Chapter 1: Understanding Race and Its Implications

In this concluding segment of our eight-part series, we delve into the complex discourse surrounding race in America. From critical race theory to the recent suspension of Whoopi Goldberg for her remarks on race and Judaism, it appears we are once again engaged in a debate about racism. The roots of these discussions can be traced back to colonialism and slavery, which led to the devastation of numerous cultures across Africa, the Americas, and Austronesia. Millions lost their lives due to disease and acts of genocide, all stemming from the erroneous belief that one's skin color determines human capability and value. In this final part, we examine whether our language surrounding race inadvertently perpetuates these misconceptions.

"The truth is that all humans—regardless of skin color—share 99.9% of the same genetic material. Modern genetics reveal that we cannot be accurately divided into distinct 'races' or subspecies. In fact, there is greater genetic variation within African populations than in any other region of the world."

It's essential to recognize that while race may be a social construct, prejudice based on perceived racial differences is very real and often systemic. The notion that individuals with different skin tones are inferior served as a justification for Europe's colonial pursuits. Throughout this series, we have highlighted how racial classifications were employed to rationalize the abduction of over twelve million individuals, many of whom were condemned to lives of forced labor.

Additionally, we obliterated entire civilizations that had flourished for centuries in the New World, and today, we often celebrate those responsible for these atrocities as heroes. Not even the Native nations that allied with us were spared from our expansionist ambitions.

The Oneida people, once stewards of six million acres in present-day New York, fought alongside the Patriots during the Revolutionary War. They had a treaty with the new American government that guaranteed their land rights. However, following the war, the State of New York sought their territory, and the federal government failed to uphold the treaty. Now, the Oneida are dispersed, with their largest reservation located in Wisconsin, while others migrated to Ontario, Canada, and a small group remains in New York, where their land has dwindled to just 32 acres.

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, championed the Indian Removal Act, enabling him to displace Native Americans from their ancestral lands east of the Mississippi River and confine them to reservations in the west. This law effectively nullified treaties with Native tribes in the Northeast and South. The Cherokee Nation, considered one of the 'Five Civilized Tribes', sought legal recourse and won a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which deemed part of the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional and forbade the government from forcibly removing them.

In response, Jackson infamously remarked, “Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it...” He instructed the army to ignore the Supreme Court's decision, leading to the forced relocation of up to 60,000 Native Americans in brutal marches known as the 'Trail of Tears', where an estimated 25% perished along the way.

The distinction between personal bias and systemic discrimination warrants careful consideration. Individuals may express derogatory views toward those of different races, while systemic policies, such as the Indian Removal Act and school segregation, reflect a broader societal bias. It is crucial that our language accurately captures these differences.

Yet, I question the value of reassigning meanings to terms like 'racism.' This outdated racial paradigm, which classifies humanity into distinct races, has led to immeasurable suffering over the past five centuries. Many still perceive race as a meaningful concept, believing it conveys significant characteristics about individuals. This mindset has historically justified treatment of those deemed racially different in ways that would be unacceptable if the roles were reversed.

Isn't this the core issue we've faced for hundreds of years? Our words shape our thoughts, and I fear that using terms like white racism or the Black race reinforces a flawed and antiquated framework. Instead, shouldn't we reject the language of oppressors and consider new terminology that more accurately reflects our understanding of these issues?

One potential term could be "quasi-racism," indicating the manipulation of institutional power to favor one racial group over others. A "quasi-racist" might be someone in authority who acts to benefit their own race, albeit without openly acknowledging it. This prefix could imply that while the intent may have been to advance the interests of a specific group, these actions did not genuinely prioritize any one race but rather reflected a misguided bias.

For personal prejudice, we already have a suitable term: colorism. Traditionally defined as a preference for lighter-skinned individuals within a racial group, it could be expanded to encompass favoring individuals based solely on skin tone, regardless of their ethnic background. This definition excludes sexual attraction, which deserves its own discussion.

My intent is not to undermine the shared experiences and history of African Americans or other marginalized groups. If you interpret this as an attempt to promote an "all lives matter" narrative, you've misunderstood my point. The African American community and culture are undeniably real and deserving of pride.

The persistence of color-based prejudice is a genuine concern that must be vigorously challenged. However, artificially categorizing people based on skin tone serves no constructive purpose. As the renowned sportswriter Jimmy Cannon once remarked, when another journalist referred to Joe Louis as “a credit to his race,” Cannon countered that Louis was indeed “a credit to his race … the human race.”

If you've followed this entire eight-part series, I appreciate your engagement and invite you to share your thoughts, whether in agreement or opposition. As a nonfiction writer, I value the perspectives of those who disagree with me; they often teach me more than those who share my views.

Chapter 2: Moving Forward with a New Perspective

Analyzing the complexities of race and its implications in modern society.

Michael Dawson delivers a keynote address addressing race and systemic inequalities.