that all world religions have Dravidian roots is the second example, closely following your "theory" (note the spelling) on "races" and violence. Yet I would not toss out silly statements about you needing to be embarassed .... you're probably about 17 years old, or at that level of understanding, and are trying to impress people with concepts that you have little or no understanding. But that's fine, little brother. With patience, even a tiny snail can climb a large mountain. But one little directional signal: I'm not involved in an "argument" with you! My sincere advice to you, in fact, would be NOT to "ignore history all together"(rather, you are all together TOO ignorant as is!).... because a PROPER understanding of HISTORY removes ANY NEED for "racism"!!! One question regarding "all world religiuons", little brother: have you heard of either North or South America? Catch on regarding ignorance?

[Must_B_Free]

44. It's not my claim

I read it on a site about Hindu history and I consider it quite plausible.

You do a lot of accusing, but offer no arguments or support for your accusations.

"One question regarding "all world religiuons", little brother: have you heard of either North or South America? Catch on regarding ignorance?"

No I don't. Here are examples of what I was referring to, you can find it over and over again in study of India online:

"This does not involve any exotic innovation for the Western World. European religious sources are the same as those of India, and their traces have only been lost in the relatively recent past. The legend according to which Dionysus sojourned in India is an allusion to the identification of his cult with Indian religion. The rediscovery at the beginning of this century of the joyful and peaceable Cretan civilization and religion, which is so similar to Shivaism and which appears to be the deepest root of Western civilization, may thus be considered a premonition, a return to what Arnold Toynbee calls "a right religion" http://www.users.cyberone.com.au/myers/danielou-paglia.html

"Before the arrival of the Aryans, the people who lived all over India were denoted as Dravidians and their culture is very ancient, and they are the root cause for the development of religions all over the world. "
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv000/108_mutt.html

" By the racial theory, Europeans natuarally felt that the original speakers of any root Indo-European language must have been 'white', as they were not prepared to recognize that their languages could have been derived from the darker-skinned Hindus. " http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

[H2O Man]

46. Little Brother:

Can you name or identify a SINGLE time I was "accusing" you or anyone of anything on here? Because, if you can't, it's POSSIBLE that you are merely on the proverbial "hot seat." But that's okay. We all are from time to time. That's part of life. Now, please remember, "accusing" means to charge with an offense ... such as the violence that someone on here accuses OTHERS of!
Second, I do not need to rely upon "sources" on here ... I'm not questioning or particularly interested in others; opinions right now. Just yours. And not because I'm trying to pick on you, or pick a fight with you. Just because I think you are THINKING about an IMPORTANT question, but perhaps have read things TOO limited to give you a fuller view .... and because at this point in time, it is essential that people HAVE a fuller view.
Now, you did mention HISTORY. Dravidian influence is an interesting topic. But as you are of a questioning spirit, does it NOT occure to you that there are two huge land masses, with millions of people, that developed quite well on their own. Hatred and mans' inhumanity to man are, of course, included in the full history of North and South America. But there is more: there are foundations of thought that go beyond the limited scope of "black & white" and all the other nonsense that divides us as people.
Your turn!

[Must_B_Free]

54. Sure, post 38

"you are trying too hard to feign insight."

That was your primary accusation.

Then you indirectly try to accuse me of making silly statements:
"Yet I would not toss out silly statements about you needing to be embarassed .... "

You try to act like you are some insightful person, high above me:
"you're probably about 17 years old, or at that level of understanding, and are trying to impress people with concepts that you have little or no understanding."

You continually call me "little brother" to remind everyone how "high" you are over me.

So what do I get, a cookie for documenting your incorrectness? I don't want anything from you and I don't care what you think. You are basically not participating in the same conversation as the rest of us, you're off on some kind of trip about who you are. And I don't think you're who you'd like to think you are, because you're not really being "cool" - you're attacking someone over something you thought he said, and doing a bad job of it.

I just read your posts after the first one and really I think you have some identity issues that you need to work out.

[sangha]

61. The problem here is that you have offered a sweeping universal theory

without having the proper background in history, anthropology, etc. Your intentions are obviously noble, but your lack of background maked the execution fatally flawed. Due to your lack of knowledge of some relevent issues and facts (like the religions of the indigenous Ameridians) you have allowed yourself to be swayed by theories that are based on racist thoughts, such as your claim that all world religions are based on the Dravidians, an idea which was promoted by those who believed in the superiority of the white race.

I'd also like to point out that you were to criticize me for making to much of the genetic aspect of your theory. After re-reading your initial post, I see that I took that part a bit too strongly. However, I'd say that I was aided by the degree to which your theory relies on other racist beliefs, such as the difficuties of survival in a cold climate. I suspect that, due to your lack of familiarity with the history of certain theories and areas of knowledge, you have unintentionally drawn upon racist propoganda that has a psuedo-scientific pedigree. I strongly advise you to do some more reading. I recommend Jared Diamon's excellent book, and I would also suggest some reading on the history of the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Must_B_Free]

64. I agree with a good bit of this response

But the Dravidians are the Dark peoples of southern India - so how can the Dravidian root concept be, as you state, "an idea which was promoted by those who believed in the superiority of the white race."

What strikes me is that the people who push this Dravidian root theory are probably trying to take credit for too much. I know there is a scholaly conflict regarding which is the original written language, Sanskrit and Tamilian. So I agree that this idea may be racially biased, but not towards white supremacy, but rather, the opposite.

[sangha]

66. They take too much credit, and so do you

You don't seem very familiar with the roots of white racial supremacy, ao ofcourse you don't see the link. As I said earlier, read more about the history of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Must_B_Free]

71. Sangha: Please explain yourself.

You said: "read more about the history of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

I have done a survey of the 4 pages of results from searching for "Eugenics+Dravidian" on Yahoo and all I can find supports exactly what I stated and refutes your assertion.

"Another meaning refers to the Aryan race, a (presumed) more or less pureblooded descendant ethnic group of this original Aryan group. This meaning was, and still is common in theories of European racial superiority "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Aryan, NOT Dravidian - you have it backwards.

Nowhere can I find anything to support this statement you made: "... (your) claim that all world religions are based on the Dravidians, (is) an idea which was promoted by those who believed in the superiority of the white race."

Here is more detail on the Nazis and their fantasies of an Aryan super race. http://www.gungeralv.org/dg/archives/cat_campaign_background.php

Can you refer to anything to support your assertion that white supremecists promoted an idea that all world religions were based on the Dravidians?

It appears that you have mixed up the terms 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian'? Isn't this rather arrogant - accusing me of knowing nothing, when, in fact, the research proves you wrong?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. As AP says, it may be an excuse for slavery and colonisation

I don't think life is necessarily tougher in colder climates; and the Romans were even more keen on pilaging, stealing and enslaving than the Vikings.
It may be a question of 'Europeans developed ocean-going ships and guns first' (or used them more enthusiastically than the Chinese, at least) - and an interesting book on why that might be the case is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". His theories are things like the availability of grain crops to grow; the type of animals available for domestication; and the layout of continents and uninhabitable areas (eg Southern Europe, North Africa and South Asia form a wide band at the same latitude - once a plant or animal has been domesticated in one place, it can spread to the others and succeed there fairly easily, so all areas benefit from an advance. The Sahara blocked much communication to the rest of Africa, however. Since the Americas are shaped much more North-South, it was harder for innovation in agriculture to have a widespread effect). Once a people have an advantage, they'll tend to keep it, by force.

He also suggests that sailors unwittingly spread European diseases to other continents to which they had built up immunity, but rarely brought new diseases back (because they'd die before they got back to Europe), and this killed and weakened the societies of the other continents.

[Must_B_Free]

31. "I don't think life is necessarily tougher in colder climates;"

You'll have a tough time selling that idea to me. Look at Eskimos - they had ritualized infantacide if the child could not be supported due to lack of resources. How much tougher can it get than that?

Furthermore, you also totally missed the point, like most posters, in getting fixated on the European form.

"and the Romans were even more keen on pilaging, stealing and enslaving than the Vikings."

This is further example of the culturalization of vandalism. My suggestion is that it is rooted not in genes, but in the terrain features that shape culture.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Eskimos are the extreme

but while their life is undoubtedly hard, that hsn't led to them being aggressive. What your original post seemed to suggest was that toughness of life in northern climates (the Vikings being your one example) led to a more agressive lifestyle. To suggest that in warm climates you can just go out and pick the food you want is a vast oversimplification - consider that many warm climates have droughts and monsoons to contend with, while temperate climates usually have steady rainfall, allowing a more reliable food supply.

The reason for concentrating on the Europeans is that this was the root culture of racism in both America and European colonies - a large part of the racism in the world. Other posters have pointed out the Bantu and Ainu examples (what white vs. dark racism were you referring to in Japan, by the way?). I'd also add that the Chinese regarded Europeans as inferior. What I was trying to do in comparing the Vikings and Romans was say that a warmer (admittedly not tropical) culture can be just as violent as a colder one.

Your further posts have made it clear that you're not proposing that the aggression is in the genes; but in your first post you talked about white people having "a more warlike nature", which implies that it was gene-related - which may explain why you've had this reaction.

[sangha]

63. Eskimos are an extreme example

and are not as aggressive as some cultures that lived in warmer climates. Peoples in warm climates also had ritualized infanticide with India and Egypt being notable examples. Also, people in warm climes also engaged in raids, pillages and the enslavement of peoples. You can read about it in the Bible.

[DrWeird]

16. Some flaws.

The general idea that high amounts of sunlight lead to increased melanin in tropical areas is widely accepted. It is also believed that as people migrated into colder cloudier environments in Europe they lost melanin. They lost dietary sources for vitamin D, which are plentiful in Africa, and so developed greater affinity to produce it via sunlight. Hence the lightening of the skin.
There are a few other things, like lactose tolerance in adults, which are more common in Europeans.

The problem is the belief that europeans had it "harder" then anybody else and that made them more "violent" or "dominate". Furthermore, it is ridiculous to believe there is a dominance gene linked to the lighter skin gene. It doesn't work that way. It's actually a bit of a racist notion when you think about it, not that I'm accusing you of racism.

And if I'm not mistaken, although the Aryans were lighter skinned then the people they conquered, I'm pretty sure they were not Nordic as the so called Aryan Nation would have you believe.

As for why white people oppress dark people, I'd have to say it's human nature and circumstance, rather then genetic "superiority". I would recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel," for the most intelligent discussion I've ever heard on the topic.

[Must_B_Free]

32. Correction

"The problem is the belief that europeans had it "harder" then anybody else and that made them more "violent" or "dominate"."

These thoughts are your own projection, I don't think I stated those.

Perhaps you interpreted "fight to survie" as "violent"? That was not the assertion.

[ex_jew]

20. I see racism as a manifestation of the same principle that

causes species to differentiate in nature. I know we are all the same species. But I think there must be some strong biological factor which makes those who appear to be different less appealing sexually, and I wonder if this is not an important part of evolution. If individuals of one species, who may vary only slightly from others in the same genus, did not respond very strongly to very tiny differences, new species would disappear very quickly.

Racism may be "functional" from nature's perspective, despite the suffering it has caused us as humans.

[Must_B_Free]

34. Disagree

sexual appeal is arbitrary. What is deined as sexually appealing shifts rapidly. Prehistoric times it is a womand with large hips for easy child delivery and plenty of fat stores to be able to feed those children and survive longer without food.

The Victorian image is also different than the modern one.

I think my "Dravidian root" thought above is probably a more realistic answer to my actual question. One the trend was established historically it carried forward.

[noiretextatique]

109. why were so many slaveowners slipping out to the slave quarters?

if they were so sexually repulsed?

[KT2000]

29. Read in a Bucky Fuller book

that the differences in skin color, melatonin, has to do with the fact that humans can experience lethal overdose of two nutrients derived from sunlight - vitamins A and D. Melatonin prevents over-absorbtion of A and D. Where the sun is closer to the earth, the people who live there, have greater amounts of melatonin.

There are very few sources for these vitamins but one is whale blubber.

The human body has evolved beautifully.

The human mind on the other hand comes up with all kinds of schemes for power and dominance, of which racism is one.

[Must_B_Free]

35. Thanks for correcting that detail

"Melatonin" instead of "melanin"

"The human mind on the other hand comes up with all kinds of schemes for power and dominance, of which racism is one."

But why is it dominantly light skins oppressing darker skins?

[H2O Man]

43. dang! you just

up and stopped! Throw out a couple silly "threories", call people a few names, toss in a couple insults, learn the difference between "melatonin" and "melanin", and then just disappear on us! Maybe that's a sign of being young, little brother; it was nice talking to ya!

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

45. Not always

In southern africa (Botswana and South Africa) the indigenous !Kung (kalahari bush people) are light brown ("putty color" according to early, racist white missionaries), and until recently were dominated by the (black) Bantu peoples, who drove them from more habitable areas into the Kalahari desert. Apparently even in Bantu myth, the !Kung were a type of animal, rather than people created by their god. I say this not to denigrate black people, but as an example of skin colour working the other way.

Also, the Ainu people of Hokkaido in Japan are white (related to Caucasians - how on earth they ended up in Japan is anyones guess). They were considered barbarians by the technologicly advanced Japanese and now have all the problems of poverty and alcoholism of defeated peoples everywhere since they were finally defeated in the eighteenth century.

Two exceptions don't disprove your observation, but I think the colour/dominance pattern is more an accident of geography and history than anything else.

[tobius]

50. the light skinned / dark skinned theory is intriguing, Spike Lee

addressed it in the African American community here in the US with his movie "School Daze". He portrayed the split of lighter skinned students from darker skinned on an all Black campus.

[noiretextatique]

105. the history that led up to that movie

and the phenomenon it examines don't exist in a vacuum. like the fact that lighter-skinned blacks had (and have) certain privileges (pereived or real) in america's racial caste system. at least in south africa they were more honest about it. just pointing out...this schism doesn't exist in a vacuum. it's connected to the value placed on being white, or damn near white, outside the african-american community too.

[Must_B_Free]

51. This is the type of thoughtful response that I was hoping for

I appreciate you pointing out examples of the obverse. I knew they must be out there, but I didn't know any off hand.

I think in general skin color must be functional for stratification, because it's so readily available and easily identifiable mark. Easier to utilize than eye color, or freckles for example.

I read that in India, the caste was implemented based on degree of darkness - and we're talking abut a high count of strata, like above 7 and maybe 12 or 13. Does someone know?

So I think that the origination seized upon this arbitrary feature and from the profound impact of this ancient culture on the rest of the world, the meme might have carried on.

Also interesting is the branch where we get into forms of oppression or slavery. By some standards weren't immigrants treated like slaves? Irish, for example? I suspect they weren't hunted down and shackled like Kunta Kinte in Roots, but 'what is slavery?' is an interesting question.

I just saw a show about how in Roswell King here in Georgia had mills where he offered housing and paid workers in credit at the company store. I also read Sinclairs 'The Jungle.' I consider this sort of corporate bondage to be a form of slavery.

[KT2000]

52. Sorry about that

mistake. Of course I meant to say melanin.

[Must_B_Free]

55. you got me confused, but I guess it is melanin

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I thought maybe I did have the wrong word.

Main Entry: mel·a·nin
Pronunciation: 'me-l&-n&n
Function: noun
: a dark brown or black animal or plant pigment


Main Entry: mel·a·to·nin
Pronunciation: "me-l&-'tO-n&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek melas black + -tonin (as in serotonin)
: a vertebrate hormone derived from serotonin and secreted by the pineal gland especially in response to darkness

[JohnOneillsMemory]

70. see my post#67-visual identification of -'friend-or-foe' in evolution.n/t

[wickerwoman]

56. It's more about classism than competition.

I think one of the most probably explanations for lighter-skin racism is the fact that darker skin is (in all races) generally a sign of manual labor. Asian, Hispanic and African people who work outside in sun all get darker skin as a result. So it's really a form of classism laid over racism. If you are rich, you never have to go outside- you can keep your lighter skin.

I know mothers who have told their children to stop playing outside so they don't turn dark like construction works or farmers.

[mrgorth]

58. While your theory is not entirely without merit

it is dangerously close to the theory white supremecist groups put forth as to why whites are superior to other races, in their eyes. The actual reasons are much more basic, tribalism, power. If you can paint any group to be somehow less human than your group you can get members of your group to perform acts on that group that would be otherwise unthinkable. Case in point, north of Ireland, same race, same God, same bigotry.

[Character Assassin]

74. Your theory is flawed, based on assumptions that are invalid

This may have led to a more warlike nature becuase these people are constantly fighting the environment and their fellow man for limited resources.

The peoples of Africa have a historical record of being just as warlike as those of their northern neighbors. Both gave rise to empires, and empires are built on the backs of the subjugated.

So this nature and world approach is built in to these people through culture and thus you have the vikings setting out from way up north to pillage and steal from lower regions. They also pick up slaves and use them to help ensure more work power and thus, survival.

The history of the Arab world negates your above statement.

[LeahMira]

80. Guns and Steel?

There's a book out with a title that's something like that. I'm sure I'll remember the exact title and author sometime in the middle of the night tonight, but it attempts to explain why Europeans developed differently from other areas of the world. Maybe someone else can remember and give you more specifics.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

85. 'Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond.

The author examines 15,000 years of human history to see why some cultures exterminated or dominated others.

In a nutshell,
1)East/west axis of spread of the species across Africa and Eurasia>>
2)Many suitable wild species (especially horses)+
Many domesticated plant and animal species>> + epidemic diseases
3)Food surpluses and food storage>>
4)Large, dense, sedentary, stratified societies>>
5)Technology>> + political organization,writing
6)Guns, steel swords
oceangoing ships

I culled the above from a chart on page 87 showing:

"Schematic overview of the chains of causation leading up to proximate factors (such as guns, horses, and diseases) enabling some peoples to conquer other peoples, from ultimate factors (such as the orientation of continental axes). For example, diverse epidemic diseases of humans evolved in areas with many wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication, partly because the resulting crops and livestock helped feed dense societies in which epidemics could maintain themselves, and partly because the diseases evolved from germs of the domestic animals themselves."

[Logansquare]

96. I *highly* recommend this book

Diamond says, if I remember correctly, that the idea for his book came when he was working in New Guinea on another project. An intelligent and ambitious tribal man asked him "Why do the white men have all the 'cargo'?" i.e., why had Europeans accumulated so much wealth and power, when they weren't any smarter or stronger than other peoples.

[sweetheart]

90. My theory on the superior race

Some cows have spots, and have dark hair... so what.

Its called genetic diversity. The human consciousness is ubiquitous
across this genetic pool. No consciousness can be typecast on its
body or birth. Even culture is an imprint on the original
consciousness, the awakening that you identify yourself <your name>.
That is, outside of race, culture, language, sex and rellgion.

This universal "I" : The unity of all 6 billion people on earth :
the sacred soul of the earth : God : Nirvana : Allah : Jehova : the
OLD GOD and the NEW GOD, No god at all, and the universal gift of
language... this essential unity of life. Our surrender of our
purile identification with body nothing left of soul.

[noiretextatique]

106. as i'm found of saying....diversity just IS

i'm fond of flora, so i like to use them as examples. the rose doesn't "resent" or "oppress" the daffodil...the sunflower doesn't "hate" the iris. the tulip doesn't claim dominance over the daisy. diversity just IS...it's not a thing to "tolerate" or "accept"...it is just the natural order of things.

[boobooday]

101. Biologically, there is no such thing as race

There are no "genetic markers" for race.

So, there are no races, just different shades of people. :-) This of course hasn't stopped people from insisting that there is such a thing.

It seems like when people want to have/maintain power and wealth, they use any excuse (skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation) to oppress those who are "different." It directs the energies of the masses away from you, and provides a nice pool of slaves.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[rocktop15]

104. In the SE, racial prejudice still exists in massive amounts

I used to go to a private, church based, WASP high school in a rather large black section of town. This school was located behind a neighborhood. That part of town up until the early 70's was all whites. Two black families moved in, and all the white folks got out. That's silly old biases that have yet to go away. MLK's dream speech still has some kinks to work out.

There's a great deal of people who think that if a black was president then he would enslave whites. I don't believe that but hear it on a weekly basis in southeast Tennessee. These are informed middle class families as well.