Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 3: Karma-yogaEveryone must engage in some sort of activity in this material world. But actions can either bind one to this world or liberate one from it. By acting for the pleasure of the Supreme, without selfish motives, one can be liberated from the law of karma (action and reaction) and attain transcendental knowledge of the self and the Supreme.
Synopsis of Chapter 3 relative to transcending race-consciousness:
One of the most important activities a person of "mixed-race" can engage in is showing others the falsity of "race" and pointing them in the direction of The Supreme.
"I am convinced that when the intellectual history of our times comes to be written, the idea of race, both the popular and the taxonomic, will be viewed for what it is: a confused and dangerous idea which happened to fit the social requirements of a thoroughly exploitative period in the development of Western man."Many scientists now know, and are even willing to publicly affirm, that genetic variation from one individual to another-- even if these individuals are from the same so-called "race"-- overwhelms the average differences between racial groupings. In short, we now know that the questionable idea of "race" is without any scientific backing. Against that backdrop, it is interesting to observe how, today, racialists of all colors quickly denigrate the notion that there is no biological foundation for race, as they fear losing an identity built on the shifting sands of nescience.-- Ashley Montagu
In 1775 Johann Blumenbach wrote a book called, On the Natural Varieties of Mankind. Blumenbach is widely considered the "father" of anthropology, and his book synthesized the earlier attempts of individuals such as Frangois Bernier, Georges Buffon, and Carolus Linneaus, who were experimenting with the idea of classifying human-kind into various, rather arbitrary, groupings. Blumenbach distinguished five varieties of mankind determined by climate, pigmentation, and skull size: Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, Malay, and Caucasian.
Some historians maintain that Blumenbach was not a racist per se. They base this on his famous statement regarding mankind: "You see that all do so run into one another, and that one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark them out the limits between them." It cannot be denied, however, that Blumenbach left a racial door slightly ajar, and others later used his cue to advance their views.
Europeans engaged in transatlantic enslavement had to find a justification for subjugating their fellow humans while remaining faithful to their religious beliefs. The easiest way to do that was to champion the idea of a superior white or Aryan race. For the sake of maintaining "white" purity, they said, we should never mix with Africans, whom the slavers designated as sub-human beasts of labor. It therefore followed, at least in the slavers' minds, that if Africans were not human, it would be no affront to God to enslave them to thereby make the New World plantations profitable.
Today, black politicos and academics alike point to this crime against humanity -- in which, by the way, West African tribal chieftains willingly participated -- to justify their advocacy of one of atheistic Marxism's fundamental tenets: redistribution of wealth cloaked in the guise of reparations for slavery.
As a student of Vedic scriptures, I prefer what this particular tradition says -- or, more correctly, what it doesn't say -- about race. Vedic literature refers to many "species" of humans. Unlike modern biologists, though, the Vedas do not draw distinctions based upon gross physical appearance or morphological nature alone. The major deciding difference in species is the level of spiritual consciousness, and of these, there are many.
Thus, we do not regard "mixed-ness" as a buffer in a vertical, top-down racial hierarchy between "white" and "black." Rather, we view a consideration of "multiracialness" as one transcending "black" purity (particularly the excruciatingly tortured "logic" of a pure, mixed or rainbow "race") and "white" purity, enjoying a position above both which, in essence, occupy the same platform. The necessity to change or raise our level of consciousness means more than just viewing race as the illegitimate construct it is, but also being consciously aware of a higher truth: That the living being, whatever his outer bodily covering, is beyond the mundane abstractions of either "blackness" or "whiteness."
Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 3, Verse 4:It is not enough merely to know with full certainty that race has no biological underpinning, that it is a bogus and ill-conceived concept. It is not enough merely to take that knowledge and go live in the mountains or forests. No. The renounced order of life can only be adhered to when one is purified of material attachments and (mis)conceptions. Without purification, one cannot attain success by abruptly adopting the renounced order of life (sannyasa), or by neglecting social roles and obligations.Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection.
Religion without philosophy is sentimental and therefore fanatical; philosophy without religion is mental speculation. If we believe that, then we need devise and advance a philosophy regarding "race" that not only encourages people to transcend it but discourages them from seeking to replace it with considerations of ethnic or cultural pride. Since we must all engage in some form of activity in this material world, what could be of a higher calling than diverting folk away from the path of the political color continuum and shifting their focus onto their own -- all too often neglected -- spiritual nature? Srila Prabhupada refers to empirical philosophers who assert that, simply by adopting sannyasa, or retiring from fruitive activities, one at once becomes as good as The Supreme Himself. Krishna does not approve this principle, however. Without purification of heart, sannyasa is simply a disturbance to the social order.
Accordingly, the "mixed-race" population is perfectly situated -- if it is willing to seize the moment -- to be society's racial mentors, if you will, demonstrating the sheer ludicrousness and destructiveness of race-consciousness.
The fundamental racial distinction in America is between white and non-white. Non-black racial designations carry their own unique freight, but in the American context these have always functioned as intermediate points on the black/white continuum. This is true because in America, race is about purity, and whatever is not white is dirty. The intermediate status of Asians, for example, on this continuum, serves to reinforce the racial hierarchy.According to adherents of this philosophy, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, multiracials and any other "non-whites" are all, presumably, part of the permanent minority and, consequently, "black" or "of color."
This philosophy also suggests that to fight racism, we are to use racism. It proposes that until the last remnant of white racism is verifiably eliminated from the Earth, all "non-whites" -- however one defines that -- must contribute to the continuation and the strengthening of the aforementioned "fundamental racial distinction" in America by identifying solely with their non-European roots.
Instead of attempting to bridge the chasm, to minimize this long-standing dichotomy along racial lines, we are to help perpetuate this senselessness. Once the black segment of the black/white continuum is "victorious," how many centuries will we have to wait until the black racism necessarily engendered by this struggle itself vanishes? This is like a pendulum swinging back and forth between two opposing sides in a never ending battle for racial supremacy. When does it end?
If you could line up every individual on the planet, shoulder to shoulder, starting with the lightest color on one end and the darkest on the other, you could indeed say there is a color continuum. (You would also find it difficult to discern where one race ends and another begins.) Amazingly, humans delight in ascribing a political interpretation to this naturally occurring biological phenomenon. Europeans did this when they introduced the concept of race into the Western Hemisphere centuries ago, and the historical victims of white racism now use their own interpretation to foster their racial worldview.
We see evidence of this in yet another political interpretation -- the one concerning Homo Erectus. Most anthropologists agree that "Original Man" came to be in what is we now call Africa. Does this make us all Africans, as afrocentrists delight in claiming? That would depend on whether the question is political or scientific, doesn't it? I'd say it's political about 99.9% of the time, and it's used for the greater glory of the black side of the black/white continuum.
Nonetheless, it's an argument that many believe to be a sufficient and appropriate counterweight to the long-standing notions of white supremacy. Yet both sides of this argument are dangerous, and we should not fall into the sway of either party.
How does the political color continuum reconcile the slaughter in Rwanda, where both the Hutus and the Tutsis are black? Was our outrage over the attempted genocide of the Muslim population in Bosnia unjustified simply because they are white? Should we ignore the bloodletting in Northern Ireland because it's about two sects from the white side of the continuum? Should our attitude be, "Who cares about them anyway?"
Then there is South African novelist and winner of the 1991 Nobel Prize for Literature Nadine Gordimer's essay in the June 8, 1997 "How the World Sees Us" Special Issue of The New York Times Magazine. Gordimer contrasts black South Africans who "have their own earth under their feet, their own mother tongues, their own ancestral names" with American blacks who "want to stay segregated." She further writes, "And who can blame them? The history of the country isn't theirs."
Personally, I believe that blacks have contributed mightily to both the history and the culture of America, and black/white multiracials are compelling proof. The unwillingness of blacks to recognize the legitimacy of a multiracial identifier, however, supports Gordimer's basic conclusion:
It is unfortunate to have to say it: history is against you, in the U.S.A. White Americans cannot give back to blacks a lost identity; black Americans are reluctant to accept that that identity cannot be found in an avatar of apartheid. They are all Americans, and whether the whites like it or not, and whether the blacks like it or not, a common destiny has to be worked out. Alas, Martin Luther King is dead and you have no Mandela. A common identity is not simple. It's not simple in South Africa either, but in my observation (and participation) we are doing better than the U.S.A., despite staggering problems of poverty, unemployment and vast numbers of the homeless, a legacy of the apartheid regime.Isn't it interesting that a South African points out many of the same things that Interracial Voice has been saying for a long time, principally that too many American blacks are nostalgic for the days of Jim Crow? Interesting, too, that mixed-race activists are accused of trying to establish an American version of apartheid by advocating for a new multiracial Census category (decried by its opponents as merely replicating the S.A. "Colored" classification). In spite of all this, a world renowned South African author nails the issue perfectly -- "black Americans are reluctant to accept that that identity cannot be found in an avatar of apartheid."
Order "Beyond Race" today from either:
Xlibris.com or
Amazon.com