An interesting comment to an AT article on the history of race inertia from the earliest beginnings of the United States of America caught my attention and will always seek to find adequate articulation, not because of my own consuming interest, but because of how urgent a question it seems to be for so many in the quest for survival who put all their marbles on the race card...
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity, and in some senses is a natural reaction to the other in a world of danger and obfuscation. In the early twentieth century the term was often used, in its taxonomic sense, to denote genetically diverse human populations whose members possessed similar phenotypes, but is it truly the final salvo in sorting out one's identity from that of another when developing hostilities between ethnic groups divided on the basis of racial group or skin color seem unavoidable. All too often the color of one's skin does trump so many other measures of a human being's faith, power, and glory.
WHITE WAS THE 19th century's way of saying "Euro-American in terms of culture, values, and behavior." Henry Ford wrote of "the White Man's Code" as late as 1922 even though he hired Blacks and paid them the same wages he paid Caucasians in the same jobs. No law at the time said he had to do that. At the time, however (e.g. when Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden,") Japan was the only advanced nonwhite-majority nation on earth. Civilized therefore equaled "white" although it was recognized that not all ethnic Caucasians were advanced or even civilized. A Venn diagram would show "civilized" as a subset of "white" (Japan being the sole exception) and not the other way around.
This does not mean that people of nonwhite origins cannot and do not adopt Euro-American values. Japan made a collective decision to do that in the mid-19th century. African-Americans, Asian Americans, and so on have Euro-American values and are therefore what Kipling and his contemporaries would have called "white." Kipling's "Gunga Din" in fact recognizes that a nonwhite person can have these values and adhere to them better than an Englishman; the light-skinned Briton admits at the end, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." The poem in fact judges the characters not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, which was entirely consistent with Kipling's membership in a racially-diverse Mason's lodge in India (see "The Mother Lodge").
The economically and socially advanced nature of Euro-American nations over the rest of the world, even regions with substantial oil wealth, is proof that our way of life is superior and theirs is inferior. A society that, for example, prevents girls from going to school (as is the case in parts of Afghanistan) denies itself half of its human potential up front and will therefore be inferior.
The proper conclusion is therefore that anybody who shares our (Euro-American) values, attitudes, and behavioral codes is "one of us" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and anybody who subscribes to an inferior Third World culturethe kind that keeps the people ignorant, squalid, and pooris "one of them" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and is therefore an undesirable. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.