I have a theory as to the arising of a particular kind of racism that is seen in countries such as America and New Zealand.
Generally, if there is a difference between the economic performance of different ethnic groups it can be attributed to the culture of that group. But if you have a smaller less advanced group that comes into contact with a civilized group, then I would expect the tribal group to be genetically superior because they would have more eugenic processes occurring within it.
But if the larger genetically inferior group had all the power, then a complex psycho-sexual process would take hold whereby the members of the smaller group would attempt to become economically equal to the dominant group, and unless there was a strong taboo in intermarriage this would happen at an individual level.
What this means in effect is that men from the dominant group who could not get a desirable enough woman from within their own social structure could instead take women from the marginalised group. That way the woman could share in the resources of the dominant group. On the other hand even desirable men from the marginalised group would only have access to less desirable women.
If there was a no ‘identifier’ such as skin colour then it wouldn’t matter and the group would be absorbed – such as Irish and East Europeans (who were initially considered inferior) into American society.
However if there was an intergenerational identifier then it may well result in the ghettoization of the marginalised group such as American Blacks.
(The ghettoization would initially be a result of a less successful culture taking hold and using some genetically inheritable marker as a way of determining who should have that culture.)
Basically there would be an infusion of genes from lower status people in the dominant group into marginalised group, which might over the course of time take it from being overall genetically superior to being overall genetically inferior however this would be a result of the inferior genes from the dominant group rather than any inherent defect.
It is worth mentioning that this effect (if it were proven) should not be used to discriminate against any person in particular over and above other factors.
Yet it does seem that simple denial of difference is a little naive. There is the situation where various agencies announce that the races are existent but equal, and yet individual citizens notice increased criminality and/or less economic success amongst marginalised ‘race’ groups. So naturally those persons make judgments based on their own personal experience of races, that in turn increases the marginalisation of those groups.
If there is a genetic influence on at least it should be recognised that the object of discrimination is misplaced it is not the original genetic propensities of the marginalised group that is the problem but the rejected ones of the dominant group.
To give a final illustrative example; the British during the 19th century noticed that the Maori were able to construct military defenses that were more sophisticated than any in Europe at the time. So some argument might be made for Maori superiority. Yet now they are a marginalised group so how did that happen?
This theory would account for many ‘superior’ Maori genes being put into the overall European settler gene pool and not being identified by race, whereas in the smaller marginalised group because of its size retains its racial identifiers.
E.g Typical modern New Zealand European might be 1/20th Maori ‘good’ genes which aren’t identifiable and the modern Maori might be 1 half ‘bad’ Maori genes and 1 half ‘bad’ European genes and still identifiable by race.
Note: These figures are totally arbitrary for illustrative purposes only.
Note 2: When I use the term ‘bad genes’ what I mean is genes that may well be more biologically successful than ‘good genes’ but which (if they produced certain tendencies) are currently socially disfavoured.
The whole problem around this issue arises as a result of overt racism by society in western countries being got rid of by the 60s, because that was thought of as the cause of inequality, with the believed result that once blatant discrimination was got rid of then everyone would be equal. When of course it didn’t work out like that those hard won social concession were too important to give up. So what they did was turn it all around into some sort of crypto covert racism of something like:
“Well it’s these people’s culture not being accounted for and respected which is now the problem.” – And guess what? They can tell what culture you’re supposed to have by what race you are, (and to do that they’ll still use the same 19th century notions of race)
That is how we got to our current racist society, which says it isn’t, but which infact assigns people to a particular cultural straightjacket based on race, even when it must be admitted that any traditional culture is going to have a negative economic performance in the modern world.
So it could be said that assigning culture by race is a tactic of dominant economic groups to ensure their continued economic domination.