UNITY OF RACES
BY GENEVIEVE L. COY
"The sixth candle is unity of races, making of all that dwell on earth peoples and kindreds of one race.”
IN a world in which racial differences are capitalized in such phrases as "The Yellow Peril,” “The Black Menace,” "The White Man’s Burden,” how could even so far-seeing a soul as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the author of the above quotation, look forward to an age when all the people of the earth shall be "of one race”?
‘Abdu’l-Bahá gave an answer to this question when He said in Chicago in 1912, "Be it known that color or race is of no importance. He who is the image and likeness of God, who is the manifestation of the bestowals of God, is acceptable at the threshold of God whether his color be white, black or brown; it matters not. Man is not man simply because of bodily attributes. The standard of divine measure and judgment is his intelligence and spirit.”1
"Color is of no importance,”—and yet the lives of millions of human beings are today shadowed by the conviction on the part of other millions that color is an adequate basis for judging intelligence, economic value and social acceptability. The unity of mankind cannot be achieved until the majority of men and women the world over think, feel and act in wholehearted acceptance of the truth that "color is of no importance.” This implies a tremendous change in the habits of a large part of the world.
In order to change any habit of thought or action, it is important to learn how it began, and what roots it has in the instinctive nature of man. Therefore, when we face the problem of changing men’s attitudes toward race and color, we ask such questions as the following:—How did racial prejudice begin? Are there really innate differences between races in intelligence and special ability? Why do we now find marked cultural differences between large racial groups?
In the following discussion we shall use the word "race” as do those who think that color is of importance,—to indicate large divisions of mankind who differ markedly in color of skin and in certain other physical traits, such as shape of the features and texture of the hair.
Have racial prejudices always existed? For an answer to this question we must turn first to the writings of anthropologists. Research in the life of prehistoric man has told us a great deal about his height and weight, the shape of his body, his manner of living, —but we do not know at all what was the color of his skin. It seems probable that these early men were all of one color, and that differentiation occurred later as they moved into a variety of climates. Some anthropologists suggest that primitive men were all black; others think that they were all of an olive brown, and that later some grew darker under the tropic sun, while those who traveled into colder regions became bleached. It seems reasonably certain that these early peoples did not differentiate among themselves on the basis of color.
But we cannot assume that the small groups of primitive men who banded together into clans and tribes lived in an idyllic harmony with one another. The basic problem of existence in that early time was to find and hold hunting grounds or fishing waters which would provide food, and groups must have been in constant warfare as one tribe strove to take from another these sources of life. The more powerful groups eventually came to hold certain regions of the earth’s surface for long periods of time, and were able to develop a stable tribal organization. Weaker groups were either starved to death, or existed in a restless
————————
1 Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 67.
[Page 713]
misery on the far fringes
of the areas held by dominant tribes. Thus,
at the dawn of recorded history, we find
comparatively well
organized states such as the Greeks, the
Egyptians, the Babylonians, who had
developed a culture and a government. But
these settled units were constantly in
danger from nomadic tribes who might at any
moment gain power enough to rush in from
the mountains, the steppes or the desert and
destroy these “civilized” centers. Thus
warfare was the habit of life for early mankind.
But history gives us no reason to suppose
that the conflicts of primitive men or of
early civilized men were ever related to the
differences in color of skin which had come
to exist.
These conflicts were fundamentally economic. But as more groups held as their own for long periods of time larger areas of land, and differentiated “national” cultures developed, group ideals of behavior, of religious observance, of beauty and strength were developed. It was probably only after civilization was thus far advanced that some nations began to look down on other groups which differed in color of skin or hair, in shape of eyes and type of dress. The more powerful the group, the more it held in contempt those who were weaker,—and concomitant with this, came scorn for the outer aspect of the inferior group. Thus a dominant tribe whose skin was red or yellow despised the color of less powerful tribes whose skin was white or black. So color came to be associated with adequate food supply, and a stable group life,—with power, with success. And since the group in power were always in danger of having the good things of life taken from them, there was always a lurking fear and hatred of those who might come in and seize these hardly won advantages. Thus, slowly through the ages, as nations became more and more powerful, fear of other nations increased,—and some of this mingled fear and hate became attached to the idea of color.
The idea that color of skin is important is based, therefore, on the desire to maintain power exercised by a portion of mankind, and on fear lest this dominant position may be undermined. In order to strengthen this sense of superiority, all races, whatever their color, have at various times made scurrilous criticisms of other races. The less powerful groups have been stigmatized as stupid, superstitious, dishonest, dirty, mean, lazy,—they have been called by whatever names seemed most derogatory to the "superior” race.
In our present scientific age, to describe an individual as lacking in intelligence is one of the most scathing criticisms that can be made. Therefore much racial prejudice expresses itself by decrying the stupidity of other races.
For ten or fifteen years after the introduction of psychological tests as a means of measuring intelligence, those who believed in the intellectual supremacy of the white race wrongly felt that they could use the results of such tests as a means of proving the lower ability of the darker races. But the scientists who were using the tests were also interested in measuring the varying effects of different environments on men’s accomplishment. They soon suggested that only individuals who had had a similar environment could fairly be compared in intelligence, and that races living under conditions differing as markedly as those, for instance, of the European white man and of the South American Indian, cannot possibly be measured by the same type of tests. Further, they said, even though two races live in the same country, under similar conditions of civilization, there may be such great differences in education and social environment, that a comparison of test results will give little indication of innate intelligence.
In a recent book by Thomas Garth, "Race Psychology,” the results of much testing of race groups are reviewed. Dr. Garth sums up his conclusions as follows, “Much of the difference found in the results of studies of racial differences in mental traits is due to nurtural factors, and the rest is due to racial mobility, so that one race has a temporary advantage over another.”2
Those who maintain that there are marked differences in ability between races can no longer turn to scientific evidence to prove their point. But the unprejudiced student of history may fairly raise the question: if we have no certain evidence that races differ
————————
2Race Psychology, p. 221.
[Page 714]
in innate ability, why
is it that some races
are at the present time culturally so far
ahead of others?
One answer to this problem is found at the end of the quotation from Garth,—the mobility of races. In earlier centuries cultural groups varied greatly in the degree to which they moved about and mingled with other groups. A tribe or nation surrounded by mountains or jungles or deserts had little opportunity to come in contact with people and ideas from other lands. They developed a conservative culture of their own which tended to become static. Nations living on navigable waterways became travelers, and consciously or unconsciously learned from other groups. Today, with means of communication greatly multiplied, most nations exchange ideas, inventions and discoveries with many other groups. But there are still thousands and thousands of human beings who are completely isolated from such contacts, and do not have this type of stimulation. This is particularly true of large areas of Africa, South America and parts of central Asia.
Another factor which has had a marked influence on the speed of cultural growth is that of climate. Weather which is either very hot or very cold most of the year reduces man’s initiative and his desire to change the cultural patterns which he has inherited. The main business of peoples living within the Arctic Circle is that of keeping warm and finding enough food. If a successful method of doing these two things has been developed by the tribe, there is little incentive to change to something which might be better. If one lives within the torrid zone, getting food is apt to be a comparatively easy matter. Change requires energy which the climate does not provide, and therefore the accepted customs of life do not put any value on change, initiative and "progress.”
A third element in causing cultural differences in races may be described in the words of Herbert A. Miller, in his book, "Races, Nations and Classes,” in which he emphasizes the importance of chance as a factor in determining racial history.
"A modern culture group results from the fortuitous possession of organization, accumulated wealth, momentum, machinery and prestige; each of these as a factor multiplies the significance of both the individual and the group incalculably more than any possible variation in natural endowment could do. Nor must any of these be taken alone. The possession of a machine alone has a very different effectiveness from the possession of a machine along with organization or prestige. Certain ideas and the organization of government gave the white race a start some four hundred years ago that enabled it to expand to the uttermost parts of the earth, but there is not an iota of proof in this expansion that therefore the white race is better endowed than those whom they subjected. . . . Since there is slight relation between the originators and possessors of culture, it may often happen that the culture of the dominant race has been secured from the ‘inferior’ race or culture. . . . In the region of the Mediterranean most of European culture was developed. The Nordics after appropriating the contribution repudiate the creators of it.”
We see, then, that it is very dubious logic to infer that a race is innately inferior because its present cultural status is not as high as that of some other race. We find that the results of scientific research tend more and more toward the acceptance of the idea that “color is of no importance.” . . . And yet race prejudice is firmly entrenched in the feelings of millions of men and women, to whom the scientific and historical evidence is of no interest when it opposes "what they have always believed.”
How can this state of affairs be changed, so that mankind will come to feel that there is only one race that matters—the whole human race?
We see that race prejudice is based primarily on the desire for power and on fear, two very fundamental motives to conduct. It is only when a man becomes activated by some stronger motive that he realizes that the will to exercise power over other human beings need not be the basis of group life. Only when man ceases to desire power over others, and so ceases to fear his fellowmen,—only then can we hope to attain to a real unity of the world.
[Page 715]
Such a change of
motives can come to
mankind only through a renewed spiritual
vision, such as Bahá’u’lláh brought to the
world. The individual who really loves
God must perforce love his fellowmen. And
those whom we love unselfishly we do not
try to rule or control. Fear, hatred, dislike
of another race is a certain indication that
our faith in the Divine Plan for the world
is weak. We are saying, in effect, that the
Creator did a pretty bad job on some of His
creatures, and that we will have none of
the results.
Racial prejudice is a barrier across the road to World Peace and a united humanity. In 1912 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said, "The accomplishment of unity between the colored and the whites will be an assurance of the world’s peace. . . . When the racial elements of the American nation unite in actual fellowship and accord, the lights of the oneness of humanity will shine. . . . This is the sign of the ‘Most Great Peace’.”
Bahá’u’lláh has given mankind a Divine Plan for world order. But this plan cannot function until men realize that the only power which should control the lives of humanity is spiritual law. When they turn to the great spiritual Educators to learn this law, they will cease to desire personal or national or racial power. Then racial prejudice will gradually disappear, and we shall be ready to enter into the age of the oneness of mankind.
"O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. . . . Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.3
————————
3Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215.
