Definitions and Wrong-Thinking

By Christopher Zoukis

Canada has a unique and somewhat confusing way of classifying whites and non-whites.  In one census, the government wants to know about each person’s “cultural or ethnic origin.”  Supposedly, this question does not refer to skin color.  On the second census, people are either designated as white or non-white in color.  And note that it is never whites and people of color.  Rather, the people of color are called ‘members of visible minority groups.’  All three terms are demeaning.  ‘Non-white’ implies immediate inferiority because you’re not white – you’re deficient already.  'People of color' implies the same lack, but from the opposite direction:  since you are a person of color, that means you’re not white, and that means you’re second-class.  And the phrase ‘visible minority’ might be the worst of all, because it screams freakishness:  you stand out because you’re not the same as most everybody else, and since you’re not a member of any majority, you must be genetically deviant.  Each of the terms excludes, isolates, separates, and humiliates.  s far as I can tell, Canada has never had an official or active ‘whites-preferred’ immigration program.  However, it’s my uImage courtesy pdfcast.orgnderstanding that many whites in Canada despise the influx of Chinese immigrants.  And it’s no secret that the French-speaking whites of Quebec believe themselves vastly superior to all other Canadians, regardless of skin tone.  If you’re not white, don’t speak French and don’t live in Quebec, you’re trash. 

Brazil, though, is a whole different kettle of fish.  Since most Brazilians are mixed racially, Brazil’s definition of whiteness is more “broadly applied,” which means it’s vague, and if you want to be white, you just check the appropriate box.  Really, that’s how they do it.  The census in Brazil operates on self-identification.  In the 2006 census, 53 percent, or 100 million Brazilians were white.  However, as it becomes more and more acceptable to be of African descent (black), fewer people are identifying themselves as white.  This pleasing trend indicates either a sense of healthy imminence, or signifies truculence and bellicosity.  I suspect it represents a growing spiritual and racial serenity.  Brazilians are becoming more at ease with who they are.

The definition of white in the United States is “people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa."  For all practical purposes, though, it refers to people of European origin with pale complexions.  In other words, if you look white (have a pale complexion), then you are white.  But wait a moment, there is also the ‘one drop’ rule.  This rule declares any person with any trace of non-white ancestry is not white.  Which means that even if you look white, you may not be white.  You might be tainted.

I suspect the ‘one drop’ rule was to discourage what is called miscegenation, which is a fancy term for interbreeding, in the U.S. anyway, between whites and blacks.

‘White race’ or ‘white people’ did not enter European dictionaries until around 1600, the result of widespread colonialism by the major nations.  The use of the term ‘white people’ was to assuage the guilt complexes of the whites as they proceeded to methodically and deliberately rape the earth of its wealth, and, simultaneously, wipe out whole races who happened to get in their way. 

Put simply, four hundred years ago, most Europeans believed whites were superior to people of color.  They were superior intellectually, spiritually, physically and morally.  This meant that lying to colored people was okay.  Cheating colored people was okay.  Stealing from colored people was okay.  Enslaving colored people was okay.  Murdering them was not only okay, it was encouraged because it improved the whole of mankind by reducing the unsound, who tended to drag everyone else down.  The only thing discouraged was interbreeding with coloreds. 

I kid you not, that's the way many people thought.  And some still do. 

For example, some guy named Carl Peters founded the German East Africa colony.  In carrying out his duties as commissioner, Peters did whatever was necessary to make money for the fatherland.  He had the son of the Sultan flogged; murdered countless others, burned their villages and destroyed everything that wouldn’t burn.  Years later, in 1897, Peters was indicted and found guilty of the murder of his black mistress.  Obviously, no one cared about the thousands of blacks he had murdered or the death of one lone black woman.  What they did care about was Peters’ unseemliness in his choice of female companions.

In April 1897, the same year as Carl Peters’ trial, an English newspaper called Social-Democrat published a remarkable (and disgusting) piece entitled “Bloody Niggers.”  And since the adjective ‘bloody’ in England is equivalent to our F-word in America, the real title of the article was less than attractive.