Being human is not a race

I think that genuine progress in human relations has to be based on acknowledgement of our true nature. The Human Genome Project involved many people from very diverse ethnic backgrounds. It proved conclusively that there is only one human ‘race’, and therefore the concept of ‘racism’ is based on subjective opinion and is not verifiably true. I regard the division of the human family into ‘races’ as unnecessary and counterproductive. But it may also influence important decisions concerning the environment as well as the safety, health, social and economic wellbeing of the population as a whole.

Some accounts of Australian history tend to neglect the often-lethal warfare between Indigenous tribes before the arrival of Europeans. This has evidently given rise to the view, especially among ‘progressive’ environmentalists, that Aboriginal people lived peaceful and harmonious lives in a ‘Garden of Eden’.

This amounts to a revival of Rousseau’s “Noble Savage” i.e., the original “man”, free from sin, appetite or the concept of right and wrong. Those deemed to be “savages” were not brutal, but noble. Projecting this idealistic view on Indigenous peoples tends to set them apart from the rest of humanity, which seems paternalistic if not ‘racist’ as that term is commonly understood. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs presents a much more realistic view of Indigenous peoples.¹

‘Confirmation bias’ is to cherry-pick and interpret evidence to support a preconceived theory. For example, in Catastrophic Bushfires, Indigenous Fire Knowledge and Reframing Science in Southeast Australia, Michael-Shawn Fletcher et al. (2021) correlated massacres of Indigenous people with the incidence of “catastrophic” bushfires in Southeastern Australia. Their conclusion is that but for the tragic displacement and massacre of traditional owners, their “traditional land management” methods may have prevented catastrophic wildfires. The term “catastrophic” is used multiple times without a clear definition, and this weakens the conclusion which appears to rely heavily on ideology.

The effect of extreme summer rainfall variability on the incidence of wildfires in the region during the study period was not considered. Climate change projections, historic rainfall data and dendrochronology might have been employed, in addition to charcoal records, to support the study conclusions and to evaluate the potential benefits of proposed future Indigenous fire management.

The study concludes that to inform policy and practice in managing Southeast Australian forest landscapes, scientific approaches must be “decolonized”. However, a comprehensive and integrated evidence-based plan would be required to align Indigenous fire management objectives, in a contemporary context, with the protection of infrastructure, assets and population centres, including extant Indigenous Communities.

The health and environmental impacts of low temperature combustion must also be considered. Bushfires, especially ‘cool’ burns are known to contain toxic and potentially harmful substances, including TCDD (Dioxin). It has been estimated that bushfires may contribute at least 20-30% of the total release of dioxin-like compounds to the environment in Australia but the health effects are not well understood. Therefore, the impact of low temperature combustion products on the health of indigenous people prior to colonisation is also unknown. Indeed, a good deal of what is written about Aboriginal health and life span before 1788 seems to be conjectural.

Environmental degradation due to post-colonial activities included deforestation, mining, dry land salinity, soil erosion and, sodicity, acidification, nutrient decline and resulting eutrophication. Traditional land management must be taken into account, but it cannot be expected to remedy problems beyond the experience of the traditional owners.

Returning to the question of ‘race’, the portrayal of Indigenous Australians passively embracing victimhood was overturned by the 1967 referendum which overwhelmingly approved constitutional changes allowing the federal government to make laws for Aboriginal Australians and to include them in the national census. Activists emphasise the prolonged series of heroic struggles between Indigenous ‘warriors’ and European settlers, known as ‘Frontier Wars’, beginning soon after 1788.

Lieutenant General Watkin Tench published two books describing his experiences in the First Fleet. His Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay and Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson provide an account of the arrival and first four years of the colony.

Unsurprisingly, Tench’s description of the original inhabitants of Australia is distinctly human and not unique to them as a separate ‘race’. They exhibited fear, curiosity, affection, anger, avarice, aggression, jealousy, intrigue, ingenuity and cunning etc.

The first settlers at Sydney Cove were soon approached by local Aborigines wanting access to the colonists’ superior weapons, presumably to decisively settle a dispute with their neighbours. Fights over territory and various other offences were common, including the stealing of women and revenge for injuries suffered in earlier battles. Such battles sometimes involved alliances and large numbers of combatants.

The Palawa people (Indigenous Tasmanians), San (Kalahari Bushmen) or the Selkʼnam people of Tierra del Fuego are apparently regarded by ‘Environmental Fundamentalists’ as examples of uncorrupted, innocent humans living in perfect harmony with their surroundings. By contrast, Western Civilisation is wicked and doomed to collapse unless it undergoes ideological redemption.

Archaeological evidence purports to show that the migration of peoples to inhospitable regions such as Tierra del Fuego and Tasmania during the last ice age was voluntary. However, the San (Kalahari Bushmen) of South Africa are known to have been driven from their land by Bantu-speaking people from the north and forced into cultural assimilation. This is consistent with the eternal human struggle between the survival instinct and a spiritual quest for something that transcends it. And there is no reason to believe that human nature has changed.

It is unlikely too that ‘Noble Savages’ would have migrated from their chosen habitat to more remote regions where they would have been forced to adapt to much harsher conditions. As well as the human need for safety, food and shelter, climate-driven phenomena e.g. ice-ages, floods, drought and other catastrophic events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have caused people to migrate. Peoples have also been displaced and assimilated by more advanced agrarian cultures, often with superior weapons and technology.

In that context, the concept of ‘racism’ becomes very obscure if not altogether meaningless. Nevertheless, ‘racism’ may be defined as the belief that people can be classified as either superior or inferior according to the distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish them. Most people would agree that the world would be a much better place without discrimination based on perceived differences.

Put simply, the international human genome project mapped the DNA of human beings and created a complete blueprint of our genetic code. The human genome project proved that there is only one human race and that there is absolutely no biological basis for the supposed existence of different human races. Therefore, the idea of racism as it is commonly understood, is redundant.

Racism is often invoked to reinforce inconclusive ideological or political arguments. I have attempted to show that the idea of ‘racism’ serves only to recognise discrimination based on prejudice, rather than dealing directly with the ignorance that perpetuate acquired, rather than inherent differences. People should be encouraged to view so-called ‘race’ or ethnicity as they are in reality: integral to the fabric of society. Instead of railing against racism which tends to legitimise and perpetuate it, we could reject it entirely.

Attempting to perfect human beings by ideological or regulatory means may ease consciences but it is futile. Why not concentrate instead on ameliorating the causes of discrimination? Things we can change: Ignorance, Fear, Greed, Injustice, Intolerance, Envy, Politics, Malice, Religion, Language and Law, to name but a few.