In his post, Asylum in Denmark, Janus implied, in response to one of my comments, that I was a white supremacist. I posted a rebuttal, not because I was offended by his observation, I care not a jot for the epithets ascribed to me by others, but because I disagree with it. Of course I expanded on my theories and clearly I must have caused a level of indignation because Janus decided to remove that comment almost immediately. Unfortunately I had not saved it and so, I am now going to try to reproduce it, or at least the gist of it, though clearly it will vary somewhat.
I am not a white supremacist for the simple reason that I am by no means convinced that the white/Anglo Saxon race is supreme on this earth. I have a huge amount of respect for the people of India as I do for other Asian races and could easily be persuaded that that they are greatly superior to us whities. Not only have the people of India shown themselves over generations to be immensely intelligent, creative, artistic and hardworking they have created highly sophisticated civilizations and religions through which they have shown themselves to be largely peace-loving tolerant and adaptable. It helps that India produces some of the most beautiful women in the world.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706787/ as an example.
All races (I use that word in a layman’s terms) have various attributes that have been acquired over generations to help them adapt to and survive the environment in which they live. But it is blindingly obvious that the Negro races (there is more genetic diversity in Africa then the rest of the world put together, hence I use the plural) are among the worst suited to prosper in the modern western society in which they so clearly aspire to live. Wherever one goes in the world, Negros are always near the bottom of the social ladder. From Europe and North America where the laws have been changed to assist them, to Africa where they dominate the political scene, they are clearly unable to advance their social status, relative to their European or Asian counterparts, bar the rare exception, without the help of other people and nations (i.e. other races).
Primitive North Europeans had to adapt to enable them to survive the harsh, barren winters, not a challenge that has ever been faced by sub-Saharan Africans. The most obvious physical adaption to the northern climate is the colour of the skin which became paler to allow Europeans to absorb as much sunlight as possible to enable them to synthesise vitamin D. But there was also the need for Europeans to gather and store food, manufacture clothing, and build adequate shelter. Those are not requirements for life in vast savannahs of tropical Africa, where there is plenty of sunshine, food and warmth.
But if you were to drop two naked people into the Namib Desert, one a San Bushman and the other a lily-white European, it would not take very long to determine, even to the most prejudiced observer, who would be better suited to survive that environment.
The fact of the matter is, Europeans and other non- African (sub-Sahara) cultures have developed their societies, over countless generations, whereby they have manipulated the environment to suit themselves. Those societies have gone way beyond subsistence farming. They have learned to delegate means of production and with it, to trade. They are able live, work and thrive in close-knit communities, developing roads and sewers etc. to ensure sustainability.
In 1890, the indigenous people of Central and Southern Africa were still essentially hunter-gatherers, with very little in the way of cropping or pastoralism let alone industry. Even then, some of the more important crops they grew had only recently been imported by the early European explorers, maize being the most significant. Their agricultural efforts were at best subsistence level. In 1890, there was no call for town planners, professors of mathematics or mechanical engineers. They were governed by feudal chiefs and terrorised by invaders, in the case of the Mashona, it was the Matabele who stole their cattle, slaughtered their men and captured the women for breeding purposes. There were no written laws or legal traditions of any long standing, and witchcraft was the closest they ever got to science and the tom-tom the nearest thing they had to a newspaper.
Some years ago, I was watching a friend of mine chucking a ball to his two dogs. One of them was a Labrador, the other a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a dog bred to protect its owners. Each time he threw the ball, both dogs would rush after it, the Labrador deliberately seeking to pick it up as quickly as possible and bring it back to its owner, while the Ridgeback frolicked along in a somewhat confused manner without the remotest idea of what to do. Not once did it attempt to pick up the ball, let alone bring it back. Later that evening, a stranger came to the gate. Both dogs ran forward, the Ridgeback to bark and growl furiously, while all the Lab wanted to do was lick the stranger’s hand.
Which of those was the superior animal? Ridgebacks and Labrados would have no problems breeding, but in doing so their unique attributes would be diluted and would eventually disappear.
And why have Pit-bulls been banned from the UK, if upbringing is all that stands between savagery and civilization?
There is a glaringly obvious parallel to be drawn between races of humans and breeds of dogs. Humans have developed behavioural traits, over the generations that have helped them adapt to the environment in which they live. As a society of people became more sophisticated, intellectual abilities became more important than physical ones. Laws were created to protect the weak, while those less clever found it increasingly difficult to prosper, until relatively recently at least.
On the other hand, in less sophisticated societies, physical prowess and aggression were distinct advantages, which not only allowed men to survive, but enabled them to breed more copiously than their weaker rival, thus passing on those same attributes. In primitive societies, weak men do not breed. In sophisticated societies, fools have less opportunity to do so, though to judge from the front benches of Parliament, one might question that assumption.
While human selection is more natural, though clearly our matrimonial rituals do introduce a large element of artificial selection, dog breeds have been created almost entirely through artificial selection. But the result is the same. A greyhound that runs faster than its rival is selected for breeding with not just one, but multiple bitches in the way that human who is more powerful than his rival is able to take a wife, or two, or three.
Despite what anybody says, and liberal demagoguery goes to ridiculous lengths to state otherwise, there are racial differences that go beyond physical appearance. I do not care if some PC celebrity biologist claims that there is no such thing as race, that which we call race does exist. The people of India have a capacity for long hard work that is just not present in the people of Africa. That is not nurture, that is nature. And you do not have to go to India or Africa to witness it. You can see it in many of the UK’s cities.
Recently Christopher called me a hypocrite because I chose to live in this part of the world despite my jaded opinion of the native people here. He was wrong to say so. There is nothing hypocritical at all about it, but that is not really a point that I wish to pursue. I live here because I love this country, despite its many problems. I understand the indigenous people and I have a much better idea of how they think and operate than those who have never lived here do and I have better idea of them than I do of people who come from other parts of the world.
I am not a racist in the sense that I suspect Janus believes me to be. I do not have an overwhelming hatred for all other races. I regard different races as I regard different breeds of dog. Each has its own characteristics. You can call me any name you like for holding those thoughts, but they are entirely rational and they are not cruel or unkind unless deliberately intended as such. I work and interact with a lot of native Zimbabweans at every level, from very senior persons to those who perform the most menial of tasks. I would be very surprised if anybody could find anyone of them who would describe me as a racist in the common meaning of that word. There are black people with whom I was at school and with whom I am still friends who would understand and almost certainly share my view that different races have inherently different racial characteristics, but not one of them would describe me as being ‘a nasty racist bigot’, because I behave nothing like one. As I said, I work well with many African people. We chat and laugh and socialise at a work level. But, very few black people would invite me to their home and very few would be invited to mine. Neither of us would expect it and neither of us are offended by it, nor would we want it. We are aware of our different tastes and customs.
A Western observer watching the way I interact with local people might describe my behaviour as patronising, but if my jokes comments or conversation are a little less sophisticated than they might be were I sitting in a London drawing room, the people I am engaging with are not likely to realise that. If I thought they were, I would raise my game. I genuinely, if somewhat pompously, believe that as Kipling said, it is important to be able ‘to walk with Kings, nor lose the common touch’. I strive to do that. I do not wish to offend or be disliked by my behaviour. (I stand by my claim that this site is not a London drawing room or even a Harare veranda. It is a site where I believe nobody has a right to be offended.)
I chastised Janus, comparatively mildly by my standards at least, for obsessing about the fact that racial tensions and prejudices exist without his giving any effort to genuinely investigating why they exist and how they can best be dealt with. Nobody is every going to legislate those issues away. It would be much better to address them honestly. Only then can they be dealt with. People need to be asked and need to be able to answer completely honestly, without any fear of reprisal, why it is they feel any form of racial prejudice. Only when there are honest answers can we find effective solutions.
It is important to treat people in a manner that is appropriate to their culture, nature and ability. But to do that, you need to understand them. Most members of any given race have very little knowledge of what it is like to be a member of another. They should not presume that their desires and abilities are the same.