Which race started racism? Where did it come from?

[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.

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.

"Genetic inevitability" is simply my handy term to describe what I described, having read it in several posts. The idea that, with all influences being equal, different races will naturally repel each other. And I'm simply saying, before you run with that premise --- you have to prove it exists as a real thing.

And no, race is not a "learned concept". It's a visible manifestation, as is hair or eye color. What any of them mean, if they mean anything, is a whole 'nother question --- and one that, again, if it exists needs to be indoctrinated, because it won't occur naturally.

​

 

[Mickiel]

Anything can be learned ; its the unlearning that's hard.

 

[abu afak]

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?.... 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.

More stupidity trying to justify racism. When a child is born they will interact with any other child no matter the color. So racism is not natural it is taught. That's how things work here on planet earth. I can understand how whites want to deny what they have done, but you shouldn't have done it, therefore deal with the consquences.

Great Explanatory post by Not2BSubjugated, preceded by, and Irrationally 'replied' to by the Trolling Monkey IM2. Really, Dishonest, insincere, and emptily combative posters like IM2 should be outa here.

As Not2b Said, for 99+% of human history, indeed 100% of Primate/mammal/all animal species and their subspecies/races, we've lived/survived in small and/or concentric groups and fought with those of different klan. "Racism"/tribalism/etc.

It's utterly pan-species-evolutionary and natural.
ie, the Indian Caste system is Ancient.

Only the VERY recent Neurosis/egalitrianism that has contradicted 100% Natural tendencies in humans and all animals.
And there were no doubt Countless Genocides between pre-historical Sub-Saharan African Races/Tribes etc. Unlike the more integrated West, Many/Most Afros still live in Tribes/tribal groups/states.

What's so sad is the knowing trolling buy aholes like IM2 to Not2BS' excellent post, and the inability of other Disingenuous Afros to even answer him.
`

 

[Mickiel]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

 

[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.

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

Evolution's Sore Losers

It was born out of enforcing standards, which the unevolved couldn't keep up with. This "birds of a feather flock together" is a simple-minded way of appeasing the race traitors, who should be stripped of their power and influence.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Feral is futile.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Feral is futile.

Even if feral was the appropriate label, I'll take feral over subjugated approximately 10 times out of 10.

 

[Pogo]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

Yyyyyeah ummmm...... might wanna go look up what the word "indifference" means.

 

[Pogo]

.

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.

Feral is futile.

Even if feral was the appropriate label, I'll take feral over subjugated approximately 10 times out of 10.

Liberty and justice feral!

 

[Pogo]

As Not2b Said, for 99+% of human history, indeed 100% of Primate/mammal/all animal species and their subspecies/races, we've lived/survived in small and/or concentric groups and fought with those of different klan. "Racism"/tribalism/etc.

The problem with that argument is that "race" has not been shown to be a basis for those community groups. It may have been geographically coincident but no one has demonstrated it as a causation. In other words village A skirmishes with village B because it's a different village --- not because it's a different race.

By the way "clan" is spelled with a C unless you mean the Ku Klux version, which was a silly alliteration appended by one of its founders whose name was Kennedy.

It's utterly pan-species-evolutionary and natural.
ie, the Indian Caste system is Ancient.

Quite ancient indeed, but that's again a class system, not a racial system.

Only the VERY recent Neurosis/egalitrianism that has contradicted 100% Natural tendencies in humans and all animals.

There again is the same ass-sumption I cited earlier ---- the ass-sumption that there even is such a "natural tendency". The fact that you have to amplify it with the special pleading of "100% Natural [sic]" demonstrates that you know damn well it's a shaky ass-sumption and are desperate to validate it. Without evidence.

Again --- you can't just run with a premise to other places on nothing more tangible than the ass-sumption that such premise really exists. In order to take that somewhere as a causation you must first prove the premise.

And there were no doubt Countless Genocides between pre-historical Sub-Saharan African Races/Tribes etc. Unlike the more integrated West, Many/Most Afros still live in Tribes/tribal groups/states.

Irrelevant to anything. Amerindians, Polynesians, Inuits, Asiatics etc can also be counted in countless non-urban social groups. The point being what?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Evolution's Sore Losers

It was born out of enforcing standards, which the unevolved couldn't keep up with. This "birds of a feather flock together" is a simple-minded way of appeasing the race traitors, who should be stripped of their power and influence.

Ignorant troll

 

[abu afak]

As Not2b Said, for 99+% of human history, indeed 100% of Primate/mammal/all animal species and their subspecies/races, we've lived/survived in small and/or concentric groups and fought with those of different klan. "Racism"/tribalism/etc.

The problem with that argument is that "race" has not been shown to be a basis for those community groups. It may have been geographically coincident but no one has demonstrated it as a causation. In other words village A skirmishes with village B because it's a different village --- not because it's a different race...

It was explained very well by the poster quoted as well as by me. That the coommunity group has concentric circles. As populations grew these widened. Strarting out village, then perhaps region, then continenetal. So until/when Race, in it's most rudimentary/Macro sense is continental in nature. Again roughly natching the oversimplified '3'. Plus many genocides HAVE been shown to be Racial. Too many to count in fact.

It's utterly pan-species-evolutionary and natural.
ie, the Indian Caste system is Ancient.

Quite ancient indeed, but that's again a class system, not a racial system.

The Indian caste system is based on racism - Times of India Blogs
Times of India Blogs › Blogs › India Blogs
Feb 6, 2016

Only the VERY recent Neurosis/egalitrianism that has contradicted 100% Natural tendencies in humans and all animals.

There again is the same ass-sumption I cited earlier ---- the ass-sumption that there even is such a "natural tendency". The fact that you have to amplify it with the special pleading of "100% Natural [sic]" demonstrates that you know damn well it's a shaky ass-sumption and are desperate to validate it. Without evidence.Again --- you can't just run with a premise to other places on nothing more tangible than the ass-sumption that such premise really exists. In order to take that somewhere as a causation you must first prove the premise.

Alos explained in the original post I cite, as well as any common sense whatsoever.
I see now you've become hostile withn ad hom... because you have No evdience and no even common sense argument.

And there were no doubt Countless Genocides between pre-historical Sub-Saharan African Races/Tribes etc. Unlike the more integrated West, Many/Most Afros still live in Tribes/tribal groups/states.

Irrelevant to anything. Amerindians, Polynesians, Inuits, Asiatics etc can also be counted in countless non-urban social groups. The point being what?

The point being most of those on Yo side, the blacks here like IM2, are arguing Racism is a recent creation, and indeed a creation OF whites against Blacks.
And the thread topic is where it came from/how it did start.
When, of course, and again, Racism was practiced by ever larger concentric familial/village/tribal/nationl groups against other groups.
We have genetic evidence of this happening countless times in Africa between groups/genetic groups.

So you Lost emptily argumentive Clown: categorically.
You have not the topical knowledge, nor the semantic ability/BS to debate me.
Probably genetic. IQ is 75% Heritable.
`

 

[Pogo]

As Not2b Said, for 99+% of human history, indeed 100% of Primate/mammal/all animal species and their subspecies/races, we've lived/survived in small and/or concentric groups and fought with those of different klan. "Racism"/tribalism/etc.

The problem with that argument is that "race" has not been shown to be a basis for those community groups. It may have been geographically coincident but no one has demonstrated it as a causation. In other words village A skirmishes with village B because it's a different village --- not because it's a different race...

It was explained very well by the poster quoted as well as by me. That the coommunity group has concentric circles. As populations grew these widened. Strarting out village, then perhaps region, then continenetal. So until/when Race, in it's most rudimentary/Macro sense is continental in nature. Again roughly natching the oversimplified '3'. Plus many genocides HAVE been shown to be Racial. Too many to count in fact.

Again --- "concentric circles" and "continents" doesn't in any way prove the premise. The proof you need is that race is causative, not coincidental. And it's not here. Correlation does not equal causation.

It's utterly pan-species-evolutionary and natural.
ie, the Indian Caste system is Ancient.

Quite ancient indeed, but that's again a class system, not a racial system.

The Indian caste system is based on racism - Times of India Blogs
Times of India Blogs › Blogs › India Blogs
Feb 6, 2016

Again --- adventurous theories which remain unproven.

Since racism is a social construct it depends on the perceptions of that society. And the common perception is that castes are based on, as your own link says, "social, occupational and economic considerations and not on genetic racial differences".

Only the VERY recent Neurosis/egalitrianism that has contradicted 100% Natural tendencies in humans and all animals.

There again is the same ass-sumption I cited earlier ---- the ass-sumption that there even is such a "natural tendency". The fact that you have to amplify it with the special pleading of "100% Natural [sic]" demonstrates that you know damn well it's a shaky ass-sumption and are desperate to validate it. Without evidence.Again --- you can't just run with a premise to other places on nothing more tangible than the ass-sumption that such premise really exists. In order to take that somewhere as a causation you must first prove the premise.

Alos explained in the original post I cite, as well as any common sense whatsoever.
I see now you've become hostile withn ad hom... because you have No evdience and no even common sense argument.
`

I see you have no idea what 'ad hom' means. Pointing out that you haven't demonstrated your premise --- is not what it means.

And talking of logical fallacies, appeal to "common sense" is argumentum ad populum. Again, not an argument.

And there were no doubt Countless Genocides between pre-historical Sub-Saharan African Races/Tribes etc. Unlike the more integrated West, Many/Most Afros still live in Tribes/tribal groups/states.

Irrelevant to anything. Amerindians, Polynesians, Inuits, Asiatics etc can also be counted in countless non-urban social groups. The point being what?

The point being most of those on Yo side, the blacks here like IM2, are arguing Racism is a recent creation, and indeed a creation OF whites against Blacks.
And the thread topic is where it came from/how it did start.
When, of course, and again, Racism was practiced by ever larger concentric familial/village/tribal/nationl groups against other groups.
We have genetic evidence of this happening countless times in Africa between groups/genetic groups.`

Not at all sure what a "yo side" is, and I don't have a "side" anyway, I work solo ---- but my contention is that yes it was invented, though not 'recently' unless you call the fifteenth century "recent", for the purpose of justifying human intercontinental trafficking. That trafficking had its critics from the beginning and it needed an argument to sustain its own existence. And since there was no available logical argument it chose an illogical one. And of course, the draw of money, without which that fallacious argument could never have sold.

So you Lost emptily argumentive Clown: categorically.
You have not the topical knowledge, nor the semantic ability/BS to debate me.
Probably genetic. IQ is 75% Heritable.
`

Ah. I see for a fool who knew nothing about Ad Hominem you went and searched your own failing pretty quick.

 

[Mickiel]

As we can see , racism even exist in debate.

 

[Mickiel]

As we can see , racism even exist in debate.

Racism remains a stain on humanity, one that I cannot see man removing it from man. In my personal conscious thought, I think only a greater power than man can totally remove the scourge of racism.
Do these powers then have anything to do with racism, and other things of the like that damage us so much? Does the mystery powers that be factor into the existence of these horrors?

I think that has to be considered.

 

[IM2]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

You could not have invented racism if you did not invent race. As we have seen, the concept of race did not exist until the 15-1600's and it was a European construct. Treatment of those different is not racism. Various groups within races treat each other differently and that's based in ethnic differences. Racism is the belief that you are superior based on race. Whites have made up so may different definitions of racism to suit them and none of those are the definition of racism.

 

[Mickiel]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

You could not have invented racism if you did not invent race. As we have seen, the concept of race did not exist until the 15-1600's and it was a European construct. Treatment of those different is not racism. Various groups within races treat each other differently and that's based in ethnic differences. Racism is the belief that you are superior based on race. Whites have made up so may different definitions of racism to suit them and none of those are the definition of racism.

Well I think Whites have been masterful in their manipulation of racism. Their racial performance has been simply stunning; I have seen nothing else like it.

Which makes me think God has been involved at some level; for some reason. Its just been too well done.

 

[IM2]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

You could not have invented racism if you did not invent race. As we have seen, the concept of race did not exist until the 15-1600's and it was a European construct. Treatment of those different is not racism. Various groups within races treat each other differently and that's based in ethnic differences. Racism is the belief that you are superior based on race. Whites have made up so may different definitions of racism to suit them and none of those are the definition of racism.

Well I think Whites have been masterful in their manipulation of racism. Their racial performance has been simply stunning; I have seen nothing else like it.

Which makes me think God has been involved at some level; for some reason. Its just been too well done.

True, but I think Satan has more to do with that than God. However to look at it in the manner you have is also right when we have been warned about false prophets and deception.

 

[Mickiel]

Which race started racism? My guess would be Black people, because they were the first humans. I think racism comes from indifference. They ran into groups that were different from them, and racism was born.

You could not have invented racism if you did not invent race. As we have seen, the concept of race did not exist until the 15-1600's and it was a European construct. Treatment of those different is not racism. Various groups within races treat each other differently and that's based in ethnic differences. Racism is the belief that you are superior based on race. Whites have made up so may different definitions of racism to suit them and none of those are the definition of racism.

Well I think Whites have been masterful in their manipulation of racism. Their racial performance has been simply stunning; I have seen nothing else like it.

Which makes me think God has been involved at some level; for some reason. Its just been too well done.

True, but I think Satan has more to do with that than God. However to look at it in the manner you have is also right when we have been warned about false prophets and deception.

Well I do have my reasons for thinking as such. Consider this; Romans 13:1 " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power " But of God!" the powers that be are ordained of God!" Okay, in my view, as far as I understand this, satan is " A Power that be"; no doubt about it. This verse reveals that " The Powers that be are " Ordained" by God!" Meaning also that it is God who " Invest Authority in these powers", and controls these powers, be they demons or humans! God has " Arranged things to be as they are!"

This has stunning implications.

 

[Pogo]

It's amusing to read a citation of "false prophets" right alongside those of "God" and "Satan" ---- as if that didn't just name two of them.

Sheesh.