Origin, black v white, & racism: God has the answers

GANJIKI D WAYNE

MANY YEARS AGO the Western world, that is, Caucasian man, determined that the black man was not man at all. They believed that the darker race was not a race. The black man was a stage of evolution somewhere between the apes and Caucasian man.

Therefore the black man, not being fully evolved, was not fully human. And therefore not entitled to the rights understood to be due to human beings. The black man was a different species.

And so the black men were treated them as slaves. The black man was an animal, a living tool. They were patronized; not believed to be capable of anything the white men were capable of - even of independent thought.

And the whites believed they could justify that perception with arguments from science and religion. But whichever angle they spun it, they were wrong.

It is ironic that people who thought themselves the benchmark of the human race allowed such fantasies in their minds. And they couldn't shake them off, no matter how much reading and thinking they did, or how educated they got.

Ironic still is the fact that even to this day some of them think that way. For people who believe in everything being explained by science, they fail to note that their theory of a non-human-savage is unsupported by science.

Every indication—biological, psychological, emotional, social, existential and through history—shows that the "savage" is every bit as human as the Caucasian.

Racism is a natural outworking of belief in evolution. It is not only plausible, but justifiable if evolution is held as the process by which mankind is formed. Evolution espouses a stage-by-stage process.

And as in any production process, the final product is far more advanced than its preceding stages. As such it's logical to argue that a darker-skinned man has not yet reached the stage of production that the white man has, and is therefore less advanced than the white man.

Therefore he is not entitled to “human rights” the way the white human is. It’s a bit difficult for those who believe in evolution to reject racism: yet they must import some idea (from the air) that all man are equal in order to be socially acceptable.

Hitler developed his “perfect Aryan race” illusion based on Darwin’s concept of “natural selection”, and sought to eliminate a race that he thought was a threat to human civilisation. Racism is tenable with the theory of evolution.

But evolutionary theory isn't the only perspective responsible for racism. Religion and abusive interpretations of the Bible also promulgated beliefs that some humans were inferior to others. With a foolish and obnoxious interpretation of God's Word, racism was justified.

The white Afrikaaners of South Africa believed their superiority was an act of God. Dr D F Malan, a former South African PM, even remarked that “Afrikaanerdom [white South African political philosophy] is not the work of man, but the creation of God”.

In America, though believing all man were created by God, some believed that in the Creator’s “series or progression from a lump of dirt to a perfect man” (Edward Long, 1774), the “negro” was inferior to human beings.

These are but some of the perverted views of “enlightened” man. Even now some participants in the white supremacy movement believe that white is God's chosen race. Other racial supremacy groups (e.g. Black Supremacy) believe the opposite for the same reason. There is not a shred of biblical truth in these claims. So what is the truth?

“[A]ll man are created equal”, screams the American Declaration of Independence (1776). “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” says the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens (1789). In recognition of the “inherent dignity” of the human race, “all human beings are born equal”, affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

And long before these documents, King John’s Magna Carter (1215) afforded certain rights to his subjects within the context that all man are equal under God and no man is above the law. But is 1215 as far back as we can go in attributing equality of man?

Under God. This is a crucial point. No equality of worth can be legitimately claimed if man was formed any other way but by a Supreme Creator who creates and simultaneously stamps a value onto the creature.

The documents presuppose that man is created by God and is not the result of a timeless evolutionary process. Words such as “all man are created...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” (US), “under the auspices of the Supreme Being the following rights of man and citizen” (French), and “inherent dignity...of the human family” (UN) speak of the origin of the human being: a being created by a creator and not evolved over millions of years from primordial organic soup. I can’t image anyone defending the American Constitution if it read “all man are evolved equal”.

To say all man have equal value is to determine that all man are worth something. To say we’re worth anything we would have to determine that such value came from somewhere.

Such value would have to come from that which creates or forms us. Just like the money we print, being affixed a certain value that we its creators decide (all variables considered). We cannot be more valuable than that which gives us life—from which we have our existence.

If that source is less valuable than our perceived worth, we would have to admit that we are less valuable than we currently think. And our real value will have to be pragmatic; that is, we would have to import value (e.g. usefulness to society) to give ourselves a sense of worth.

But that will immediately separate our individual values and makes us not equal, thus justifying racism. On the other hand, if that which makes us has value far above us, then we indeed have equal value under a common standard. And we need not import some arbitrary rule for that purpose. The worth of man is directly attributed to the origin of man.

So what is our origin? We would have to go to the beginning. Did we start of as primordial organic soup and evolve over millions of years to get here? Or did an infinitely powerful and creative God make us in His image and likeness?

We would have to admit (at least I would) that it is only because “in the beginning God created” man in His image and likeness, that we even have a starting point of reference for the dignity of all human beings.

Racism is a belief in the superiority of the culture and community from which the racist hails. The Western man believed his style of living, his values, his way of life, was far more superior to others. And therefore by virtue of being born into or living up to those standards, he considered himself superior to others.

Western society has indeed become the yardstick by which the world is measured. "Developed" and "Developing" are stages of nations’ progress—based on how "Western" a nation is. Western values of monetary and economic wealth, modern education, materialism, selfish indulgence in pleasure and eroticism, fame and fortune, have become the key values of the world. And if a nation is not giving the opportunity to its people to pursue these values, then it is a failing nation.

But cultures are diverse. They're diverse not because we evolved differently. They're diverse because God created man to be diverse. He made us to be different to magnify His own power of creativity and infinite ability to make countless kinds (variations) of the same thing.

He never intended that one kind would consider itself better than the other. But all are of equal worth. And He does hope that all man would ultimately recognize and live up to His own ultimate "culture" within the context of theirs.

Indeed we are all different. And not all equal in ability. We are all gifted and equipped differently. From the Olympics we notice that the white man cannot run as fast as the black man. Some can sing, some run, some play basketball, some play guitars, some write, some paint, some speak, some listen.

We are not all equal in our abilities. But we are all of equal worth: regardless of colour or race.

Our individual cultures have shaped us differently. In some countries they have thousands of high-rise buildings and thousands of homeless people on the streets. In others they have bush huts and everyone has a roof over his head.

The urban man cannot handle the bush like the bush-man can. He can't utilize nature using the "primitive" technology of the bush man. And the bushman cannot drive a car, operate a train or fly a plane.

But both can learn. And this is a vital point. Both can learn each other’s ways and do as well as the other within their physical capacities. That is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind: the gift of learning.

With intelligence that can only come from an intelligent Creator, man has been able to improve his lot in life. He could teach himself. He could learn. God intended that man could learn so that he could learn more about Him. Man could adapt to his surroundings. He could be sociable. Sadly some have not used that learning ability to recognise equality in our diversity.

Racism was concocted in the mind of man, just like countless other evils that can be concocted in our minds. Minds that God in His divine grace allowed to think freely, knowing that that freedom could lead us to deny His existence and cook up evil notions.

We see a common thread in history: man, particularly the Western man, has denied God’s existence and attributed ours to a random process. That process could justify racism, and it cannot justify a moral scale by which we can tell if anything is right or wrong.

Now that same western man is trying to impose his amorality on the world. Racism (slavery its linchpin) has proven to be wrong, yet it thrives today in subtle ways such as unjustified visa restrictions and asylum arrangements, or coffee-making policies in mega-malls.

Other ideas emerge from within that same Western man's mind. Such as the amorality of things before believed to be immoral: e.g. homosexuality. But if Western man was once wrong about the value of human beings, what makes him trust-worthy in his perspective of human sexuality and morality now? He may be proven in a few years to be wrong...again.

The world has adopted almost all Western values and perspectives as the yardstick for progress. As if the West created the world and bears witness to ultimate reality. Some of its beliefs are good because they correspond with reality, but many do not.

The promulgation of the revelation of God may be one of the few great gifts that the West has brought to the rest of humanity. Ironically its promulgation of non-belief in that same God may be its worst “theft” to the world.

We need a standard of guidance beyond ourselves. Beyond the black man. Beyond the white man. Beyond all man. It would seem that God still is the best option for guidance of moral perceptions.

Because God is real, racism is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, and everything wrong is wrong. Indeed it is because He exists that we have a concept of "wrong" at all. Nothing else can explain such a deep recognition of a moral dilemma in mankind's hearts.

Comments

[Mrs Barbara Short]

Yes, I agree Michael, God loves diversity. Just look at your butterflies and those PNG birds. Wow! They are beyond our imagination.

I feel the World Wide Web should be a great leveller and help to end racism. I notice a popular children's hymn gets plenty of mention -

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white,
They're all precious in his sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Amen.

[Michael Dom]

Barbara, I recall a dialogue from a movie where a caucasian Christian child asks a negro Muslim man why God painted him black. His answer, "Because Allah is a god who loves wondrous diversity". Enough said.

[Mrs Barbara Short]

I was involved with bringing three different groups of Australian students to PNG to learn about life in PNG.

It was wonderful to see when they "jumped the hurdle" and realized that PNG people were just like them. Their eyes would be opened and they would come to see the PNG people as fellow human beings.

I guess when I have brought my PNG students to Australia for a holiday they also went through some similar sort of process when they came to see that us humans are one big family.

Once you have jumped the hurdle with one race you can usually apply it to other races too. You start to see just one human race. You know how to talk to them.

No doubt some of the people of other races that have been involved with bringing "Western Civilization" to PNG have looked down on the PNG culture.

They have had a "superiority complex" and thought their own culture superior, and they could not see the good features of PNG culture. I can think of a few of them who I met during my 13 years in PNG.

This has probably led to this "inferiority complex" that you speak of which you feel is prevalent amongst some people in PNG.

Ganjiki has tied in this concept of superiority of the white man with evolutionary theories, which I find interesting.

In the Bible, Genesis 1:27, we read about the beginning of mankind on this earth - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."

Now, don't ask me why we all look so different! But I do believe we are all one family!

[David Kitchnoge]

Very insightful and thought provoking.

I personally believe we live in a simple world but we (humans) choose to complicate things for ourselves.

When I look at someone, I simply see one of many other people I see everyday.

There are some people whose jokes we both could laugh at because we both get it.

There are others whose jokes I couldn’t laugh at simply because I don’t get it and vice versa. But that doesn’t make me or them any lesser: same humans with same intellects but different contexts.

This I believe is the essence of the differences between all of us – context!

[Michael Dom]

Ganjiki, I found your article to be insightful, thought provoking and very well written. I enjoyed reading it very much.

I’m not convinced that skin pigmentation is the major driver of racism. Culture is also a cause for division. And racism may predate history.

Despite the bad behavior and laws which may have promoted the racism that was further propagated by Western colonizers, in the societies from which they came I’m sure that there were people who did not like them nor find them to be morally acceptable, i.e. in their own private sense of morality.

Unfortunately, those folk may have been in the minority and for too long to have provide the rest of the world with an alternative history. But that’s politics for you.

On the other hand, I get the impression that some of the views you express may be biased.

There are two assumptions that appear to me to run deep in your article; (1) Christianity is the only religion in the world worth adhering to, and; (2) Morality exists because of belief in a Christian God.

Perhaps I’m getting the wrong impression but those assumptions raise a few questions.

Such as, before Western proselytization of our world were the rest of us immoral?

In my opinion culture is a result of social interaction and religion is an artifact of culture. But morality on the other hand is fundamental in most human societies and different cultures have sets of morals that guide and help them live together successfully, based on their own unique history.

Sometimes our morals are shared, sometimes not. And we all are wary of a person with no morals.

For example, when did some human societies decide that it was ‘not good’ to copulate with our own offspring and did this morality exist before Christianity and before laws were made?

Written laws are another artifact of human society and are influenced by culture. As one wiseacre said, morals are the last resort when laws no longer prevail. So O’Namah broke the law but that was okay with according to our morals, defined by PNG culture.

Also, from ancient times Christianity out grew Islam. Why was that so when history reveals that until a few thousand years ago, Islam was far more multicultural than Christianity?

Religion is the institutionalization of faith and Christianity was the most useful religion for Western society to progress.
I’m sure that there were also people in the Western world, all those hundreds of years ago, who were ‘good Christian folk’ but also quite racist.

A Christian today might wonder what will happen to those folk come Judgment Day. But I think we can all thank the grace of the Christian God that human laws and our sense of morality won’t be the used as the rulebook on that day.

My view has been that adherence to a personally held faith and to a higher being than mortal man, who upholds our sense of morality and defines the establishment of our law is more important than promoting one religion and culture, or race for that matter, over another.

[Corney K. Alone]

The basic core values of life such as respect, honesty and desire for peace permeates and penetrates through all mankind – irrespective of the outer pigmentation that one wears.

It's the flagrant disregard for these universal human values that causes all the strife and social ills we see becoming common everywhere.

The heart of a human being longs and desires the same values, the Northern and Southern citizens of the globe aspire to.

No wonder, many of the laws of the present countries are very similar – derived to protect and preserve them.

We just need to "discover ourselves as individuals" and understand "our purpose" on why we came about and exist in this world for the three score and ten years.

Otherwise we waste this period with some truncated views and be blot to society and not get a chance to be a blessing to the generations that will follow us.

[Yvonne Hani]

Bernard, very true, most Papua New Guineans suffer from 'inferior complex' no matter how educated some may be.

[Bernard Sinai]

There is also the problem with the mindset of a majority of (forgive my use of this word) ignorant Papua New Guineans who have actually come to believe that they are inferior to other races.

I say this because of the different treatment accorded to the natives and expatriates by natives. I'm sure many of us have had some experience with this regard.

I guess this one PNG attitude that needs changing.

[Dylan Brown]

Once again a fascinating article Ganjiki. I have always found it interesting that the use of skin colour as a supposed marker of superiority is relatively recent.

Of course, cultures have always tried to construct an inferior/superior relationship (but in the past they just chose other things)

To play the devils advocate for a while - there are two things I've noticed (as a sideline observer) in terms of discussions of racism within PNG media/social media:

1) The tendency to construct a single view of other cultures/approaches (i.e. all Western people believe X, impose x) i.e. the issue of homosexuality (whatever your opinion) is extremely contested in Western societies.

2) A strong streak of counter-racism running through some of the rhetoric (witness the vitriol against the Asian community) that appears very overtly both online and in day-to-day PNG life.

Neither observation is meant to undermine the significance of your arguments (with their real and flow on impacts for Papua New Guineans).

Instead, they perhaps highlight the fact that the issue is complex and multi-faceted (and perhaps then harder to resolve)

Any thoughts?