Racial discrimination [updated! And yet again]

The seven deadly sins, and derivatives. From indexed.

I was musing, while carrying out a delicate experiment involving two or more organic and flammable compounds, about whether races serve a practical purpose. Since so many people like to believe in Creationism, albeit from different sources, I suppose it would make sense for an omnipotent intelligent being to colour-code his creations according to their properties [attributes and skills perhaps?]. Please, spare me the onslaught, I do not claim to understand the insanity of any possible higher sadistic retard intellect.

I suppose this train of thought was fuelled by a blogpost/interview transcript of someone famous and worthy enough to be interviewed, who was asked the question, “If time travel were possible, [or maybe it was if you could choose when you wnated to be born], when would you go?” and this person replied that if early 20th century was an option, then he’d choose Vienna, so as to meet most of the geniuses of this century. Einstein, Bohr, Planck etc.

Disclaimer: I firmly believe that anyone is capable of anything. “The mind makes it real”. So in this article, I’m just musing whether there might be racial inclinations or strengths and corresponding weaknesses, DESPITE that fact. Something like, anyone can train to run, from young, to participate in the Olympics. But some people are just innately born with bodies made for running, which can be honed further. But it’s not necessary that your phenotype MUST gurantee you success in that field. Savvy?

All of the following are speculations. I don’t want to have to add “Let’s assume” as a standard prefix to every other sentence. Timeline reference. Migration Map.

So, if we did ALL come from Africa, then obviously, I want to conclude that there was a reason we left. Maybe some clans/tribes evolved earlier than the rest and left? So in time, the trail must’ve been almost like a TLC chromatograph under UV light. So on the way, you have upper Africa with Egypt among others, on the way out. [So again, making the assumption that these early people travelled mostly by land, and that by that time, most of the major tectonic movements since Pangaea were done, and the world map at that time, possibly looked similar to modern maps.] Just outside Egypt, we have the Gulf, the Arab nations, the Persian region and beyond that India and South East Asia and Australia and Polynesia from there. Splinter groups [large splinter groups, also break off and move up into present-day Kazakhstan and Afghanistan and depending on exact direction end up either in Russia, Mongolia or China [and from China, Japan].

So let’s look at the demographic. You start with, let’s say, Kenyanthropus descendants, 120, 000 ago, you left behind the starting homonid population, various negroid races as you travel further up. Of course the journey doesn’t have to start as early as Kenya man. At the very exit of Africa, you leave behind Egyptians [I didn’t know Egyptian wasn’t considered a race, yet Egyptians are not classified under any race]. Once out, Arabs, Sumerians, and the ancient-Persians [the original Aryans] hung out a while. Sumerian civilisation centred in Bahrain/Mesopotamia area began in 3500 BC. In contrast Egyptian civilisation only started in 3100 BC. I don’t understand why it would take such a long time to go from reaching that region to civilisation. And more interestingly, it’s very ironic that the cradle of man’s origin was also one of the last to catch on and establish empires and civilisations. Of course, we have to take into account multiple Ice Ages. But still, the last Ice Age was 18000 years ago, but Sumerian civilization started about 5-6000 years ago. Why such a big gap?

Spreading truly only started in the Gulf, with the now-Aryans moving further east into Asia Major or north towards Europe. Dravidians were already in India, flourishing in Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in 2600 B.C, by the time the Aryans got there. So maybe the Aryans were the people who stagnated in Ancient Iran for a while before moving while a smaller group moved ahead following some easier path.
Now the more interesting group, travelled the Uighur path and eventually ended up in Mongolia/China leaving breadcrumbs in the Kazakhstan/Afghanistan area.

The only other major group [also then-Aryans] headed up after the Gulf, hitting Western Russia, Turkey, and enter Europe. Within Europe itself, more remote regions like Finland Sweden and Norway are occupied later than say Belgium, France and Italy, Greece etc. America was occupied in relatively recent times.

Don’t worry, I still have American Indians in view [though I don’t know how to incorporate them in…] Curiously, the Ancient American peoples civilisations only erupted around AD 1.

Anyway, in Europe, the Aryans slowly take up their Caucasoid roles, though initially fragmented as Bretons, Celts, Teutons, Franks, Vikings[?] classical Greeks etc. Greeks got their act together around 1100 BC.

Theoretically I believe that racial evolution might’ve been a mix of all three theories shown in the evolution of race website. They started moving cos some tribes were more advanced than others, then in the Gulf you have the second model for a short time and finally, once trade becomes very popular, THEN you have the trellis evolutionary pattern. So I totally agree that phenotype can also be affected within 2-3generations as a micro-evolution of sorts to adapt to the local clime. Which would expalin why mixed race people always seem to be more exotic, where exotic means uncommon. Because a common phenotype has been infused with uncommon traits. Yet if that person and his offspring stay in the same place for more than 2 genrations, it’s entirely possible for that family to integrate into the particular blend common in that region. Which is why no one who mentions they’re of [list more than 3 races here] blend from their maternal great grand-uncles side ever gets any credit for that. Poseurs.

Considering the Western world started with European exodus, we shall consider Europeans as sole representatives of early Western thought. It’s a fact that, on a comparative basis, Eastern schools of thought remained more mystical and conservative until recently [if not till this day]. Europe had the first major Renaissance, when certain taboos were permanently removed from their culture that still are big deals in Asian cultures. But that’s not to say “The white man is king”. Asian cultures in general were the “heart” and metabrain of the world, with numerous philosophies and most religions. They had their share of scientific innovations as well, but I would say these are more functional than theoretical. Metallurgy, [earliest] gunpowder, various textiles, the “zero”, infinity, lunar astrology were all Asian inventions with real world applications. But Europe had alchemists [the original rascals trying to convert ordinary metal into gold], most modern artistic styles [Cubism, Impressionism, Corinthian [architectural], Hellenistic [sculpture] etc etc] and most recently [earlier this century anyway], Einstein’s relativity, Newton’s calculus and some such. Get my point?

Erm, what was my point? What if, say European peoples were the ones most likely to be technologically/scientifically innovative and artistically inclined[the thinking out of the box phenomenon] [Glassmaking, Einstein, Newton, etc] yet, by the same argument, prone to redundant extraneous activities that might not have directly affected their productivity?
And the Asians were remarkable at mastering functional refinements yet “bogged down” [that is, their priorities divided] by maintaining a cohesive family unit or soietal structure by any means necessary [Buddhism, Metallurgy, gunpowder, china and Zen among other things]?
And Africans are genetically supeior in terms of raw physical strength and endurance. Etc etc.. These were just examples…and they are NOT exhaustive. That’s not the point. Do you get my point? Each “race” has a genotype that may not just affect phenotype but certain skills/instintive feel for certain fields. That would radically affect systems of human equality, with different races getting different levels of respect in different economic systems. No one system can possibly elevate every race to the same standing. The possibility of anarchy would be…shiver. What say you?

PS: Evolution Of Races.

What all this tells me is that, while race MAY be a genetic classification tool, it also causes confusion beacuse race and identity can potentially head in opposite directions. An Indian born in America might feel he has more in common with his Caucasoid peers and rightly so. Something like the Sith that you see in the Star Wars movies aren’t the true Sith race. They’re just modern peoples adopting the Sith ideology. Nature versus nurture. But to what extent does each matter? Specific percentages or are these variable as well? If so, then variables affected by what? Can you imagine, a heritability-like variable that can mathematically predict your particular type of mentality and physiology.

So while race should not be used to discriminate against anyone, it should be celebrated. Kinda like a MBTI profile. So you know who you are and what you’re inclined to be like. The rich history of your ancestry [and everyone else’s] should be available to you as a birthright. If Russell Peters is right and we’re all going to be “brown” eventually, then it is imperative that future generations don’t have to rely on archaeology to know what we were like.

I mean think about it, since the advent of Westernisation, 10 languages are dying out every year. It’s not hard to imagine local cultures are losing their unique charms [well obviously I don’t support cultures that kill female infants because they’re female, or have unfair laws based on gender or race or religion etc] but then again, who’s to say these thought processes are not a direct result of your sub-race collective subconscious?
Somehow that’s even scarier.
And that is your birthright as well. To know the monstrosities that your race has shown itself to be capable of and thus become wiser and a bit more humane.

So to what extent should racial awareness affect our lifestyles and our individual foreign affairs policies? Don’t ask me, I’m not a politician too. Personally I still feel that these are racial inclinations, not constants. As such, given the same environmental conditions, over the course of a few generations [who remain in the same economic spectrum, on nearby rungs of the corporate ladder, in the same one-the-fence position in the eyes of the law throughout the “study”], I’m willing to bet that homogeneity will be more noticeable [not least cos of interbreeding among individuals in this particular population!]
I preach Universal Brotherhood.


About this entry