|
The subject of race
and racial difference is something a lot of people avoid. Some consider
it bad manners or impolite. Others say it is offensive and discussion
of it should be suppressed by legislation. One spin-off from that category
goes as far as to deny the existence of races, claiming any number of
religious, philosophic, scientific (sic) and moral theories in support
of the proposition. Then, some fellow travellers might conclude that
races exist in some narrow, almost meaningless sort of way and may conclude
that, for 'human-universalist' reasons - they should be abolished.
Of course, there are people - amongst all races - who believe their
particular origin renders them wise or good or superior. The fact this
class of human beings exists might condition the attitudes of those
who prefer the matter not bedevil us further. Sometimes this group is
downright offensive and some amongst them have a genocidalist frame
of mind. However, that does not make the existence of races as such
- invalid. The old Chinese who spoke of others as barbarian or the Hitlerite
who took refuge in false aesthetics or the Zionist Jew who believes
some peoples are lesser entities are used as an excuse by many to refuse
to entertain any theory of race that proclaims a virtue in their existence.
I am not afraid to discuss race. Because I am prepared to accept races exist,
I must therefore say: “Where did they come from? What does it
mean?”
I see race and species as different. I certainly agree that humans,
as a whole are a species, but within the family you have different
races. It is like in the animal world. You have dogs, cats,
whales, deer, etc., but within each 'species' you have different 'races'.
It might be a simplistic description, but take the species of dogs.
You have your German Shepherd, Schnauzer, Fox Terrier, etc. They are
all dogs, but they are different - in looks, size and temperament. They
can interbreed, if you really want to, but the sense of individuality
might ultimately be lost. In my opinion that is the same with humans.
We all walk on two legs; have a head and arms and legs. We think, have
needs and we need to love and be loved. We communicate with each other
and we have always regarded ourselves as related to each other. There
is no doubt that we are, however, very special 'animals' (I note there
may be certain religious opposition to this label being applied, but
my purpose should quickly become clear). Essentially, we have self-awareness.
The philosophers have long debated that notion. It is the capacity to
think in 'higher' terms, moral terms, to distinguish wants and needs,
to regulate impulse, to act socially, that makes the human species special.
Why should we be surprised if nature has equipped each of the races
slightly differently? Between the different races we note great differences. Not only the
skin colour, but also how we act in different situations and our physical
abilities. The Negroid race is generally a more physical race than the
Asian or 'Indian' or European or Semite. He has the well known (if always
given in cliché form) abilities at certain sports and song, of
physical labour and in the endurance of pain. Some Asian groups on the
other hand have a higher IQ than the white man, and a capacity for skilled
application to the finery of life and culture. The Eskimo tops the class
in IQ, but black groups seems to come in at the bottom of the range.
Then the white man is generally more practical and scientific. The Semitic
groups have the ability to form intricate systems of religious and mystical
Gnostic thought. In some ways, each is 'better' than another and in
some ways 'lesser'.
There are also differences within the races whereby each may be broken into
sub-groups. We just have to look at the Europeans. They are 'white',
but the Italians are different to the Swedish, the Germans are different
culturally and temperamentally to the Russians. But this difference
is mainly based on their habits, which is influenced by the culture
they live in. There are also certain anatomical variations. I suppose
we could apply that principle to the Asian race. Japanese are 'fairer'
to Vietnamese; Han Chinese have heavier frames to Thais. The skull of
the Ethiopian may be easily compared to the Senegalese and the legendary
collectivity of the Zulu contrasts with the freer structures of Sierra
Leone. And so forth.
This incredible difference between races and variation within races is a natural
thing. We can say God made it that way (if we are religious in our view)
or we can say nature made it that way (if we are evolutionists). Whichever
way, we are dealing with a fact of existence. It seems to be a wondrous
fact. The differences in humanity cannot be a thing decried, but only
accepted. Once accepted, we should celebrate it. If one is religious
in outlook we could say that if it was made that way, it is not to be
tampered with. If we are scientific in our outlook, we would say that
nature's processes are not to be willed away. I would venture to say
that a proper discussion of the existence of race implies a revolution
in philosophy of political correctness.
When I do my travels, I always love to cross a border and be instantly
in a different world. Just going from Germany to Switzerland is amazing.
The landscape might be the same as might be the architecture, but the
people and the cultures are different. And that is what I would
like to preserve. Look at Europe today. You have so many other races
living in England that more than half of London is non-white. If we
go to some countries in the Arab world, we would think we were in Pakistan.
If we go to India, we find people wanting to be Americans and chatting
away only in English. What effect does all this pseudo-globalisation
have on the economy of this country? What about the survival of the
heritages of the 'native' peoples? I am German, but I would not be offended
if people in an African country became annoyed with too many of our
tourists or businessmen making pests of themselves. It does not offend
me as a 'white man' to learn Malaysians painted large slogans back in
the 1950's: "British go home!", "White Man: Pack Up Your
Burden". It is always 'numbers' and ‘weight’ that drives
a people to demand a bit of living room. I wasn't upset either when
Libya sent home many of its guest workers or when Nigeria packed off
its illegal immigrants. Nor am I offended when an Icelander asks the
question why do they need Indians in their country? It almost seems
that if everyone was in his 'place', being himself, there would be less
tension and more respect?
Where does all the pressure for 'one world' end? Let us imagine every person
on this planet became chocolate coloured with dark hair and dark eyes.
No more Asian, African, European or Indian races. Let us assume, therefore,
that there was no more racial diversity in people. Let us assume we
could teach one language, use one money-system, knock down all barriers
and borders and live in one huge market place. Where would the benefit
be? Do we really think that that in itself would make for a better mankind
or a more harmonious or prosperous or culturally achieving world? And
of course, can we assume that if we could put humanity through a blending
machine that differentiation might not reappear, in a new form perhaps,
but still operate in human affairs?
Of course what is different often has the appeal of the exotic and one cannot
prevent the small scale mixing of the races. In certain places too at
different times this has occurred on a visible scale, with historical
and cultural forces operating to produce over long periods new results.
But when we are confronted by those who suggest it should be the norm
and be pursued consciously and aggressively, then we must act to prevent
the large-scale destruction of singular identities and struggle hard
to preserve the diversity of humanity.
I do not know if there is an agenda to encourage the one-world result.
It could be the naivety or foolishness or greed of people who push this
vision. However, I have come to think there is a push from Western liberals,
capitalists of all colours, some theologians and others to create 'one-world'.
World-improvers of all sorts and the so-called liberals are promoting
the idea that diversity is a tiresome nothing. There can be no doubt
that these delightful sounding platitudes will serve those who see that
by breaking down all boundaries, humanity is better 'managed' in a market-millennium.
For one, I would attack that sort of 'vision' as a monstrosity and prefer
the racial differences and diversity. And I would argue that we are
not “naturally gravitating” towards The Great Brown Race,
but we are being in fact resettled.
I know that in today’s western society discussing the race issue is rather
sticky and a dangerous ground to walk on. But I am willing to do that.
I believe that the survival of the different races and cultures is as
important as the survival of the whale, elephants and different birds.
It is a worthy goal if it is kept as a celebration of diversity as essential
to overall human progress. We are still a family.
To keep to such a goal, I would repudiate any notion that one race is better
than another race in a hierarchy arranged from the best to the least.
It is precisely because the races have different skills and aptitudes
and possibly deficits that this cannot be done. I am left to say that
the races are equal - but they are not the same. We can and we should
accept that these differences are recorded in our cultures. Our cultures
are the windows to our souls. They define each of the races, each of
the sub-types, each of the peoples. These cultures are treasures. They
can be appreciated by each of the human types, but they are only fully
lived and appreciated only by their creator group. Surely a race or
a nation has the right to retain their nation’s culture and identity
in their own country. Where is the arrogant self-assertion in that?
If a race or other group owns a culture, it has the right to prefer
to retain it.
Could we have a world of peoples in definable zones as an alternative
to the New World Order of chaos and destruction? Perhaps that is the
ultimate expression of the argument I am putting here! But the agenda
of the political liberals, the mass media outlets and the entertainment
industry in promoting multiculturalism (which in my opinion is actually
liberal monoculture) in Western societies will, in effect, destroy the
European cultures. However, their model is now increasingly pushed upon
other peoples as part of New World Order imperialism. It is a strange
imperialism that comes to divest the conquered of their culture and
then to merge its wreckage with the wreckage of others. I am pleased
to note many people are rising against this model.
I always liked travelling and seeing the world. It gives me the feeling of
being alive and interacting with people and place. I will never understand
how people can live in one place and one place only - and think that
they are living in "the best place" on earth. Each land may
be a great country, but there is no such thing as "the best place".
Similarly we can discard the idea of the best race. In a world that
seems to be losing its way and descending into conflict, we should seek
the causes. They do not only lie in the rivalries of races, nor has
this sort of rivalry brought the human world to the brink of destruction.
If we look back into history, it certainly involved conflicts of races
and peoples and evil deeds. However, the past also possessed an outline
principle of diversity as being essential to progress overall. Whatever
the differences were and the contentions they produced, there was amongst
all the idea of a certain security in the arrangements. This is now
challenged by the false anti-racism of one-world-ism.
Let us discuss race. Let us see whether the defence of race offers a challenge
to one-world-ism. That is a good place to start. If we like the fruits
of this discussion, we can take it further. It may be the revolutionary
idea to put up against same-ness, conformity, the drab, the destructive
and globalisation.
We are all equal, but we are not the same
Welf Herfurth is a political activist who lives in Sydney / Australia.
He was born and raised in Germany. He can be contacted on herfurth @ nettrade.com.au
To discuss this article and other issues please visit the Folk And Faith Forum.
|
