History

 

            Racism has an interesting history.  Most people take it for granted that humans have always been racists.  When I tell someone that racism has only been around for a few hundred years, they usually give me a funny look.

            In fact, racism exists due to colonial expansion that began 500 years ago.

            Prior to 1492 large scale contact between geographically distant groups of humans did not occur on a routine basis.  When Europeans started exploring the world to their west they encountered natives who had ancestors that migrated from Eastern Asia.  When they went south they encountered West Africans.

            Since Native Americans and West Africans appeared physically different and had different cultures, Europeans did not mix easily with them.  They rationalized that these "primitive" peoples were somehow inferior but this thinking was not based on any real evidence of inferiority.

            Because they did not have the necessary information to understand or interpret the differences they did what humans do.  They used bias to categorize these peoples and to assign meaning to their differences.  In thinking about it they simply "went with their gut."

            Obviously, they were wrong.

            The new people they encountered were not significantly different genetically but, oh, they seeeeeeemed so different.

            In reality, the differences were simple and superficial.  The differences were due to adaptation to varying geographical locations.  Humans had not been separated long enough to have acquired complex differences.  Also, and this is a key point, these differences were actually the result of gradual change from one geographic area to another.  To Columbus these differences appeared as though they were distinct.

            When humans look at the world and use bias to interpret it they don't see shades of grey.  They see clearly demarcated and distinct categories. 

            The problem was that improved transportation allowed them to jump across geography and land in a new place.  If they had slowly walked to the new place they would have witnessed a gradual change in physical characteristics but because they jumped they saw what appeared to be distinct differences.

            It would be like looking at a complete color chart that included varying shades of color but only seeing three colors because you only looked in three spots.

            Do you think that there are only three colors in the world?  How about five?  Perhaps, there are 13?

            There was actually a guy who circumnavigated the globe slowly and gradually in 1871.  He made this observation, "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, ..."

            This is an excerpt from a little book he wrote called The Descent of Man.  Maybe you have heard of him.  His name was Charles Darwin.    

            To make matters worse, colors are a superficial characteristic.  For example, if you saw two horses in a corral and one was black and the other chesnut you would not assume that these were different races of horse.  If you were told that both of the horses in this corral were Morgans, you would have no difficulty believing that.

            Occasionally, in the old world, an individual from a distant location would show up.  This human would appear physically different.  Perhaps, a man from Tanzania would make it to ancient Rome.

            What do you think the Romans would say about this man?

            Interestingly, this man would be evaluated and people would form biased opinions but his blackness would not be a factor.  If he spoke Tanzanian and wore African clothes, then he would be treated as a foreigner.  If he spoke Latin and wore a tunic, he would be accepted as a countryman.  What people would be more interested to know is whether he was a peasant, a merchant, or a nobleman.

            If he was Tanzanian royalty, then he would be accepted as such and he would likely have counsel with Caesar.  He would be considered as an interesting person from a far away land.    

            Make no mistake, humans have always had bias.  It's just that the bias was traditionally due to factors other than skin color.  The old word or words from the Greek or Latin that are the derivation of the word race were used to mean another group of humans but not in the same sense as we use them today.  Some of these derivations include razza (French), raza (Spanish), rosh (Hebrew), and ra (Arabic).  The Athenians might have described the Spartans as being a raz or razza but they were simply saying that the Spartans were "them" and not "us."  The differences between us and them had to do with language, dress, customs, leadership, geography, etc.

            Another major motivating factor for racism was economic.  When Europeans arrived in distant lands they were usually interested in acquiring wealth.  They wanted to find gold, jewels, corn, potatoes, tobacco and chocolate.  Anything they could sell and trade and use to make money.  They did not initially bring any slaves with them and they needed help to grow or extract these goods.  So, they made up that these were inferior people so they could conquer them and be cruel to them and exploit them for personal gain.

            "Hey, they look different so they must not be as human as we are."

            They are like animals.  We can steal from them.  We can enslave them.  We can profit from their natural resources and from their labor.

            A very convenient factor that aided the colonial cause was infectious disease.  The Asians that migrated to the Western hemisphere near the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago, never domesticated animals.  Therefore, the huge number of infectious diseases that resulted from domesticating animals did not exist in the Western hemisphere.

            They invented agriculture, similar to people in the Eastern hemisphere, but they had no cows, horses or chickens.  When they first arrived in the Americas they either killed and ate all the animals that would have made good domesticated food sources or no such animals were there to start with.

            The vast majority of the infectious diseases that we are so familiar with have come into the world due to livestock.  When we started raising cows and chickens for human consumption it was a messy process.  New bacteria and new viruses started to infect everyone.  New immune defenses were needed.  Unfortunately, in order to increase the genetic complexity of our immune systems a lot of us had to die.  I guess you could say that the Europeans went through it and now it was the Natives in the New World who would have to endure it.

            As a matter of fact, I am taking my boys to the pediatrician on Monday to have them immunized to the swine flu.  Apparently, some domesticated pigs in Mexico invented a new virus.

            When Cortez arrived with a handful of Spaniards his men had complex immune systems that could protect them from many infectious diseases.  The Incas and the Aztecs did not.

            The natives succumbed to this most heinous of biological weapons and within 300 years 90% of the natives of the Western hemisphere were dead and gone. This allowed a relatively small number of Europeans to move in and take over cities and communities that were decimated due to disease.

            When a group of Humans is living in an environment in which there is little or no infectious disease, their immune systems actually evolve to be less genetically complex.  This is so that we don't suffer from autoimmune conditions which are the result of overly active immune systems.  In fact, the natives of the Western hemisphere had zero autoimmune disease before the arrival of the Europeans.

            I am going to the Tanning booth on a daily basis to get rid of all these damn psoriasis spots that cover my body.  The only reason I have this autoimmune condition is that my immune system is overly active.  My immune system is overly active due to viruses created in livestock.  I do love a good hamburger, so I guess it's worth it.

            Of course, Cortez and his horney comrades forgot to bring any girls with them when they set out to conquer the world … big mistake.  So, they started screwing the native women.  This was actually the kindest thing they could have done.  They produced offspring that had the genes to produce immune systems that could fight infectious disease.

            Today, there are no truly native Americans.  When we look at the entire genome of a seemingly Native American we usually find a gene or two that was donated by a European or by an African.  Nevertheless, Native Americans still have generally weaker immune systems and less autoimmune illness.

            I used to think that the reason there are so few Native Americans these days is because we killed them with guns.  In fact, we killed them with cows and chickens and we saved them with sex.

            In case your little conniving brain is trying to come up with the idea that some deity actually created this biological advantage and that Europeans really are the best people, consider this: "Why were Europeans unable to conquer Africa in the same way that they conquered the Americas?"

            When Europeans went to Africa they had no immune advantage.  In fact, they were at a significant disadvantage.  Since Africans had domesticated livestock, they were ready for our biological onslaught.

            Also, the Africans had more genetic diversity since they are the population that the Europeans migrated from.  Therefore, the African immune system was stronger than the European immune system, especially for infectious diseases that are indigenous to Africa.  The European colonizers were repeatedly devastated by disease and were unable to wipe out the Africans like they had wiped out the Native Americans.

            Today, Mexicans and Cubans are really Spaniards and West Africans but Tanzanians are still Tanzanians.

            So, who is laughing now? 

•

            When talking about racism I like to include homosexuality.  It seems to me that prejudice and bias is prejudice and bias no matter who it is towards.

            The funny thing about homosexuality is that it is not even a characteristic.  It is a behavior.  Not only that but it is a behavior that belongs in a very large category of behaviors.

            Have you ever masturbated?  Oh, then you are a masturbator.

            Have you ever sucked a dick?  Oh, then you are a dick sucker.

            Have you ever had anal sex?  Oh, then you are a butt fucker.

            Have you ever sucked a toe?  Oh, then you are a toe sucker.

            Our species is a bit unique in that we mate year round.  Most species only mate when the female is in heat.  Unless, of course, Fido thinks the leg of the coffee table is in heat. 

            For us, the sex instinct is very strong and the vast majority of sexual encounters are not for the purpose of reproduction.

            Therefore, we do a large number of sexual behaviors that are not related to having children.  These behaviors used to be defined as behaviors and not as indentifying traits.  Any individual might do a variety of these behaviors but would not be identified as being that behavior.

            Some of these behaviors include; abasiophilia, acrotomophilia, agalmatophilia, algolagnia, andromimetophilia, apotemnophilia, asphyxiophilia, autagonistophilia, autassassinophilia, autoandrophilia, autoerotic asphixiation, autogynephilia, autopedophilia, biastophilia, chremastistophilia, chronophilia, coprophilia, dacryphilia, dendrophilia, dippoldism, emetophilia, erotic asphyxiation, erotophonophilia, exhibitionism, formicophilia, frotteurism, gerontophilia, gynandromorphophilia, hebephilia, homeovestism, hybristophilia, infantophilia, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, lactaphilia, liquidophilia, macrophilia, mammaphilia, masochism, menophilia, morphophilia, mucophilia, mysophilia, narratophilia, nasophilia, necrophilia, olfactophilia, paraphilic infantilism, partialism, pedophilia, peodeiktophilia, pedovestism, pictophilia, prophilia, raptophilia, sadism, salirophilia, scoptophilia, sexual fetishism, somnophilia, sthenolagnia, stigmatophilia, symphorophilia, transvestic fetishism, transvestophilia, trichophilia, troilism, urolagnia, vampirism, vorarephilia, voyeurism, zoophilia, and zoosadism.

            Recently, cultures that are monotheistic have begun identifying people based on their preference for such behaviors.  You are no longer a person who does homosexual behavior but you are, in fact, a homosexual.

            Human nature dictates that we like to maintain our identity even if it is not a positive identity.  If someone steals something and gets caught it could be said that he is a person who stole something.  Alternatively, you could call him a thief.  If you call him a thief, he will want to maintain that identity and will likely steal again.

            I assume that the reason we started identifying people as homosexuals was to reduce this behavior that we believed to be so heinous.  However, once an individual is labeled as a homosexual his nature dictates that he will want to behave in a way that maintains that identity.

            Most people now think that our species is neatly divided into two groups.  There are heterosexuals and there are homosexuals.  In fact, just like the gradual changes in skin color that creep across the planet sexual behavior comes in many shades of grey.  Just look at the list above.

            When you give questionnaires about sexual behavior to people, homosexuals are much more homogeneous in their responses.  The heterosexuals do a much wider assortment of unusual stuff than do the homosexuals.  And almost everyone does multiple behaviors.  The list above is done by all humans everywhere.  Blacks, whites, reds, and browns all do exhibitionism, formicophilia, and frotteurism.  And I don't even know what formicophilia is.  But I bet I do it.

            The real lesson that we should learn from the history of racism, or biasism, is that we are all alike.  We are all the same animal.  We all think the same way.  We all behave the same way.

 

Statistics

Table of Contents