Did Darwin's theories tend to build racism?

[truethat]

The other day I was on the subway and this very brutish black woman got on the train. Her size and her demeanor really seemed "apelike" to me. I was shocked that this thought so casually skipped through my mind. I certainly don't like that it did and of course it was racist. I apologize.

But it made me wonder. I thought about the eugenics movement and the way Darwin's theories contributed to the idea of the "evolution of the species" towards a more sophisticated human.

I also noted that when we hear stories about aliens they tend to be depicted as very WHITE evolved creatures. Almost as if all the "animal" or likeness to other animals on our planet is squeezed out.


I do wonder if these ideas have created a sense of racism that suggests that Africans are more "animal" and "White Europeans" more "developed."


I know it's a very negative idea and not very PC to talk about it. However I wonder if ignoring it just perpetuates it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I kinda doubt it.
It's probably more racist people taking a theory and then twisting it to their own interpretation.

Bear in mind that in darwin's day it was considered a normal fact that white people were just in some way better than black, so his theories are probably laced with the morals of the time.

The slavery of africans was also justified for centuries pointing at certain bible verses, so its not like truly racist people won't find something to point out "us good, them bad"

 

[truethat]

I guess what I mean is did it create a sort of racist paradigm where you have the idea that "Black" is lower on the scale and white is higher.

Some of the features on the woman I was looking at did look "apelike" she had the flared flat nostril, etc.

I remember hearing years ago that the movie The Planet of the Apes was really about the idea of racism and about the uprising of the black community who had been regulated to animal status.

The misguided ideas that we "evolved from apes" creates a sort of spectrum along which it is easy to see how racists could justify the idea that whites are better than blacks based on appearance alone.

The early days of slavery were more about an economic justification of slavery and in the bible slaves are not considered "less than" non slaves as far as an idea of being genetically inferior. It was more of a status issue.


That's much different than the idea that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, intellectually.

 

[Madalch]

I guess what I mean is did it create a sort of racist paradigm where you have the idea that "Black" is lower on the scale and white is higher.

Not really- the creationists already thought that God had created the different races with different roles. He created master races (their own, surprisingly enough) and lower races (everyone else). Or, at least, the "lower races" came from Biblical people who were cursed to have dark skin (along with any other bad trait that they associated with not being of the right race).

Pre-Darwinian evolutionists (and some people who still don't understand evolution) thought that the lower races would continue to evolve to the higher ones.

 

[slingblade]

I know it's a very negative idea and not very PC to talk about it. However I wonder if ignoring it just perpetuates it.

Any thoughts?

I think it's brave of you, in a good way, to admit you had this thought, and felt it was a racist thought. That isn't easy to admit.

That said, yes, ignoring it does perpetuate it, because it drives the thought and the racism underground where it can't be clearly seen and fought against. You can't fight something people think, but won't talk about. Drag it kicking and screaming into the light, let us all get a look, and let us work on it.

But your realizing it was racist in nature shows that you aren't trying to advocate racism, don't think the thought was truly justified, and would like to find a solution to the problems.

Good on you, and thanks for being so honest, so you could present an important matter.

 

[TheAnachronism]

There is a reason that various races are traditionally "classified" based on physical (phenotypic) differences--humans are prone to create groups and hierarchies based on the most arbitrary of things, and visual differences are often the easiest for us to recognize. Racism has been around for a long, long time, and people have attempted to justify such attitudes through a wide variety of methods, from theology to science. I don't think evolutionary thought in any way created or contributed to racism, but that doesn't mean that evolutionary thought, like the dead science of phrenology, wasn't used to justify racism.

When it comes to the question of exactly how racist attitudes in the West were effected by various evolutionary theories, it really depends on which time period is being referred to. Even in ancient times, there was the notion that races had "evolved," to use our modern language, from one another and that there was a natural hierarchy of races.

One must also consider what a fuzzy term "race" is. Ideas about race 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago, 50 years ago, and today are all very different, and influenced by the cultures in which we live. In ancient Greece, people from other cultures and civilizations that we would see as homogeneous today were considered distinct, and according to Aristotle, non-Greeks were naturally inferior.

Then one need only look at the history of Jewish people in Europe. when Martin Luther wrote Von den Juden und ihren Lügen in 1543, his racism wasn't based on evolutionary thought or evolutionary models of race. Although Hitler would be justifying his horribly racist actions 400 years later by veiling them in evolutionary theory, the roots go much deeper.

This post has sort of rambled on, but hopefully it has answered some of your question or will spark some discussion.

 

[truethat]

Not really- the creationists already thought that God had created the different races with different roles. He created master races (their own, surprisingly enough) and lower races (everyone else). Or, at least, the "lower races" came from Biblical people who were cursed to have dark skin (along with any other bad trait that they associated with not being of the right race).

Pre-Darwinian evolutionists (and some people who still don't understand evolution) thought that the lower races would continue to evolve to the higher ones.

Ah I forgot that the mark of Cain has been said to be skin color!

This is what I'm talking about, that the evolution of Humans is that interracial relationships is what is causing black people to move up. During Obama's campaign for example I spoke to some Indian people I know who insisted that the reason Obama was more sophisticated was that his mother was white.

The whole concept of "race" when it comes to genetics, (I do hope some people are familiar with eugenics) is that the darker skin is "lower" and the lighter skin is "better."

I was thinking also of the idea of Aliens and how they are supposed to be highly advanced creatures and they are very white.



Slingblade thanks for the support. I'm nervous about bringing this up and of course I know I'm not alone in this kind of unconscious racism, I do hope discussing it brings it to light and helps change it.

 

[Brian Thompson]

If you look at the history of racism all across the world, you'll see that whichever race is being ridiculed is almost always depicted as ape-like. During World War II, U.S. propaganda posters depicted Japanese shoulders with long, drooping limbs carrying their enemies on their backs like apes. And many racist Japanese depictions of Americans were just the same thing in reverse.

If you're a racist, you can find ape-like qualities about whichever ethnic group you hate. The only commonality is that human beings in general tend to see apes as a lesser species.

This is one of the many, many reasons racism is so absurd. You can't buy into a stereotype about one race being lazy or criminal or unintelligent if you have any understanding of the fact that the same things are said about whoever happens to be the victimized minority in every other part of the world.

 

[truethat]

Well this is what I mean? What does being apelike have to do with anything? The reason it is used in an insulting way is because the underlying connotation is that they are "inferior" or less "evolved" more "animal" and related to our ape ancestors.

 

[Lowpro]

My mother always likes to talk about what she considers a great big conspiracy in academia to mask what she considers the "Fact that Neanderthals were black people"

I then remind her that black people are Homo sapien, not Homo neandertalensis but then she reminds me that I was taught under the same conspirators...

She also thinks all black people's brain capacity is far smaller than those of white people because scientists many many years ago before the discovery of the genome (-.-) found differences in skull capacity when you filled them with sand

I doubt this to be Darwinian in origin, but a skewed "appeal to authority" similar to some guy who if I mention will Godwin this thread >.>

 

[Brian Thompson]

Well this is what I mean? What does being apelike have to do with anything? The reason it is used in an insulting way is because the underlying connotation is that they are "inferior" or less "evolved" more "animal" and related to our ape ancestors.

Oh, that's just because apes are like us but worse. Don't need to understand evolutionary theory to believe that. Have you ever given an ape an iPod? Dummies can't even make a playlist.

I'm a proud apeist, by the way.

 

[truethat]

Yes this sort of unspoken understanding that no one is going to discuss but that many of the racist comments I hear do seem to be about equating minorities as being "less evolved."

The way you were able to trounce that theory of hers is good. By discussing it people will be confronted with reality.


Found this article

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/02/associate-black-people-with-monkeys-and.html

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well this is what I mean? What does being apelike have to do with anything? The reason it is used in an insulting way is because the underlying connotation is that they are "inferior" or less "evolved" more "animal" and related to our ape ancestors.

I'm pretty sure that concept was around long before the idea of evolution though. Other races being seen as animal-like and not properly human. I don't think evolution changed very much in that regard.
For example, just prior to Darwin's Origin of Species:

In 1853 the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau published An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, in which he proposed that humans were composed of three races, the most advanced of which was the "Aryan Race". In An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races Gobineau stated that civilizations collapsed due to race mixing. This work was highly influential in Europe and America and is widely acknowledged today as the foundation of so-called scientific racism.

In 1857, two years before Charles Darwin pushed The Origin of Species, Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon, creationists who argued that science supported the Biblical account of creation, published Indigenous Races of the Earth. Dr. Nott, from South Carolina, had been writing and giving lectures on race for years and his works were highly influential. All of the copies of Indigenous Races of the Earth were pre-sold before they were even printed. The book went on to be published in many languages and was one of the best selling books of the time. An illustration in Indigenous Races of the Earth compared the skulls of "Greeks", "Negroes", and Chimpanzees.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

 

[Lowpro]

Yes this sort of unspoken understanding that no one is going to discuss but that many of the racist comments I hear do seem to be about equating minorities as being "less evolved."

The way you were able to trounce that theory of hers is good. By discussing it people will be confronted with reality.


Found this article

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/02/associate-black-people-with-monkeys-and.html

Hey Truethat, I read that article. An interesting skew they should have tried to do in that priming is recolor the faces (color white people as darker, and black people as lighter) to see if it's the color specifically, or what I think is more likely to be, the bone structure of the face itself.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Many people have attempted to use evolutionary biology to justify their preconceived notions of race, resorting to a lot of pseudo-science, but ultimately evolutionary biology has shown that 'race' is largely a human construct.

 

[phantomb]

I thought about the eugenics movement and the way Darwin's theories contributed to the idea of the "evolution of the species" towards a more sophisticated human.

But racist ideas of blood purity existed long before Darwin. Religion is heavy with the stuff. The basic blood-based rules of kinship relations that exist throughout history seem foundational to this kind of racism as well.

It's also true that most racist eugenicists and those who followed them horribly mangled Darwin's theories, probably intentionally, so the real question is would such people have found some other rationalization to use had they lacked Darwin. I have to say yes.

I also noted that when we hear stories about aliens they tend to be depicted as very WHITE evolved creatures.

Umm, really? Can you give some examples? When I think stories about aliens I think Star Trek, Star Wars, and popular sci-fi literature, which are chock full of fantastic aliens and people in ridiculous costumes.

I do wonder if these ideas have created a sense of racism that suggests that Africans are more "animal" and "White Europeans" more "developed."

Again, if someone is willing to take what science actually has to say and screw it up that badly, maybe they're just starting with a racist conclusion and then rationalizing it as best they can.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm pretty sure that concept was around long before the idea of evolution though. Other races being seen as animal-like and not properly human. I don't think evolution changed very much in that regard.
For example, just prior to Darwin's Origin of Species:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

One of the big debates in the Catholic church was whether the native Mesoamericans were real humans with souls to be saved for Jesus, or could be exploited like animals. In the end they covered all the bases.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The other day I was on the subway and this very brutish black woman got on the train. Her size and her demeanor really seemed "apelike" to me. I was shocked that this thought so casually skipped through my mind. I certainly don't like that it did and of course it was racist. I apologize.

But it made me wonder. I thought about the eugenics movement and the way Darwin's theories contributed to the idea of the "evolution of the species" towards a more sophisticated human.

I also noted that when we hear stories about aliens they tend to be depicted as very WHITE evolved creatures. Almost as if all the "animal" or likeness to other animals on our planet is squeezed out.


I do wonder if these ideas have created a sense of racism that suggests that Africans are more "animal" and "White Europeans" more "developed."


I know it's a very negative idea and not very PC to talk about it. However I wonder if ignoring it just perpetuates it.

Any thoughts?

A couple points on this.

First of all, long before the ToE, it was beleived that species and races were "ranked" in order of importance. This belief was known as the scala naturae - the great "Chain of Being" and it originated with Aristotle, but the concept was reshaped by Christian theologians who just loved ranking things. God was at the top of course, followed by angels (each angel classification given their own rank), then the King, then his family, then the aristocracy, then regular humans, then animals, then plants, then minerals. And within all these categories, types of people/animals/plants/rocks were also sorted from highest to lowest. There wasn't just one scala naturae, though Thomas Aquinas' version was the most commonly used. Some (though not all) people using this scale also ranked people by race and nationality. Unsurpringly, the Greek Artisotle placed Greeks as the top ranking human group.

A second thing is that more evolutionary changes does not = better. In fact, when you read the works of evolutionary scientists, biologists, etc, it's quite the opposite. A creature that has undergone less evolutionary changes is indicative of a creature so well adapted that it lacked the need to evolve. Ever watch shark week? Scientist after scientist describes the shark as the "perfect predator" specifically because they've had so little evolutionary changes for millions and millions of years. The shark isn't thought of as something "less" because it underwent less evolutionary changes. It's more a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I've seen it claimed so many times that Darwinism is responsible for the Holocaust because he came up with the idea that lead people to believe that Jews were less than the Germans. That's just a ridiculous and historically ignorant claim to make. The Germans, unfortunately, had a millenia long history of persecuting Jews and thinking of them as "less than." For example, when the Black Death hit the Germanic region in the 14th century, the Jews were blamed for it. In city after city, the Jews were rounded up, and either expelled from the cities (usually to then be set upon by angry mobs who would beat to death or drown them), or in other cases, a special house was built for all the Jews of the town, they were placed inside, and burned alive. There's a good deal of artwork from that time period which depicts the "burning of the Jews" that was so common then.

 

[truethat]

Many people have attempted to use evolutionary biology to justify their preconceived notions of race, resorting to a lot of pseudo-science, but ultimately evolutionary biology has shown that 'race' is largely a human construct.

I think that's kind of what I'm getting at. That it's not just "racism" but a "scientific" excuse or justification for racism.

But racist ideas of blood purity existed long before Darwin. Religion is heavy with the stuff. The basic blood-based rules of kinship relations that exist throughout history seem foundational to this kind of racism as well.

It's also true that most racist eugenicists and those who followed them horribly mangled Darwin's theories, probably intentionally, so the real question is would such people have found some other rationalization to use had they lacked Darwin. I have to say yes.



Umm, really? Can you give some examples? When I think stories about aliens I think Star Trek, Star Wars, and popular sci-fi literature, which are chock full of fantastic aliens and people in ridiculous costumes.



Again, if someone is willing to take what science actually has to say and screw it up that badly, maybe they're just starting with a racist conclusion and then rationalizing it as best they can.

I don't mean "sci fi" versions like "Terminator or Alien" or Star Trek or things that attempt to create new creatures. More along the lines of what people would consider "real aliens" that are supposed to be advanced humanoids.

 

[angrysoba]

My copy of the Origin of the Species still sits neglected and unread on my bookshelf and my copies of the Descent of Man and Voyage of the Beagle sit unread and neglected on the shelf of some shop or warehouse somewhere so I can't say I know what Darwin's own thoughts on this are.

However, it seems to me that the idea of evolution by natural selection would actually decrease racism given that it strips any mystical essences of superiority from the "species" (and in fact, some have said it demolished the traditional concept of species).

As others have pointed out, racists never needed any theory such as Darwinism to promote their beliefs. There were already Biblical scholars who thought that some people were ordained by God to be lesser beings.

In biology, the creator of the binomial system, Carolus Linnaeus, initially set down races of humans which he (I think) and certainly others that followed him ranked in order of superiority attributing personality traits to the particular races. This was well before Darwinism.

But lots of biological discoveries can lead to people drawing values of judgment or wrong conclusions from simple facts. The discovery of blood types led some theorists into some pretty weird territory.

As for that thought that popped in there while you may be focusing on some attributes that looked "ape-like" the fact is that many white people have phenotypes which are closer to "ape-like" than other "races" such as thin lips. And the fact is that some humans do have glancing likenesses to some animals: some dogs look like their owners, for example which doesn't mean that those people are "lower" on the evolutionary scale by virtue of their superficial resemblance to an "inferior" animal.

 

[phantomb]

I don't mean "sci fi" versions like "Terminator or Alien" or Star Trek or things that attempt to create new creatures. More along the lines of what people would consider "real aliens" that are supposed to be advanced humanoids.

I still don't agree. Without cherry picking, I don't think there is a bias in that direction in popular media, and "Greys" seem to be the most popular description given by abductees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys

 

[slingblade]

I still don't agree. Without cherry picking, I don't think there is a bias in that direction in popular media, and "Greys" seem to be the most popular description given by abductees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys

Grey's a lot closer to white than to brown. I don't have a problem with Truethat's assessment. I think she's got a valid point there.

 

[Pardalis]

The other day I was on the subway and this very brutish black woman got on the train. Her size and her demeanor really seemed "apelike" to me. I was shocked that this thought so casually skipped through my mind. I certainly don't like that it did and of course it was racist. I apologize.

We're all apes, so no apologies necessary.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I don't understand how you knew this woman was British. Did you talk to her?

 

[Visual Purple]

Now we get to hear all the fun rationalizations as to why Neanderthal genes make white people better.

 

[truethat]

Yeah I just saw that while I was googling this subject.


Aliens being "greys" or "white" is still an description of a pallid colorless creature devoid of animal like qualities and depicted as a more sophisticated creature than humans.

 

[caniswalensis]

My mother always likes to talk about what she considers a great big conspiracy in academia to mask what she considers the "Fact that Neanderthals were black people"

I then remind her that black people are Homo sapien, not Homo neandertalensis but then she reminds me that I was taught under the same conspirators...

She also thinks all black people's brain capacity is far smaller than those of white people because scientists many many years ago before the discovery of the genome (-.-) found differences in skull capacity when you filled them with sand

I doubt this to be Darwinian in origin, but a skewed "appeal to authority" similar to some guy who if I mention will Godwin this thread >.>

Well this should give her something to think about: Neanderthals actually have a larger brain size than modern humans.

Who knows....maybe they were smart enough not to be racist?

 

[MG1962]

We're all apes, so no apologies necessary.

Thats Mr. hominid to you - thank you very much

 

[Darth Rotor]

Did Darwin's theories tend to build racism?

If you decide to cherry pick bits and pieces of Darwin's ideas to fit a particular world view or agenda, yes.

If not, no.

I am trying for pith here, and trying also to avoid the emotional response I think you are trying to evoke.

 

[Noztradamus]

Thats Mr. hominid to you - thank you very much

But "Apes" includes hominids (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Hominids (including us) are closer to African apes than Orangutans are. So either we are apes, or Orangs are a "not-ape" outgroup.

 

[MG1962]

But "Apes" includes hominids (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Yes but we are the 'Great' apes - not the regular apes - this is meant to be a racist thread isn't it, or did I miss something

 

[slingblade]

Yes but we are the 'Great' apes - not the regular apes - this is meant to be a racist thread isn't it, or did I miss something

You missed something.

 

[truethat]

If you decide to cherry pick bits and pieces of Darwin's ideas to fit a particular world view or agenda, yes.

If not, no.

I am trying for pith here, and trying also to avoid the emotional response I think you are trying to evoke.

Actually I'd like to avoid all emotion in this thread and just examine the ideas logically. This is a touchy subject, the worst thing would be if people got very emotional about it.


What I'm looking for is how we came to the conclusion that Africans are "savage, brutes, etc etc etc"


Seems to me this is a sort of cultural perspective among racists. And even accidental racists which I think the average person can be from time to time.

I'm curious why this attitude is prevalent and what caused it. I suppose Darwin is narrowing it down too much. What I mean is, if the theory of evolution has contributed to the way racist attitudes towards blacks has created this idea that they are "Less evolved."

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I'd say that there are two main reasons this is the current case.

First, the massive slave trade to the americas was from africa. Anyone except the most horrific sociopath needs some form of justification to inflict such an amount of suffering on other human beings.
But if its not *really* humans, but beings much closer to animals we don't have that empathy. This justification started reinforcing itself with every new generation of slave holders and traders and crept into popular culture.

Colonialism also played a part I guess. In this case the idea of the 'noble advanced white race' coming in to help the poor helpless unciviliced blacks. By taking their land and all their stuff. This image to a large extent is still present in modern day portrayals of africa. Look at adverts for missions (helping those poor uneducated people), things like live-aid, the lost continent, etc..

Easy things to spin for a racist.

 

[slingblade]

Actually I'd like to avoid all emotion in this thread and just examine the ideas logically. This is a touchy subject, the worst thing would be if people got very emotional about it.


What I'm looking for is how we came to the conclusion that Africans are "savage, brutes, etc etc etc"


Seems to me this is a sort of cultural perspective among racists. And even accidental racists which I think the average person can be from time to time.

I'm curious why this attitude is prevalent and what caused it. I suppose Darwin is narrowing it down too much. What I mean is, if the theory of evolution has contributed to the way racist attitudes towards blacks has created this idea that they are "Less evolved."

I readily admit I haven't read Darwin or On the Origin of Species, either.

But maybe it is limiting to suggest him. Perhaps another thing that should be included is eugenics?

Using the dreaded Wiki as a "quick reference" only:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I kinda doubt it.
It's probably more racist people taking a theory and then twisting it to their own interpretation.

Bear in mind that in darwin's day it was considered a normal fact that white people were just in some way better than black, so his theories are probably laced with the morals of the time.

The slavery of africans was also justified for centuries pointing at certain bible verses, so its not like truly racist people won't find something to point out "us good, them bad"

Good summation of the times.

 

[Bikewer]

I read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man years ago, and the book was dedicated to exploring the misuse of Darwinian ideas to promote and foster the notion that White European Males were the very pinnacle of evolution and everyone else (including White European Women) were a couple of steps lower.
A great deal of heavy-duty thinking went into this, what with careful measuring of the skull capacity of "inferiors" to show that they had smaller brains, and even the creation of the Piltdown Man hoax to show that the superior Europeans might have evolved separately from those "other" folks....

 

[Noztradamus]

I'd say that there are two main reasons this is the current case.

First, the massive slave trade to the americas was from africa. Anyone except the most horrific sociopath needs some form of justification to inflict such an amount of suffering on other human beings.
But if its not *really* humans, but beings much closer to animals we don't have that empathy. This justification started reinforcing itself with every new generation of slave holders and traders and crept into popular culture.

Colonialism also played a part I guess. In this case the idea of the 'noble advanced white race' coming in to help the poor helpless unciviliced blacks. By taking their land and all their stuff. This image to a large extent is still present in modern day portrayals of africa. Look at adverts for missions (helping those poor uneducated people), things like live-aid, the lost continent, etc..

Easy things to spin for a racist.

Or they are kufar and it is al-halal to make slaves of them.

Darwin, evolution, racism is not needed for justification.

 

[caniswalensis]

even the creation of the Piltdown Man hoax to show that the superior Europeans might have evolved separately from those "other" folks....

My understanding was that the reason behind the creation of Piltdown Man was probably the furtherance of a personal career. No one is sure who made it, but I recall it's "discoverer" was implicated or caught red-handed in several other similar frauds.

I believe the easy acceptance of the hoax was mostly due to nationalism, rather than racism.

Everyone was looking for a "missing link" and british scientists wanted to find it in the England, thereby proving that england was the cradle of mankind, thereby "proving" that the british empire and it's people were the most awesome thing ever.

So someone made it, and they found it, proving something else entirely.

 

[Reivax]

Racism could primarily be a natural phenomenon that occurs as a response to foreigners which are potentially harmful. Although on a basic instinctive level, I'm not sure if it can technically be considered racism based on this Wikipedia definition:

Noun: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

But it definitely fits this definition, once this instinct is manifested socially when people propagate inferiority and superiority for whatever silly reasons.

I'd say the mentality that if something is different it is probably bad or threatening , or just a fear of the unknown, is incorporated instinctively, as an almost innate attribute of some organisms, but mainly those with significant social dependence. Through force of habit people get used to the prominent characteristics around them.

You might find the following article interesting. It touches on this idea and talks about some studies undertaken to see how 3 month-old babies react to different races.

world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm

In today's society, this instinctive mentality is challenged, because we are well informed that other races don't pose a threat to us, and are in fact just like us, so there is no reason to discriminate.