Beginning notes on systematic exclusion, and the myth of different races.

March 20, 2014 at 7:13am I have been doing some research and reading on the concepts of racism as it really relates to classism. Indeed, it is such an unheard word, that classism is listed as a spelling error, like overprivileged. Most recently, I've listened to a lecture on a man known for his activism in civil rights, as anyone knows. More importantly, I think he really understood, regardless of the language he used, that racism was really a gimmick.

As any scientist could tell you, different ethnicities of human are more similar to different breeds of canine than actually being of different species. Just like different breeds of dog have genetic markers and are subject to increased likelihood of diseases, so are different ethnicities. Most people native to the landmass now known as the Americas were not killed by sea-going invaders directly at all. They were by clear, overwhelming majority, killed off by the unfamiliar diseases the Europeans brought with them, which had clearly not been seen on the continent before, and no locals had co-evolved immunarily with these diseases, like Typhoid, Small Pox, Black Plague, etc.

Just like different breeds of dogs are more than physically capable of breeding among each other, as anyone who has been to an animal shelter knows, different ethnicities can intermarry and produce children, another marker of there only one human race. If more proof is needed, you can visit taxonomy charts, where the current human, known as Homo Sapien Sapien, is not separated into Homo Sapien Sapien Afro, Chino, Russo, Franco, etc...

Indeed, one only need to go back to look at documents of any time in the history of the UK to see that before any Europeans came here, or discovered the African continent and the slaves they could steal from there, that the British Crown fought wars with it's neighbors to the north, Scotland and Ireland. Local British propaganda and printings labeled Scots or Gaels in many the same way as Native Americans and Africans would be labeled in their time - rapist, savage, murderer, overbreeder, uneducated, etc. There was the very essence of racism, ask any Scot then or today and they will tell you they know what it feels to be racially discriminated against. Come to America, and all of a sudden the White race springs up to include anyone not of African or Asian heritage.

Were Catholics whites always considered part of the white majority? If so, then why have we seen only one Catholic president, and why did it take till the 1960's, and none since? What about some distinctly light-skinned Caucasians, like the Polish, or the German, or the Russians, or the Romanians? One only has to examine the newspapers printed of the times when large masses of those populations, and others, were emigrating to the US for one reason or another. Antiimmigration, very ethno-centric speech was common, and still is.

It's actually that word that makes the difference. Today, if you insult a German man and his culture, you aren't called racist, but being ethno-centric. As if there were a difference. It only proves that there never was a singular, coherent "White Race." Even the countries who colonized this continent, the Spanish, Dutch, French, and English, never considered each other of the same race.

There was never more than one race of humans. As I will go into in a future note, there is only those who have resources and privilege and wish to hold onto it with fervent exclusivity, and those who strive for the power and influence those who have such already enjoy.

I'll leave for now with the quote. As I stated, I firmly believe he knew that the real battle was between people of power and people without it, and the concept of race was a distraction so that the country could fight among itself while owners of land and capital enjoyed providing the weapons for them to do so, sometimes even at bulk discounts. Here, he shows that the white majority who were sympathetic to the oppressed were not so excited when African Americans began to see even the slightest improvement on life prospects, thereby becoming a threat to their own security. The motivation is not race, it is class, or money, or power, and always will be.

"But, their was a limitation to our achievements. Negros were outraged by inequality. Their ultimate goal was freedom. Most of the white majority were outraged by brutality. Their goal was improvement, not freedom or equality...[As] Negros assertively moved on to ascend the second rung of the ladder, A firm resistance from the white community developed."