Individualism

by Robert Villegas

  20th Century racism is practiced by some who consider themselves members of this Aryan "race" and by their victims in reverse. Although there have been racial elements in the views of many nations and groups, this Aryan-based view is the major trend during the last two hundred or so years. (This is not to say that many "white" people are the most racist today. Many of them are sincere about eliminating the racism in our society, though many do not know how to do it, and they quietly question the open racism of others.)

  Although it is possible to divide human beings according to skin color or the geographic origin of their ancestors, there is nothing to be gained from it on a fundamental level. The method of dividing an idea into smaller units should allow us to better understand it in the process. If it does not, then the division is useless and cognitively dangerous. Race divisions do not help us understand "man." Nor do they help us understand the individuals who are classified into races. In fact, they are the sources of confusion and misunderstanding. The term "race," as used by Chamberlain and Gobineau, established an artificial idea. The correct term, scientifically, should have been "species." Nevertheless, because racial theory was regarded as "scientific," the term "race" soon replaced "species" in the minds of many and allowed for the assignment of negative characteristics to arbitrarily defined groups.

  In fact, the term "race" was used throughout much of recorded history to identify different tribes or ethnic groups. It was seldom used to designate a fundamental division of human beings as it is used in racial theory. The word was transformed by racial theory into a "scientific" designation, signifying distinct and fundamental differences among human beings using non-fundamental characteristics as distinguishing criteria. In effect, the term "race" has been stolen from history with its meaning twisted without scientific foundation. The continent of Europe was duped by racial theory, not without some willingness, into transforming the term "race" from its original non-fundamental meaning into a fundamental division of human beings.

  Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as "race." The Human Being is one species of animal. The characteristics that differentiate certain groups of people do not determine intelligence or moral "capacity." They are characteristics that have enabled the survival of those living in a particular climate over a period of time. The principle of adaptation has allowed survival in each case. Survivors prevailed because they harbored genetic qualities that allowed them to continue. Their descendants today have inherited their genetic qualities.

  By the criteria used to define a biologically distinct species, the human being cannot be divided. The different colored men on earth have not been apart long enough, in biologic time scales, to eliminate their ability to interbreed. Their superficial differences are not fundamental divisions and mean nothing. Recorded history shows that human beings from many parts of the world have had almost constant contact and therefore could not have separated into different species. This sort of "mixing" must have taken place throughout many of the four million years that man is thought to have walked the earth. Therefore, all human beings alive today are members of one species: "man."

  Skin color does not make us different in a fundamental sense. It is a result of natural selection over centuries and reflects only the geographic area where our recent ancestors lived, the climates they frequented. It connotes no characteristic that defines character or the right to be a member of the human race. It is not a fundamental dividing line.

  Nor does skin color make a group uncivilized. The level of civilization a group has attained has to do with the level of intellectual development attained and the institutions created to deal with important matters. Higher levels of civilization were reached by groups living in virtually every part of the world and with every division of physical characteristics. There is no basis for Gobineau's idea that certain colored men cannot reach high civilization. The Egyptians (whose history includes African blacks), the Greeks, the Chinese, the Mesoamerican are only a few of the people who have developed great civilizations. Except for the Greeks, none of these groups was Aryan. The list of contributions to man's well-being from each constitutes the best that modern man has available. All of these civilizations contributed much in the areas of social organization, military advances, agricultural advances, architectural advances, mathematics and the natural sciences. Nothing points to their inferiority.

  The same is true of any of the other characteristics that have been used to divide human beings into races. These characteristics are superficial elements, those most likely to be different from Individual to individual. None have anything to do with the fundamental characteristics that define "man."

  Characteristics like “rational consciousness” and “conceptual capacity,” which even though qualitatively different from person to person, are not so different that we can divide men into meaningful and separate species because of them. The capacities of rationality and conceptuality are what make man what he is, and as such are characteristic of every person regardless of any other characteristics. Since the use of the rational capacity must be consciously chosen, characteristics that reveal character and moral worth are derivative of this choice, not of any genetic or "racial" predisposition.

  What makes human beings different from one another is the extent to which they are rational. Certainly, there are environmental influences, the metaphysical and epistemological premises that come from the culture, sub-culture, neighborhood, or parents that do much to sway a person. But it is the level of a person's thinking, the quality of his thinking that determines largely who he becomes and whether he or she succeeds.

  On the other side of this issue, many of the ideas (collectivism, dictatorship and racism, to name a few) that have contributed to destruction and decline are considered by some, to be characteristic of the Aryan culture every bit as much as they are of those cultures they considered inferior. Yet, the Aryan according to racial theory is considered genetically superior. On this particular issue, it proves only that many Aryans could be just as "primitive" as many of those they called "savages." Genetics does not determine whether people will choose to think logically.

  Throughout the period of the development of European racial theory, what is singularly lacking is an effort to define which characteristics make up a distinct race. This question has been avoided (with a few failed exceptions) because it cannot be answered. Do we use skin color, geographic origin, cranial size, brain size, body or facial structure, hair color, eye color, intelligence, height, nose, chin or any of a number of other characteristics? Which of these (or which of these in combination) can help us define a race? The answer is none because none is fundamental, none clearly defines the humanity in us and none can be supported by valid argument.

  Why do we even need to ask the question? What does it mean in a fundamental sense? Why is it relevant, and why do we need to develop social policy, particularly political discrimination and exclusion, around such superficial characteristics? If racial policy is based on these kinds of superficial characteristics, then that makes "race" an inapplicable idea, unnecessary and cognitively dangerous. Race divisions are then one of the most fundamental, focal and devastating mistakes of man's history.

  During the 19th Century, the ideas of Gobineau had won out in Germany and much of Europe. He influenced such major figures as Richard Wagner, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Adolf Hitler not to mention the entire philosophical development of Europe. Because the German and French intellectuals who agreed with him were the most important in Europe, their racist premises clouded the views of even some of the most honest intellectuals of the time. Racial theory was virtually "absorbed" into the fundamental premises of the European philosophical foundation (and later our philosophical foundation). The few honest intellectuals of the time, lacking the advantage of hindsight, did not realize what would be done in the name of Aryan superiority, and how devastating would be the impact of such ideas on the people who would live out the tragedies that would ensue. Their effect wa
s to transform the earlier European ideas of Imperialism, domination and conquest (and all the bloodshed that such ideas entailed) and bring them into the 20th Century. Their effect was not only to release Hitler on the world, but to set into the psyche of the European, and many influenced by him, the idea that to be European and Aryan meant that one was master of reality, the owner of the right to dominate all nations, the standard by which one judged intelligence, beauty and superiority. That such an idea is implicit in the views and actions of many today has barely been noticed. What is more important, we have overlooked that these ideas have influenced all men and women of all colors and national origins who were educated in America; that means even the victims of racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Even those who would like to destroy the influence of European philosophy (leftists, progressives, communists, socialists, multiculturalists) are using the very European ideas that are part of racial theory, the collectivism, the categorizing of groups into races, the assignment of superior versus inferior markers, etc. While they insist that Western philosophy is corrupt, they are practicing it and its most deadly elements: separation, hatred, demonization, vilification and domination.

  The very idea, then, that races exist is racism. This is the problem at its root. Those who claim they are trying to fight racism are racist when they talk as if "races" were valid divisions of man. Whether it is done innocently or not (and it is often done without malice), thinking that races exist keeps people thinking racially.

  Such thinking is found in the collectivist catch-phrases of the day, in the politically correct language with which we are being inundated. If you believe that there are racial collectives and you base your discussions with others on such a foundation, you are racist. Am I changing the definition of racism? No. This is the true definition based on the fact that race is an improper division of human beings. It is, therefore, the definition that our culture has evaded.

  Each of us needs to recognize that, to the extent that we do not question the existence of races, we are still dependent on racism’s cultural and philosophical heritage. It is not a heritage that we living today created (white or black). Few of us are philosophers, capable of discerning the contradictions in our inherited history and ideas. We are dependent upon our philosophers and intellectuals for this, and they have not done their work well. They too have accepted collectivist and racist traditions and have not questioned them adequately. That is why we find ourselves in this situation today.

  All persons, black, white and other colors, if they truly want to live in harmony in a free society should avoid the racist bashings that consist of the following:

  1. Assigning all evil to white men. Today, the white men in the world are not the same who created slavery, nor are they the same who stole the property of legal American citizens of Mexican descent. To make them guilty of it is vicious prejudice, and a crude theory of the genetic inheritance of ideas. Ideas are not transmitted by genetics but by the culture and because so, men are capable of rethinking them and changing. It is not white men who are the problem, but attitudes that derive from Imperialism, colonialism and racial theory.

  2. Assigning evil to all European institutions. Ideas pass from generation to generation, culture to culture, group to group. They do not have a group identity. Some European ideas were developed as a rebellion against the ideas of conquest and domination and have served this nation well for over 200 years. We cannot throw out all European ideas because we have a resentment toward men who lived 200 or 400 years ago. That is simply unrealistic. The European philosophical legacy is only one of many that have influenced our culture. We must integrate its good elements with the good of our other influences.

  3. Assigning to living men the guilt of their forefathers. My father's suffering is not mine and I did not feel the lash that my grandfather felt. I hate only the man who lashed him, not his whole generation nor his sons and grandsons. Why should I hate all men particularly when some of those men, like me, realize that what happened to my grandfather was evil and wrong? We can honor our ancestors’ memories and their suffering, but let us not presume that we must punish men today for what was done in the past.

  4. Assigning to living men the suffering of their forefathers. Many leaders today talk about themselves as having experienced the suffering of the slave, or of the Native American. The fact is that we have not done so. Today, in our society, many lead good, decent lives, without pain or suffering like that of their forefathers. They do dishonor to their forefathers when they talk about their lives as being equally as bad. They dishonor the hard work done by our ancestors that has made our lives better today. One cannot inherit the suffering of another man. One can try to understand, sympathize, and empathize, but one cannot truly know from one’s own experience how his forefathers suffered.

  ----

  The fight against racial theory is a fight for the Individual not the collective, a fight for the mind and conscience of each man and woman on all sides of every artificial boundary. Teaching men to understand the issues, enlightening those of honesty about the subtle nature of exclusion, will help in eliminating the remnants of racism in their thoughts and acts. We cannot force people to be fair by legislating laws, quotas or affirmative action. Through these processes we only force people to obey laws and create a backlash of hatred toward those who wield and benefit from government power (not to mention the prejudice extended toward those who never seek government benefits). Such measures are racist in practice and create additional social strife and resentment.

  We live in a society where men and women of conscience are still free to follow their convictions. We must enlist fair-minded people in our struggle, welcome them with open arms as fellow-travelers, without asking for government programs, special privileges or set-asides. We must ask them to help us fulfill the American promise of freedom, equality and justice. That translates to fairness by every man and woman toward every man and woman. That is what our society needs and nothing more.

  Some people of color do not want a free-society or a society of equality. Their solution to racism is favoritism and privilege for those who are able to steal the levers of power. In this sense, they are in league with many in power who tear away the protections against government tyranny. They are in league with those who have practiced racism in the past. They accept racial theory and think and act racially. They depend on and exploit the damage done by racial theory and aggravate racial divisions. They are imperialists. They seek to establish their group as a dominant, conquering group. All the platitudes about redistribution of wealth and government programs are support for legalized theft for the benefit of the group that can distribute the booty and the group that can receive it. Such a goal, though seldom acknowledged, cannot improve life for man. The Spaniards who conquered the New World were also looking for gold.

  It is a contradiction to say, "I am not a racist," if you accept the idea that races exist, regardless of whether you are the most benevolent or fair minded person. Racism is one of the broadest categories of stereotyping, a basic form of it. In this sense, when a person says racism is worse than it has ever been, he is correct. It includes not only the liberals' efforts to extend privilege to their designated victims of racism, or the conservative apologetics that say the situation is better now, but also the very people who claim to hate it, whose ancestors were the victims of it. This is the proper perspective on this issue and until we see this we are going to be trapped in a cycle of ever worsening group warfare. In this sense, we are all victims of racism.

  Once we eliminate the idea that races exist, we can begin dealing with individuals. We open up a whole new range of possibilities for human relations and eliminate one of the worst ideas in world history.

  A regrettable flaw in our society today, and one that portends disaster, is the anti-logic trend that has dominated our time. Proper thinking methods are unknown to many individuals. Many people approach intellectual issues as logical illiterates, incapable of doing even
the most basic clear thinking.

  The most common mistake today is overgeneralization. This consists of observing the characteristics of one or a few members of a presumed group and assigning those characteristics to every member who appears to be part of the group. Another name for this is prejudice (or stereotyping).

  Prejudice is the anti-intellectual component of racism and ethnic conflict, where discrimination is the practical component. To be prejudiced is to prejudge. The dictionary definition calls it, "a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known." [12]

  Prejudice is drawing a conclusion about a person or thing without full knowledge of that individual. It is practiced every day by many people. So much of social intercourse involves loose association, innuendo, rumor and out-of-context supposition about people, that human relations today stretch to their limits.

  Let's take a look at some types of prejudice:

  Personal prejudice takes place when we draw conclusions about an Individual without full knowledge about him or her. Here we allow rumor, supposition and misunderstanding to convince us that a person is something other than what he truly is.

  Gender prejudice happens when we assume that certain qualities or characteristics apply to a particular gender and are true of every member of that gender.

  Racial or ethnic prejudice is the assumption that certain characteristics indicate the character of a group of individuals defined according to common physical or ethnic characteristics.