If God made us from his image, why are there different skin colours in the world?

Question

This is just a curiousity question, no offense or racism.

Answer 1

Prejudice is said to occur when people cast judgements and opinions on others, which are biased and have no real foundation in fact. This might be at the level of calling people ‘sad bastards’ because of a particular pastime or hobby.* But this is only name-calling. The reality of prejudice often means discrimination against some people, while others are hounded, injured and even killed. The most obvious form of prejudice is racism. Even though there’s a variety of skin colours across the world; even though the supposed differences were invented hundreds of years ago; even though it’s been proven time and again that there is as little genetic difference between black and white people as there is between people with the same skin colour, some cretins still cling blindly to this prejudice.

For example, Christians are supposed to believe that God made us all in ‘his’
own image, so no one is inferior or superior. But when Europeans started taking over bits of the planet, robbing and killing the natives and using Africans as slaves they justified their exploitation by re-interpreting the bible.

redneck rubbish

Apparently Noah’s son, Ham, took the piss out of Noah when he saw him bollock naked after a night on the razzle. So Noah kicked him off the ark and all descendants of Ham were said to be black and bad. Where he set foot when everything was supposed to be flooded is hard to imagine, but that’s the logic of prejudice for you. Again, Cain was kicked off the ark too and all his descendants are supposed to be black and bad as well. This kind of nonsense was spouted in the mind-warping popular press and pulpit of the time and hey presto, you get loads of people willing to go killing and enslaving ‘blackamoors’. It became part of the psyche, common sense, so that even now, ‘rednecks’ of all descriptions spout this rubbish and God becomes white and black becomes evil.

By the nineteenth century, the enlightenment, rationality and the appliance of science had backed all this up. Darwin’s evolution stuff showed forever that some species are more evolved than others, so some people applied this to the idea of race. Blokes like Herbert Spencer came out with the term ‘survival of the fittest’ to justify white superiority. Others ‘scientifically proved’ (i.e. they made it up) there were three races, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid – white, yellow and black – each genetically different from the other, each with a different value to the world. White on top, yellow in the middle and black on the bottom, they all had different origins and were totally separate ‘races’.

This is racism and it was pushed in the new schools of the time, in boy’s
comics, and in storybooks, including Enid Blyton’s ‘golliwogs’. The idea that
blacks were on the planet to serve whites, that Europeans had a duty to suppress and tame ‘the savages’ became part of the psyche too. It’s the sort of stuff that was used to justify the ‘scramble for Africa’ from the 1870’s onward. It’s the same stuff Hitler used to justify mass murder of and part of the reason why many Germans went along with it.

couldn’t happen here

Just in case you’re thinking this couldn’t happen now with that nice,
professional, middle class, ‘Big Toe’ Blair running the show – well, it could. I
say this not only because he and the ‘Bush Baby’ are pushing christian and
liberal capitalist values throughout the world on pain of death, but also
because ‘scientific’ racism is still with us.

A bloke called Rushton peddled it in the 1980’s when he measured brain and
genital sizes, worked out how many kids people had, along with loads of other things. He divided these into categories based on the same old black/
white/yellow division and again, hey presto, black people fall into a less
evolved ‘r’ category, whites are in a superior ‘k’ category, with yellow/brown
people in the middle.

In the 1990’s two more maniacs, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, wrote a book called The Bell Curve, that ‘proved’ black people have the lowest IQ’s in the world. Murray was one of Maggie Thatcher’s darlings and still gets articles in the Times, but I’ll come back to that.

In the meantime you might say that all this explains racism among the people that fall for it, but what about the prejudice between white and white, black and black, pink and pink, ‘Manc’ and ‘Scouse’?

You’ve only got to look at the northern bit of Ireland to see prejudice at work.
Then there’s the Balkans, Indonesia, Rwanda and a host of other places, many of them suffering the effects of attempted genocide and ethnic ‘cleansing’. It all makes the rivalry between both ends of the East Lancs Road look soft and tame.

culture

The argument about why all this happens and why some people say ‘I’m not racist but I wish all those foreigners would bugger off’ is based on culture. When ‘scientific racism’ was defeated by science and reason and when it was found that all human beings have the same origins (the ‘Eve theory’), people looked to culture to explain divisions between different groups. They argued that people develop different ways of life depending on the climate, available food and resources and so on. Sometimes different religions emerge, different laws (e.g. polygamy v monogamy etc), languages, dress codes, eating habits and loads of other things that seem to make one culture, or ethnicity, alien to another.

This doesn’t seem to matter that much until there’s migration. According to the argument people forget that beneath the superficial differences of dress, food, etc, we have similar behaviour patterns (or cultural universals) as each other – we laugh, cry, quarrel and make up, among loads of other things, in similar ways. People forget, or don’t notice, because of the everyday battle for survival.

saris, samosas & steel bands

When there’s a scarcity of jobs, houses, benefits and health, immigration brings a ‘culture clash’ which is fuelled by the popular press. To combat this you get the better off middle class, who aren’t affected as much, advocating
‘multiculturalism’. This is the idea that if we all learned about other cultures
it would make us all more tolerant, as they are. So we get ‘saris, samosas and steel bands’ in the education system along with Diwali and Eid.

The problem is that all over Europe, America and other places, multiculturalism is getting a negative reaction. In this country (helped by nationalism latching on to the world cup) there’s the rise of the likes of the England First party and the idea that ‘our’ culture is being swamped. Politicians of all ilks read the Daily Hate Mail and latch on to ‘popular’, unfounded sentiments to look tough and gain votes. There’s Tory talk of banning Scottish MP’s from voting in the ‘English’ parliament, while Blair is talking tough about Muslims and advocating tests for ‘Englishness’ in schools. What this actually is doesn’t really matter, it panders to people’s prejudices just like Tebbit’s old chestnut about all immigrants having to pass the so-called ‘cricket test’ (i.e. people of Pakistani descent having to stick up for England). So, the multicultural thing backfires and people become antagonistic to ‘political correctness’, it becomes a dirty word soundbite.

a tendency to lie

Others would argue that all this is because some of the middle classes have a tendency to ‘withhold the truth’ from the lower orders, in order to maintain their position in the middle. We aren’t told that immigration is encouraged by Blairs of all descriptions to undercut wages and make up for the shortfall in ‘respectable’ people having kids – they’d rather have more foreign holidays and bigger cars. We aren’t told that many of the problems in Africa and elsewhere that people are escaping from, are caused by the West putting maniacs in power and training them to keep supplying cheap resources and cheap labour. We aren’t told that our minds are being manipulated to support wars here and there that secure certain ‘interests’, such as the supply of raw materials and sources of wealth. We aren’t told that there’s been a history of ‘divide and rule’ that’s fed through schools and, now, through mind-numbing TV. The poor whites are ‘only a pawn in their game’ as Bob Dylan used to sing.

socially excluded

Their game is power and they play it by controlling the limits of our thoughts
through any method they can. Which brings us back to Charles Murray who I mentioned earlier. Not only are divisions fostered between black and white,
between one culture and another or one religion and another, people like Murray also foster divisions among the working class. He wrote in the Times earlier this year, advocating physical separation between what he calls the ‘underclass’ and the rest of us fine upstanding citizens.

This means separate housing and other facilities. His idea that these people are products of a ‘disease’ due to interbreeding between people with low IQs who are prone to misusing drugs, getting pregnant, committing crime, not working and generally looking a mess, has caught on. Now people are routinely called ‘socially excluded’ and dismissed as ‘thick scrotes’, and council estates are seen as dens of iniquity.

Other reasons for this state of affairs, like the Thatcher years of mass
unemployment to keep inflation down and cheap ‘smack’ to keep the riff raff from thinking, are totally dismissed in today’s ‘understand a little less, condemn a little more’ way of thinking.

More than this, prejudice, in the form of ‘classism’, is promoted and seen as
the way ‘forward’. Old prejudices against the working class are again coming to the fore, just as with the nineteenth century, teetotal puritans. Legislation banning tabs in pubs, standing around having a natter in ‘gangs’ of more than two, standing up and singing at football matches, falling over drunk, farting and laughing – anything these classist bastards don’t like – will have a law against it.

The ‘citizenship’ and ‘English-ness’ that are being promoted, is only done so on the basis that there’s a ‘high’, acceptable culture and that ‘low’, working
class, culture should be dumped. This could be because we are now all supposed to be consumers rather than producers, and there’s a blurring of class distinctions. Which means that ‘rough types’ might end up in the same Bistro, drinking the same red wine and getting pissed and laughing instead of sipping it and spitting it out in a bucket while talking about it’s ‘nose’, ‘bouquet’ and their next big pay rise.

In the meantime this form of prejudice goes unnoticed and will continue to do so while the ‘lower orders’ are encouraged to believe in IQ’s and dick size and to blame ‘Johnny Foreigner’ for the **** they’re in. The task for anarchists is to cut through all this bullshit.

WHAT IS ALL THIS ANARCHY ABOUT THEN ?
Anarchism, however, puts forward a very different view of human development, one that sees humans as a product of society, without which they could not exist.
Anarchists contend that humans only emerged from a state of brutality through collective organisation and labour, by which they were able to create the conditions that allowed their mutual emancipation. In other words, humans were only humanised and emancipated by forming a society. Humanity was therefore created by society and it is only in society that we become human.
Placed outside of society we would not be human – alone, able to speak and
think, but conscious only of (one)self. Humans only become conscious of their humanity within society and only by the collective action of the whole of society. We are freed from the burden of external nature only by collective and social labour, which alone can transform our environment to be suitable to the development of humanity. Education and training are pre-eminently social.
Isolated individuals cannot possibly become conscious of their freedom.

The idea that social revolution could come about through state control relied
heavily on the Marxist doctrine of economic determinism. This is based on the premise that the nature of an economic system determines the nature of society as a whole. As such, political and social conditions are determined by the economy. To change the latter one has only to change the former and so the very act of the workers abolishing capitalism and taking control of the economy would automatically end exploitation and bring about social and political equality.

Determinism also extended to Marxist theories of the state. The state was seen as the agent of the dominant economic class, administering society on its behalf. Once capitalism was abolished and the economy was under collective ownership, the state would become the tool of the workers, and could begin to administer the economy on their behalf. A further Marxist argument was that the economy would have to come under state control initially, as workers did not have the expertise to run society. They saw this ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ as purely a ‘transitional period’, during which workers would be trained to take over the running of society. The state under socialism would eventually become redundant and ‘wither away’.

worst fears confirmed

Marxist ideas on the state have developed over the years from the crude
determinism of the 19th Century that led the German Social Democratic Party to state in their programme, ‘the conquest of political power was the indispensable condition for the economic emancipation of the proletariat’. They have had to develop, especially after the Russian Revolution brought about the conquest of state power by a highly organised Marxist political party. What happened then simply confirmed all the worst fears of the anarchists as a totalitarian state was established that eventually collapsed due to its own internal contradictions.

This has led Marxist theorists to come up with all kinds of variations and
qualifications to the original Marxist idea. From Lenin right through to modern thinkers they have tried to square the circle and explain how in the future it could not happen again. But the basis of their ideas is still the unshakeable concept that state power needs to be gained one way or another. And for this a political party is needed.

anarcho-syndicalism

As an alternative to the political party and gaining state power, and contrary
to the criticism that anarchism has proposed no viable alternative, anarcho- syndicalists developed the idea of building an alternative movement
based on the same principles of solidarity, equality and freedom that were
envisaged in a future society. The state and capitalism needed challenging but this was to be done through an organisation that combined, not separated, the economic and political struggle.

In an anarchist society, the full development of the individual would depend on the collective provision of the necessary means, and on full social and economic equality. However, the continuation and development of the collective society would depend on the individual being able to participate in it fully and equally, with the aim of developing their full potential. Without individual liberty, social equality would be unattainable, and without social equality, there could not be individual liberty. Anarchists have sought a form of society where the conditions are continuously being created for every individual to reach their full potential. In reaching their full potential, they would expand the sum of human knowledge which would, in turn, expand the potential of the individual.

workers control

Anarcho-syndicalism therefore proposes that the revolutionary union should be the basic organisation of struggle. Within the union the working class would develop the ideas and means of bringing about change. It would confront the state and capitalism head on in a continuing economic and political struggle. At the same time it would allow its members to operate in an alternative cultural and social formation in which the ideas of the new society are fermented.

For the anarchists the starting point from which conditions of equality could be created was the overthrow of capitalism. From the initial onset of the
revolution, society had to be run on democratic principles with the aim of
seeking social equality. Rather than the revolution leading to state control
based on inequality, the working class themselves should take over the practical running of society.

Answer 2

Different skin colors are phenotypic differences among different populations into the Homo sapiens specie. They are due to evolution, genetic diversity and natural selection. I don´t think that God has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, this is not a question of faith. Usually the simplest explanation to a phenomenon is the best one. It´s more feasible that these differences are due to a natural causes than to a supernatural ones.

Answer 3

Black epidermis can cope with the warm African solar suited. that's what i grew to become into instructed. Your bodies are made too stay to tell the story in Africa. and God isn't black, white, or something. he's GOD for crying out loud! while moses observed him it burned his face extraordinary purple/purple, black epidermis dosn't do this. NO epidermis DOES THAT! i'm so sorry approximately your people being abused, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it quite is impossible too replace it now. advantageous poem however.

Answer 4

Maybe for the same reason we get cancer, have bad backs, can't run as fast as a cheetah, can't smell as well as a dog, aren't as strong as an ox, have a useless appendix that only causes trouble.

Do all of these things apply to your mythical creator god?

Answer 5

I don't believe there is God.These colour skins are made for the human to adapt to each continent's climate.For example,black people have melanine,so they can stand the heat.(Random example,no offense etc.)

(plz see my question and give answers!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au6HTCdiprJw5wA_nYsXbRTsy6IX?qid=20070618100448AApdu3C )

Answer 6

Because God created us all differently. He is not only one color, but all colors put into one! Hope this helped and have a blessed day!

Answer 7

image doesn't have to refer to physical image. Why do you think we all look different?

Answer 8

Wow. Rica got everything I would say.

Answer 9

evolution. people became black because they lived on the equator, their skin needed to be black and it was an advantage.

Answer 10

Because it is all crap. good luck finding any rationalisim from a religion.

Answer 11

God is all colors and no colors. Wish all people could grasp that concept.