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.
Last edited: