Dialectics of white racism and “anti white racism” has one common thesis that`s shared by both sides. More exactly – racist views, that “white” should be racially “clean”, and everything, that isn`t “clean”, is considered to be “colored”.
As it is known, racial segregation laws in the USA and apartheid in South Africa admitted a so-called “one-drop rule”. This rule says, that if a person has even one non-white ancestor – and it isn`t important in from what generation this ancestor was – he and his descendants couldn`t be recognized as white. Since both him or his descendants weren`t “racially clean”, they always would be labeled as “colored”.
This is an Anglo-saxon invention, that wasn`t implemented even in the Nazi Reich. For instance, according to Nuremberg Laws, if 3 of 4 grandparents of a person were “Aryans”, he or she also would be considered to be an “Aryan”. So, if among a person’s distant ancestors one non-Aryan was found, it could prevent this person to aspire for higher administrational posts in Party and state, and, also, it could prevent him from serving in Wafen-SS, where an ideal racial cleanness was demanded. But this made nothing with his status as German by nationality and German citizen. But in Anglo-saxon society, if a person had just one non-white ancestor, his life was ruined by the “one-drop rule”, that considered him to be “colored”.
The “one-drop rule” is clearly not only racist – it is simply idiotic and non-scientific. It opposes genetics itself, which based on Mendels` laws, saying, that gens are dividing, that dominant and recessive principles are accumulating in genom. Anglo-Saxon racists were either ignorant about this, or they were ignoring such facts on purpose, basing their ignorance on the racist misunderstanding in the Old Testament (Book of Ezra, 9:2). Human`s gene fund is changing in every generation through summarization of the father`s and mother`s gene pool. So far, if both parents are of the same gene pool, the gene pool of their child will be close to the gene fund of this population at about 100%. If one of the parent`s gene pool is connected with one gene fund, and other`s one connected with another gene pool, the child`s gene pool will be 50/50%. If one of child`s parents has both parents from one gene pool, and another one – one from the same gene fund, and another – from another gene fund, the proportion will be 75/25%. If in another generation this person marries a 100%-blood spouse from his major gene-pool, his or her children will have more than 90% of genes from one gene-pool – and with new marriages, look like the first one, this percentage will be bigger, till 100% in the sixth – eighth generations.
For instance, genetic tests in South Africa shows, that modern Boers have minimum 2% of African ancestry`s blood. But it`s obvious, that Boers are white people, a white nation. Or, for example, Afro-Americans have at about 20% of European ancestry, which doesn`t prevent them to look like Africans. Of course, by summarizing white and black genes, the first ones are usually failed to preserve – because black color is connected with dominant genes and white color is connected with recessive genes. But this is true only in a fifty/fifty situation. But in the forthcoming generations, if recessive features are multiplying and dominant ones are decaying, the offspring will look like the people whose features are dominating in his or her gene pool.
Whites look white not because their “poor-blood”, but cause the vast majority of their ancestors were whites. Same is true to Cameroonians: though they look like African, within their gene pool there are a lot of males with R1b Y-DNA, which is originally from Eurasia. It means, that there were lots of Eurasian males within the ancestors of the Cameroonians. But with time, those males intermarried with local women and Cameroonians nowadays are look like typical Africans.
And now – about so called “colored”. Indeed, view at “colored” as something, which opposes to whites and blacks, is a product of Anglo-saxon racism. That’s why groups, which are recognized by genetics as independent, like South Americans, East Asians, etc., were included by racists into “coloured”, which is typical vision of white supremacists.
But if we use these terms as an exact definition, we should differ mixed persons from mixed peoples. The second one is made, when people from two or more races are mixing, making by the time new nation. So, people from these nations are “colored” not because they are “colored” personally, but because their nations are mixed. And if we will name every person, that was born from two different parents, “colored”, it will be racist, cause we`ll ignore his or her self-identification. This person can unite his gene pool with black one or white one – and his descendants will have typical features of the chosen gene pool.
Otherwise, nowadays there are a lot of people, who don`t consider themselves as people of one race. For them, “colored” self-identification is a way of differentiation from both whites and blacks. So far, it`s their right and their choice. If they`re Muslims, they`re our brothers and sisters, part of great Islamic Community, the Ummah. But we`re that type of Muslims, that consider: Islam and organic cultures, nations shouldn`t confront each other – but they can strengthen each other, conjoining each other. We respect all Muslims with their own cultures, ethnicities, doesn`t matter, who they are – Africans, Indians, Indonesians etc.
In the end, we would like to repeat: we shouldn`t have racist view on the world, doesn`t matter, white racism it is or anti-white. Allah said in His Holy Book: “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.” (sura #30 “Rum”, ayat 22). And our Beloved Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “There is no vantage of Arab to Non-Arab. And Non-Arab has no advantage to Arab. There is no vantages of white to black, or black of white, except piousity. All people are from Adam, and he is from the soil” (Imam Ahmad`s Sakhikh, 411/5, “Silsilat us-Sakhikha, 199/6).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *