Which race started racism? Where did it come from?

[AKIP]

I think using "Mitochrondrinal DNA research", we could come to a conclusion that the first humans were " Mid Brown" in color. Some religious may say " Adam and Eve" then were Black, and the research backs that up because from two mid brown people, we can get the whole array of color that we have on earth. Not from two Whites or two Dark skinned Blacks. Yet that may not be an exact science . But somewhere along the lines, as humans grew and evolved into our races , somebody got racist! I doubt that racism was in our genetic make up. Or was it?

Think about it, racism on a cellular level; lying dormant like a great Trojan horse. We must then assume that all other emotional content , straight or twisted, also lays deep within us. And each individual manifest it however they do. If this be the case, then emotional content in humans derived from Blacks first.

If racism has a molecular probe , like a fingerprint, we than can trace it. We could then ask Is emotion hereditary?

Was racism a DNA virus?

I don't know how you think you can go from mid brown to light or white......and not go from dark to mid brown. To be honest, I do not know. However, it seems logical that if mid melanin people can produce low melanin people, as a mutation, then high melanin people (dark skinned blacks) can produce mid melanin. Where is seems less likely is going from low to high. That having been said, scientist have said that the San people of Southern Africa are probably what the earliest humans looked like in complexion, and they are mid brown.

We need to be clear that racism is not a human trait, but rather, the resultant of another human trait manifested through race. In many places tribalism is the issue, born from that trait. In other words, the trait or tendency to look down upon other groups and think your group is superior is a human tendency. I mean we have a thing with Southerners vs Northerners. For the longest Southerners were considered inferior to Northerners in the US. Southerners were considered stupid and backwards.

Here is the thing though. When this phenomenon manifest in regards to race it becomes more efficient and hence more effective. I mean, why do apposing sports teams wear different color uniforms? Just imagine a football game where both teams had the exact same uniform and helmets. You are the quarterback and your drop back to throw a pass and you are not 100% sure whether or not you are throwing the ball to the opponent. It would be hard to score points against your opponent and your opponent score points against you when you cannot tell for sure who is on your side.

People often talk about other examples of oppressed people and how they have pulled themselves up in comparison to blacks. However, there is no oppression as effective as racial oppression because racial oppression comes with colored uniforms that makes the in and out groups always identifiable. Intra-racial oppression is far less effective than inter-racial oppression, in the long term, because you cannot be sure who the out group is a lot of times, unless you can isolate them geographically. However, once you start socially mixing, it becomes hard to tell who is who without accents, surnames or some other characteristics.

There used to be a phenomenon in the black culture known as "passing", back in the day. Passing meant "passing for white". People who could pass were generally much more successful that people who obviously could not pass for white. Society threw the ball of favoritism to them, metaphorically speaking, only because society thought they were on the same white team.

The trait that manifest into racism is a human trait, although racism is not a human trait. Racism is just the form the trait takes in its application. Blacks have the underlying trait as much as whites. Who started is not germane and is the wrong question. The question right now is who is benefiting from it and who is being hurt by it, the most.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Behavior Today Is a Clue to Prehistory

Africans turned black after they were pushed back into the jungle for following the Whites out of it and raiding them. Producing nothing of their own, they did nothing but rob and kill those who did.

I could spend several thousand words showing you to the evidence on this subject, compiled by African and European scholars alike.

But if you are truly interested in this material then you can begin explaining how authors like Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, Walter Rodney and Ivan Van Sertima are wrong and for you whose racism will most likely lead you to dismiss black scholars and do that "We Wuz Kangs" reply you can explain the writings of Basil Davidson: are wrong too. Basil Davidson one of the most respected Africa scholars in modern history, who is both white and British.

Academentia

Those in the Establishment, especially their scribbling sadomasochistic flunkies in the university, hate and fear all other White people. They have to shame and humiliate us with historical lies in order to put us in our place. Time can not march on if it follows such leaders.

 

[Mickiel]

Behavior Today Is a Clue to Prehistory

Africans turned black after they were pushed back into the jungle for following the Whites out of it and raiding them. Producing nothing of their own, they did nothing but rob and kill those who did.

I could spend several thousand words showing you to the evidence on this subject, compiled by African and European scholars alike.

But if you are truly interested in this material then you can begin explaining how authors like Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, Walter Rodney and Ivan Van Sertima are wrong and for you whose racism will most likely lead you to dismiss black scholars and do that "We Wuz Kangs" reply you can explain the writings of Basil Davidson: are wrong too. Basil Davidson one of the most respected Africa scholars in modern history, who is both white and British.

Academentia

Those in the Establishment, especially their scribbling sadomasochistic flunkies in the university, hate and fear all other White people. They have to shame and humiliate us with historical lies in order to put us in our place. Time can not march on if it follows such leaders.

Racism was not born of fear, it was born of difference; the children of Adam were different from each other.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with.
it.

Released From the Prison of All Against All

Slavery saved Blacks from their own savagery.

 

[Mickiel]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with.
it.

Released From the Prison of All Against All

Slavery saved Blacks from their own savagery.

Courage saved American Blacks from the savagery of Whites.

 

[TNHarley]

What makes you think the atlantic slave trade was race based and no others were? How many Nations sold their inhabitants for fruit, pogo?
Racism is older than the 16th century.
Maybe you would make more sense if your "history" didnt read like a 9th grade dropout

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

 

[Unkotare]

What makes you think the atlantic slave trade was race based and no others were? How many Nations sold their inhabitants for fruit, pogo?
Racism is older than the 16th century.
Maybe you would make more sense if your "history" didnt read like a 9th grade dropout

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

*ahem*

 

[Pogo]

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

So after all this all you have is speculation about "probablies" and "I doubts". You lose.

 

[TNHarley]

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

So after all this all you have is speculation about "probablies" and "I doubts". You lose.

so weak pogo!

 

[Pogo]

I think using "Mitochrondrinal DNA research", we could come to a conclusion that the first humans were " Mid Brown" in color. Some religious may say " Adam and Eve" then were Black, and the research backs that up because from two mid brown people, we can get the whole array of color that we have on earth. Not from two Whites or two Dark skinned Blacks. Yet that may not be an exact science . But somewhere along the lines, as humans grew and evolved into our races , somebody got racist! I doubt that racism was in our genetic make up. Or was it?

Think about it, racism on a cellular level; lying dormant like a great Trojan horse. We must then assume that all other emotional content , straight or twisted, also lays deep within us. And each individual manifest it however they do. If this be the case, then emotional content in humans derived from Blacks first.

If racism has a molecular probe , like a fingerprint, we than can trace it. We could then ask Is emotion hereditary?

Was racism a DNA virus?

I don't know how you think you can go from mid brown to light or white......and not go from dark to mid brown. To be honest, I do not know. However, it seems logical that if mid melanin people can produce low melanin people, as a mutation, then high melanin people (dark skinned blacks) can produce mid melanin. Where is seems less likely is going from low to high. That having been said, scientist have said that the San people of Southern Africa are probably what the earliest humans looked like in complexion, and they are mid brown.

We need to be clear that racism is not a human trait, but rather, the resultant of another human trait manifested through race. In many places tribalism is the issue, born from that trait. In other words, the trait or tendency to look down upon other groups and think your group is superior is a human tendency. I mean we have a thing with Southerners vs Northerners. For the longest Southerners were considered inferior to Northerners in the US. Southerners were considered stupid and backwards.

Here is the thing though. When this phenomenon manifest in regards to race it becomes more efficient and hence more effective. I mean, why do apposing sports teams wear different color uniforms? Just imagine a football game where both teams had the exact same uniform and helmets. You are the quarterback and your drop back to throw a pass and you are not 100% sure whether or not you are throwing the ball to the opponent. It would be hard to score points against your opponent and your opponent score points against you when you cannot tell for sure who is on your side.

People often talk about other examples of oppressed people and how they have pulled themselves up in comparison to blacks. However, there is no oppression as effective as racial oppression because racial oppression comes with colored uniforms that makes the in and out groups always identifiable. Intra-racial oppression is far less effective than inter-racial oppression, in the long term, because you cannot be sure who the out group is a lot of times, unless you can isolate them geographically. However, once you start socially mixing, it becomes hard to tell who is who without accents, surnames or some other characteristics.

There used to be a phenomenon in the black culture known as "passing", back in the day. Passing meant "passing for white". People who could pass were generally much more successful that people who obviously could not pass for white. Society threw the ball of favoritism to them, metaphorically speaking, only because society thought they were on the same white team.

The trait that manifest into racism is a human trait, although racism is not a human trait. Racism is just the form the trait takes in its application. Blacks have the underlying trait as much as whites. Who started is not germane and is the wrong question. The question right now is who is benefiting from it and who is being hurt by it, the most.

Actually it is very much germane. Your whole treatise, as do several others in this thread, starts from the ass-umed premise that racism is genetically inevitable, rather than artificially contrived.

Y'all need to prove that premise is valid before you run down the field with it.

 

[Pogo]

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

So after all this all you have is speculation about "probablies" and "I doubts". You lose.

so weak pogo!

I see that. Maybe try nutritional supplements.

 

[TNHarley]

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

So after all this all you have is speculation about "probablies" and "I doubts". You lose.

so weak pogo!

I see that. Maybe try nutritional supplements.

Lol at least you can make up for it being funny!

 

[AKIP]

I think using "Mitochrondrinal DNA research", we could come to a conclusion that the first humans were " Mid Brown" in color. Some religious may say " Adam and Eve" then were Black, and the research backs that up because from two mid brown people, we can get the whole array of color that we have on earth. Not from two Whites or two Dark skinned Blacks. Yet that may not be an exact science . But somewhere along the lines, as humans grew and evolved into our races , somebody got racist! I doubt that racism was in our genetic make up. Or was it?

Think about it, racism on a cellular level; lying dormant like a great Trojan horse. We must then assume that all other emotional content , straight or twisted, also lays deep within us. And each individual manifest it however they do. If this be the case, then emotional content in humans derived from Blacks first.

If racism has a molecular probe , like a fingerprint, we than can trace it. We could then ask Is emotion hereditary?

Was racism a DNA virus?

I don't know how you think you can go from mid brown to light or white......and not go from dark to mid brown. To be honest, I do not know. However, it seems logical that if mid melanin people can produce low melanin people, as a mutation, then high melanin people (dark skinned blacks) can produce mid melanin. Where is seems less likely is going from low to high. That having been said, scientist have said that the San people of Southern Africa are probably what the earliest humans looked like in complexion, and they are mid brown.

We need to be clear that racism is not a human trait, but rather, the resultant of another human trait manifested through race. In many places tribalism is the issue, born from that trait. In other words, the trait or tendency to look down upon other groups and think your group is superior is a human tendency. I mean we have a thing with Southerners vs Northerners. For the longest Southerners were considered inferior to Northerners in the US. Southerners were considered stupid and backwards.

Here is the thing though. When this phenomenon manifest in regards to race it becomes more efficient and hence more effective. I mean, why do apposing sports teams wear different color uniforms? Just imagine a football game where both teams had the exact same uniform and helmets. You are the quarterback and your drop back to throw a pass and you are not 100% sure whether or not you are throwing the ball to the opponent. It would be hard to score points against your opponent and your opponent score points against you when you cannot tell for sure who is on your side.

People often talk about other examples of oppressed people and how they have pulled themselves up in comparison to blacks. However, there is no oppression as effective as racial oppression because racial oppression comes with colored uniforms that makes the in and out groups always identifiable. Intra-racial oppression is far less effective than inter-racial oppression, in the long term, because you cannot be sure who the out group is a lot of times, unless you can isolate them geographically. However, once you start socially mixing, it becomes hard to tell who is who without accents, surnames or some other characteristics.

There used to be a phenomenon in the black culture known as "passing", back in the day. Passing meant "passing for white". People who could pass were generally much more successful that people who obviously could not pass for white. Society threw the ball of favoritism to them, metaphorically speaking, only because society thought they were on the same white team.

The trait that manifest into racism is a human trait, although racism is not a human trait. Racism is just the form the trait takes in its application. Blacks have the underlying trait as much as whites. Who started is not germane and is the wrong question. The question right now is who is benefiting from it and who is being hurt by it, the most.

Actually it is very much germane. Your whole treatise, as do several others in this thread, starts from the ass-umed premise that racism is genetically inevitable, rather than artificially contrived.

Y'all need to prove that premise is valid before you run down the field with it.

Well....if "race" is an artificially contrived construct, and it is, then it stands to reason that "racism" is an artificially contrived construct. That said, humans have a "pack trait" where we like to run in groups and we have a tendency to compete for resources in our packs or oppress packs to lift our own pack, etc, ect. One manifestation of the pack mentality is racism.

 

[Pogo]

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

The Romans only used slaves from certain areas because of their race based stereotypes. War, birth, piracy and conquest of other Nations is where they got their slaves. If they were of a certain race, they probably just killed them. I doubt they let them go free. Maybe they did, though.. Im nto sure about that. I guess they could have tried to sell those too but i would imagine only certain people would buy certain nationalities.
This being "race based" as the Atlantic trade was is debatable. However, considering you dont know history beyond a couple hundred years, i doubt you would be the one to give me that argument.

So after all this all you have is speculation about "probablies" and "I doubts". You lose.

so weak pogo!

I see that. Maybe try nutritional supplements.

Lol at least you can make up for it being funny!

Hey, if you're gonna feed me straight-man lines ----- I'm gonna snort 'em.

 

[Pogo]

I think using "Mitochrondrinal DNA research", we could come to a conclusion that the first humans were " Mid Brown" in color. Some religious may say " Adam and Eve" then were Black, and the research backs that up because from two mid brown people, we can get the whole array of color that we have on earth. Not from two Whites or two Dark skinned Blacks. Yet that may not be an exact science . But somewhere along the lines, as humans grew and evolved into our races , somebody got racist! I doubt that racism was in our genetic make up. Or was it?

Think about it, racism on a cellular level; lying dormant like a great Trojan horse. We must then assume that all other emotional content , straight or twisted, also lays deep within us. And each individual manifest it however they do. If this be the case, then emotional content in humans derived from Blacks first.

If racism has a molecular probe , like a fingerprint, we than can trace it. We could then ask Is emotion hereditary?

Was racism a DNA virus?

I don't know how you think you can go from mid brown to light or white......and not go from dark to mid brown. To be honest, I do not know. However, it seems logical that if mid melanin people can produce low melanin people, as a mutation, then high melanin people (dark skinned blacks) can produce mid melanin. Where is seems less likely is going from low to high. That having been said, scientist have said that the San people of Southern Africa are probably what the earliest humans looked like in complexion, and they are mid brown.

We need to be clear that racism is not a human trait, but rather, the resultant of another human trait manifested through race. In many places tribalism is the issue, born from that trait. In other words, the trait or tendency to look down upon other groups and think your group is superior is a human tendency. I mean we have a thing with Southerners vs Northerners. For the longest Southerners were considered inferior to Northerners in the US. Southerners were considered stupid and backwards.

Here is the thing though. When this phenomenon manifest in regards to race it becomes more efficient and hence more effective. I mean, why do apposing sports teams wear different color uniforms? Just imagine a football game where both teams had the exact same uniform and helmets. You are the quarterback and your drop back to throw a pass and you are not 100% sure whether or not you are throwing the ball to the opponent. It would be hard to score points against your opponent and your opponent score points against you when you cannot tell for sure who is on your side.

People often talk about other examples of oppressed people and how they have pulled themselves up in comparison to blacks. However, there is no oppression as effective as racial oppression because racial oppression comes with colored uniforms that makes the in and out groups always identifiable. Intra-racial oppression is far less effective than inter-racial oppression, in the long term, because you cannot be sure who the out group is a lot of times, unless you can isolate them geographically. However, once you start socially mixing, it becomes hard to tell who is who without accents, surnames or some other characteristics.

There used to be a phenomenon in the black culture known as "passing", back in the day. Passing meant "passing for white". People who could pass were generally much more successful that people who obviously could not pass for white. Society threw the ball of favoritism to them, metaphorically speaking, only because society thought they were on the same white team.

The trait that manifest into racism is a human trait, although racism is not a human trait. Racism is just the form the trait takes in its application. Blacks have the underlying trait as much as whites. Who started is not germane and is the wrong question. The question right now is who is benefiting from it and who is being hurt by it, the most.

Actually it is very much germane. Your whole treatise, as do several others in this thread, starts from the ass-umed premise that racism is genetically inevitable, rather than artificially contrived.

Y'all need to prove that premise is valid before you run down the field with it.

Well....if "race" is an artificially contrived construct, and it is, then it stands to reason that "racism" is an artificially contrived construct. That said, humans have a "pack trait" where we like to run in groups and we have a tendency to compete for resources in our packs or oppress packs to lift our own pack, etc, ect. One manifestation of the pack mentality is racism.

I'm not saying race is artificially constructed. I'm saying racism is. That is, it has to be learned.

We are a social animal that exists in communities. But if that community already includes variations in race, then those variants are already in "our own pack".

The "genetically inevitable" argument ass-sumes that those racial variants, within the same community, will naturally separate, on their own, on that basis, without being told to. I don't see anybody proving that.

If that were true, you couldn't assemble, for example, a sports team. It would have to be all-white teams and all-black teams and all-yellow teams. And there was a time when those existed, but it was because of a culture of racism that was learned and transmitted. So those uniracial teams existed only to perpetuate that mythology.

 

[Taz]

Everything was cool until the black folks started complaining, which led to their invention of racism as a bad thing.

 

[AKIP]

I think using "Mitochrondrinal DNA research", we could come to a conclusion that the first humans were " Mid Brown" in color. Some religious may say " Adam and Eve" then were Black, and the research backs that up because from two mid brown people, we can get the whole array of color that we have on earth. Not from two Whites or two Dark skinned Blacks. Yet that may not be an exact science . But somewhere along the lines, as humans grew and evolved into our races , somebody got racist! I doubt that racism was in our genetic make up. Or was it?

Think about it, racism on a cellular level; lying dormant like a great Trojan horse. We must then assume that all other emotional content , straight or twisted, also lays deep within us. And each individual manifest it however they do. If this be the case, then emotional content in humans derived from Blacks first.

If racism has a molecular probe , like a fingerprint, we than can trace it. We could then ask Is emotion hereditary?

Was racism a DNA virus?

I don't know how you think you can go from mid brown to light or white......and not go from dark to mid brown. To be honest, I do not know. However, it seems logical that if mid melanin people can produce low melanin people, as a mutation, then high melanin people (dark skinned blacks) can produce mid melanin. Where is seems less likely is going from low to high. That having been said, scientist have said that the San people of Southern Africa are probably what the earliest humans looked like in complexion, and they are mid brown.

We need to be clear that racism is not a human trait, but rather, the resultant of another human trait manifested through race. In many places tribalism is the issue, born from that trait. In other words, the trait or tendency to look down upon other groups and think your group is superior is a human tendency. I mean we have a thing with Southerners vs Northerners. For the longest Southerners were considered inferior to Northerners in the US. Southerners were considered stupid and backwards.

Here is the thing though. When this phenomenon manifest in regards to race it becomes more efficient and hence more effective. I mean, why do apposing sports teams wear different color uniforms? Just imagine a football game where both teams had the exact same uniform and helmets. You are the quarterback and your drop back to throw a pass and you are not 100% sure whether or not you are throwing the ball to the opponent. It would be hard to score points against your opponent and your opponent score points against you when you cannot tell for sure who is on your side.

People often talk about other examples of oppressed people and how they have pulled themselves up in comparison to blacks. However, there is no oppression as effective as racial oppression because racial oppression comes with colored uniforms that makes the in and out groups always identifiable. Intra-racial oppression is far less effective than inter-racial oppression, in the long term, because you cannot be sure who the out group is a lot of times, unless you can isolate them geographically. However, once you start socially mixing, it becomes hard to tell who is who without accents, surnames or some other characteristics.

There used to be a phenomenon in the black culture known as "passing", back in the day. Passing meant "passing for white". People who could pass were generally much more successful that people who obviously could not pass for white. Society threw the ball of favoritism to them, metaphorically speaking, only because society thought they were on the same white team.

The trait that manifest into racism is a human trait, although racism is not a human trait. Racism is just the form the trait takes in its application. Blacks have the underlying trait as much as whites. Who started is not germane and is the wrong question. The question right now is who is benefiting from it and who is being hurt by it, the most.

Actually it is very much germane. Your whole treatise, as do several others in this thread, starts from the ass-umed premise that racism is genetically inevitable, rather than artificially contrived.

Y'all need to prove that premise is valid before you run down the field with it.

Well....if "race" is an artificially contrived construct, and it is, then it stands to reason that "racism" is an artificially contrived construct. That said, humans have a "pack trait" where we like to run in groups and we have a tendency to compete for resources in our packs or oppress packs to lift our own pack, etc, ect. One manifestation of the pack mentality is racism.

I'm not saying race is artificially constructed. I'm saying racism is. That is, it has to be learned.

We are a social animal that exists in communities. But if that community already includes variations in race, then those variants are already in "our own pack".

The "genetically inevitable" argument ass-sumes that those racial variants, within the same community, will naturally separate, on their own, on that basis, without being told to. I don't see anybody proving that.

If that were true, you couldn't assemble, for example, a sports team. It would have to be all-white teams and all-black teams and all-yellow teams. And there was a time when those existed, but it was because of a culture of racism that was learned and transmitted. So those uniracial teams existed only to perpetuate that mythology.

Nowhere did I state or infer genetic inevitability of racism. To say humans have a trait to kill does not mean that we will inevitably kill. Also, race is a LEARNED concept as well.

I think humans have a tendency to link things we do not understand or know, to things that we can observe that are different. You see two black people and they can run really fast, compared to the white people you know, then a persons subconscious mind might link there running fast to their color, absent any other observable difference. However, most explanation are not observable to the naked eye.

 

[Care4all]

Which race started racism? Where did it come from?


I would guess it began whenever more than one race evolved, separated in to different regions and then met again only looking different from one another....

but the root of it could have begun even earlier...when humans began traveling and sticking together as family tribes of sorts....?

 

[Taz]

Racism started when the first brutha complained about his chains being too tight.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with.
it.

Released From the Prison of All Against All

Slavery saved Blacks from their own savagery.

You might make the argument that black people born in America today are way better off than black people born in most places in Africa, but in terms of the people who were actually enslaved? Nah, even if the Africa of those times was significantly more violent than any other tribal political landscape, and I don't know that it was, I'd personally still rather take my chances as a free man braving "savagery" than live in chains in "civilization", completely at the mercy of someone who views me as a business asset.