Free-D

The traditional liberal ideal was stated clearly in Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, delivered in August 1963 in Washington, DC:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Since the early Egyptians we presumably have always observed and speculated about the physical differences among individuals and groups. For example, the ancient sacred text called Book of Gates identifies four categories that are now conventionally labelled “Egyptians”, “Asiatics”, “Libyans”, and “Nubians”, but such distinctions tended to conflate differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with tribal and national identity. Julian the Apostate was an early observer of the differences in humans, based on ethnic, cultural, and geographic traits, but as the idea of race had not yet been conceptualized, he believed that they were the result of “Providence”.

In the 9th century Al-Jahiz, an Afro-Arab biologist, explained how the environment can determine the physical characteristics of the inhabitants of a certain community. He used his theories on the struggle of existence and environmental determinism to explain the origins of different human skin colour.

All and all, as we understand today, is irrelevant when it comes down to forming and maintaining racial harmony among people of different backgrounds, believes, cultures, economical status and even colours. For the only important aspect is, that nobody is superior to another on the basis of their racial backgrounds. Yet, in various countries throughout the world groups calling for racial preferences have used four main grounds: racial superiority; the rights of indigenous peoples; the need to compensate for historic wrongs; and ‘disproportionate representation’ in sections of society.

The underlying assumption is that the ratio of one racial group to another in the total population should be reflected in every sub-group. Thus, if ethnic minorities comprise ten per cent of the total population, they should make up ten per cent of every occupational group such as doctors, lawyers, teachers or any other public sector. If there is a disparity, the cause is assumed to be ‘discrimination’, and if anyone points out that there could be other causes, such as a lack of aptitude or qualifications or even simple personal preferences, they are accused of ‘blaming the victim’. As Sowell writes:

By making the issue, who is to blame, such arguments evade or pre-empt the more fundamental question–whether this is a matter of blame in the first place.

As an alien observant of modern European society, it seems to me that respecting ethnic minorities, tolerating and accepting emigrants into ones homeland is presumably the duty of the majority. It is only racism if a Caucasian person discriminates a person of the ethnic minority and only they are required to teach their children to accept and tolerate others. Whilst in some countries like UK minorities can openly express their resentment towards the people who accepted them and sheltered them, either for the sake of humanity or historical mistreatments. Milk the system, enjoy the peace and equality, yet hate the people of the country. How very ironic!