There was a time when most people believed that the earth was flat. The prudent person thus ordered his or her life to fit in with this "reality" (especially concerning any travel plans). With the realization that we live on a globe, "reality" changed for most people. I do not similarly expect that racists will become shining examples of social tolerance just because they are convinced that their current "reality" is largely based on myth (I suspect that many of them already know that they are dancing on intellectual quicksand). However, by moving the debate on from morals and ethics to a more objective basis some individuals might come to see the ludicrous and illusionary nature of "race" itself. This might in turn result in this pernicious myth being consigned to the history books where it belongs.
"Common sense" interpretations of the physical human differences we see about us deal with visible clues. We behave like children sorting play bricks according to colour, size or shape. In the same way that such a classification can be made without reference to the material from which the bricks are made, "common sense" classifications of physical human differences rarely say anything of consequence about human biology.
The foregoing is why social scientists sometimes refer to "common sense" visual clues of "race" as "biological signifiers". For example, biologists are by no means in agreement as to the biological function of skin colour. This contrasts sharply with the certainty with which some people refer to skin colour as a signifier of "race". This is because the latter are using it solely as a classificatory criterium. They are in effect saying "How can I classify these 'human bricks' into some sort of order". Because "races" are supposed to have inter-generational stability (i.e. like giving rise to like) certain visual clues are ignored (e.g., in general, freckles) whilst others (e.g. the already mentioned skin colour) are favoured. Because of the obvious role of descent, this has a long history as a signifier of "race" (e.g. in "Racial Consciousness", Longman, 1992, Professor Banton dates the earliest usage of descent in this way [i.e. "race" as lineage] to 1570).
A further product of "common sense", without which the generalized interpretations typical of discourses on "race" would be impossible, is the idea that a shared group characteristic e.g. "black" skin, somehow means that the group also shares just about anything else that enters the imagination. This is sometimes known as the myth of racist prediction. This would have us believe that because one knows that a certain person is, say, "black" this allows us to also predict his/her intelligence (or more often its lack); cultural acuity and so on.
The foregoing error of judgement appears to be quite common and is not restricted just to "race". For example, assumptions about a person's class, IQ, etc., are often made according to his or her regional accent. It was also shown recently that in the UK a surprising number of the population assume that all wheelchair users are of low intelligence.
In the case of "race" such erroneous judgements are made possible by the still popular notion of "pure race".
The "blood theory of heredity" provided a theoretical mechanism for the "natural" maintenance of "pure races". It suggested that "races" naturally tend towards a sort of ideal average type. Foreign "blood" introduced to such a population would be diluted out with the passing of each generation.
To make this point more clear, consider what happens if a "black" person marries into a "white race". His/her "black hereditary substance" will be diluted in the first generation by an equal volume of his/her spouse's "white hereditary substance" (this is where we get the terms "full-blood"; "half-blood; "quarter-blood"; "eight-blood" and so on). In subsequent generations, the amount of "black hereditary substance" will get ever smaller until it effectively disappears and the "purity" of the "white race" is secured.
The "blood theory of heredity" has long been trashed by science (some contra-evidence was available even at the time when this "theory" was at the peak of its popularity), but it still casts a long shadow across society.
Claims to be a "full blooded" whatever can be heard daily, yet they have about the same status in reality as the flat earth theory. Expressions such as "mixed race" are used constantly on British television and in the newspapers, as they are no doubt in other countries. Yet the very idea of a "mixed race" presupposes the existence of "pure races" and takes us back to the superstitions of the "blood theory of heredity".
It is against this background of persistent ignorance and superstition that one must assess racial discrimination and the associations that practice this social evil.
Let us invent a few examples to show the differences. Supposing a Church of England social club management committee decided not to admit Roman Catholics. Irrespective of whether you think they have the right to do this it might nevertheless be an expression of religious bigotry. A majority of the committee members might despise Roman Catholicism sufficiently that they wish to avoid all social contact with RCs. Therefore they discriminate on religious grounds. Note that there is a religious difference between the discriminators (i.e. the committee members) and those who are discriminated against. If this religious difference did not exist there would be no religious grounds for discrimination (this point seems obvious but some people miss it). At the same time the same social club might well admit Anglicans of all "races".
Contrast the above with another Christian social club on the other side of town. In this case, the committee has decided to exclude anyone not of "English parentage". So if your parents or grandparents were English you are in, if not, you are very definitely out. It would not matter if the club catered for Christians of a particular denomination, unless you have "English parentage" the fact that you are a fellow Christian, maybe belonging to the very same denomination, would not count and you would still be excluded. Clearly "English parentage" is here being used as a "common sense" signifier of "race" and the club concerned is practising racial discrimination. Note that the only difference between the discriminators and those discriminated against is "race". Religion does not come into the equation.
Let us now return to a real life example, the already mentioned "International Messianic Jewish Alliance" (1). The following quotations were extracted from the FAQ page on its official web site (2).
Full membership is open to, "Any Jewish person who believes that Yeshua (i.e. mission speak for "Jesus" - my comment) is the Messiah, whether they call themselves Hebrew Christians or Messianic Jews, but they must accept the Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments, and agree with a general statement of faith as stated in our Constitution" (2 & 1).
In contrast, so called "non-Jewish Christians", "... are welcome as Associate Members, and we value their support. Full members must be children of a Jewish parent, or married to a Jew, otherwise we might lose our primary objective, which is to look after the spiritual and material needs of Jewish individuals who believe in Yeshua" (2).
All members (both full and associate) must affirm the IMJA's Christian theology (1 & 2). There can thus be no doubt that the IMJA is a thoroughly Christian association. No religious differences exist between full and associate members that would justify these separate categories. The only difference between them lies in that paradigm of ignorance and superstition we identified as a "common sense" notion of "race". The IMJA and other Christian associations like it (3) are practising racial segregation and discrimination and are fairly and properly described as racist.
Use your back button to return to this page.