Color versus race

The ignorant masses love to refer to race as “color”.  This is one of their not-so-subtle ways of hinting that race is only skin deep.  When MLK said he dreamed of a day when people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”, he was both denying the importance of race and accusing Southern whites of being stupid and superficial.  One need not be an expert in Southern culture/history to appreciate that color had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.  Race had everything to do with them and, over the last few decades, the Old South has been vindicated time and time again.
When used as a straw man for race, color is meaningless.  In reality, however, color is quite meaningful.  It is an important dimension of appearance and appearance is what we use to judge many things.  To the millions of whites who tan themselves each year, their skin color is important enough to spend their hard-earned money on and to risk their health on.  The same is true of the millions of dark-skinned people who buy creams and undergo treatments in order to lighten their skin.  From an evolutionary standpoint, mates are chosen based on appearance and color has a lot to do with that.  Some men prefer blonds while others prefer brunettes.  Some women prefer Nordic type men while others go for tall, dark and handsome.
When it comes to race, color can hinder our perception of physical differences that would otherwise be starkly obvious.  We are conditioned to view Negroids as “black”, Mongoloids as “yellow” and Caucasoids as “white”.  Each color is not only part of a package but has taken a dominant role in our perceptions thanks to propaganda.
Every type of proto-human that scientists have claimed to discover has been reconstructed so that we may view him as he might have appeared when alive.  As a matter of fact, each primitive hominid has been artistically rendered many times.  This is done not only for scientists but for laymen as well.  The man on the street is very interested in what his distant ancestors might have looked like – and when he sees them, he exclaims, “See how primitive he looked!”  We have a fascination with primitive humans because they bridge the gap between “us” and “them” – the latter being animals.  Some of us are then reassured that “we” are human.  We are “evolved”, “advanced”, “sentient” etc. and we feel snug with this knowledge.
When it comes to race, however, any hint of “primitive” is banished and relegated to the nether-regions of our subconscious.  We can “forgive” primitive features among some races because those features come with dark skin.  The dark skin somehow makes those features “forgivable” because it is all part of the package and we cannot object to the package.
When we take away the dark skin, we are sometimes uneasy with what we see:

… and sometimes we are not:

… but it is the exception that proves the rule.  Take a look at this older photo of a black girl:

If you saw her in the supermarket, would you think her unusual?  American schools are full of kids who look just like her.  Now look at this girl:

The second girl is unaltered (except for some teeth whitening – and yes, I know that my photoshop above is less than perfect but I think it makes my point).
This next example is a bit more subtle.  Which man is more attractive?

The man is actor Lee Davey and his features are only moderately Negro.  Even so, his features look somewhat out of place in white skin.

The leftist will respond that since we are used to seeing “black” features with dark skin, we find it a bit unsettling to see them in light skin.  I do not dispute this.  I am merely pointing out that those “black” features exist even without the associated color – and that, at some deeper level, we attach significance to those features.  If we took an albino Australian Aborigine and placed him in a museum, labeled as a “primitive proto-human”, few would find anything amiss.  But, since Aborigines are normally clothed in dark skin, this gives them the status of “race” and makes them immune from characterizations of “primitive”.  Their dark skin makes us see them as one of “us” and, by extension, it makes us assume they are the same as us.  Do Africans see things the same way?  If not, might this help explain the persecution albinos endure in Africa?

I’ll conclude with some disclaimers:

a)  Caucasoids also have some primitive features as do Asians – but not as many as Negroids or Australoids.

b) The presence of primitive features does not necessarily mean that an individual is less intelligent than others.  But, when we look at the race as a whole, average intelligence will largely correspond with the preponderance of such features.

c) I am well aware that there are “light-skinned” blacks.  But, generally speaking, the lighter their skin, the more Caucasoid their features because they tend to have more white ancestry.

This entry was posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Color versus race

  1. Ryan says:

    You’re correct, by all appearances color doesn’t make race, facial features makes race. Put me in black skin and I’d laugh because of how rediculous i’d appear.
    The first time I’ve ever seen an albino black was on a cruiseship back in August. I had to stop myself from staring, so as not to make her feel too uncomfortable, yet I’ll bet she gets stared at by all races because it’s just so out of place.

  2. Kevin I. Slaughter says:

    The “color” argument is a simple trick to make non-egalitarians look like fools. It’s been around for decades, yet I never see folks parry it with a reasonable response. It’s baffling how it shuts people down so easily.

  3. Pingback: Is it okay to generalize about blacks and Hispanics? | Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *