Colorless

COLORLESS

September, 1996

Truth has positive effects and untruth has negative effects. Always. Indeed, a case can be made that untruth is the root of all evil in which must be included the erroneous misuse of words. Experience proves this especially so for words of color.

For several hundred years, people used "white" as a billy club to bludgeon people into submission proclaiming those not white were bad, unworthy, less important and deserving of mistreatment, including enslavement. "White" became not only a label but a simplistic method to manipulate and dehumanize people.

For the past thirty years, the same thing has been going on in the opposite direction with the use of the word "black." "Black" has become a word of manipulation and intimidation -- just like "white" was for United States slavers (in general, non-U.S. slavers were not racists). Once again, by labeling behavior with a color, one is coerced to imitate or follow orders to behave in a certain way. For example, in some U.S. settings, the good articulation of one's national language, acting civilized, getting good grades, following the rules, etc. (all of which IS colorless) are mocked by saying such behaviors are "white!" In such places, young people are called "white" in a derogatory way emphasizing the need to be "black" which means to act in ways demanded by the person doing the labeling. This is an ignorant, racist manipulation just like in the days of slavery. And, likewise, "black" has become a way of life just like "white" used to be -- just as dishonest, just as cruel, just as intolerant, just as racist and just as evil.

Just like "white" before, when used as anything other than simple color identification, "black" is not only a hate word but is a hate-creating word -- it internalizes a violent slavery mentality in the same way with the same emphasis on color resulting in an unwitting dehumanization of the person so named and a calculated cruel dehumanization of those not so named.

The misuse of both "black" and "white" has resulted in malicious self-created malignancies of alienation and diminishment of total humanity. Intrinsic to the misuse of these words, there occurs a self-aggrandizement with simultaneous belittlement of "unlike" others. Our experience proved and is proving again that those negative results of the misuse of these words of color are intrinsic, automatic, uncorrectable, and unmistakable. These words of color need to be discarded except as specific labeling of things not people (skin is a thing and not a person!).

One should just not use those words to designate a person or a group any longer. Refuse to do so. Anyone who uses "black" in such a way is as much a slaver, and even more so because he should know better, as those who previously used "white" in identical fashion. To battle over color is to fight over wavelengths, which is stupid. Color is unnatural when it is a rivalry. Color is a simple, irrelevant trait for things and not people.

So what should we call people if not their color? I have written elsewhere that one's real race is one's national culture (citizenship) to which can be added a secondary label of one's generic biological origin. Continuing in such manner, my proposal is that new neutral words be used which help maintain the distinction but do not carry with them any sort of manipulative, negative or grandiose connotations that interfere with relating and block converging in terms of total humanity.

Basically, there are four major generic groups of race as follows:

1. Caucasian which includes European, Arabian, Indian subcontinent and Hispanic.

2. Negro which includes the traditional Congoid and Capoid.

3. Mongoloid which includes Asian and American Indian.

4. Australoid which includes Australian, Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian.

What follows are the proposed new words to be used to designate as nouns or in an adjectival way the visual biological "racial" aspects of one's background.

1. Because no one is really "white," "Caucasian" should used, and anyone with this background would be called a cauc or the plural, caucs. Because of the prominent subgroups contained therein, Europeans could be called euro(s); Arabs would be ara(s); subcontinent Indians would be called ind(s); and Hispanics would be called hisp(s).

2. Because no one is really "black," "Negro" should be reborn, and it is appropriate as well as personalizing. The extermination of all Negroes has been written about by me elsewhere, but the word, upon in depth analysis, is deserving of admiration and respect because it refers to persons who have a glorious history albeit one of excessive oppression. Anyone fitting into that category would be called neg or the plural negs.

3. Because no one is really "yellow," "Mongoloid" would be the term for Asians. They would be known as mon or the plural mons. Since American Indians are of mongoloid derivation, they could be called amon and amons.

4. The Australoid group, following the preceding paradigm, would be called aust, austs, and one could also use the subgroups if desired also -- mel(s), mic(s), poly(s).

5. When people have multiple backgrounds and are mixtures of negs, caucs, mons, austs, etc., they would be called mult or mults. This obviously is an abbreviation of "multiple" in reference to visual biological racial stock background and derivations.

Each of the preceding designations could be used alone as nouns or as adjectives linked to their national origin, i.e. euroAmerican, negArgentinian, mongAmerican, araFrenchman, indEnglishman, austAustralian, polyAmerican.

The benefits of changing our way of designating is to neutralize all the violent historical baggage which other words convey. The proposed words distinguish but are irrelevant. They are precise but without importance. They are accurate but actually trivial. They make one aware but neutral. They are bland and without good or bad connotations. They are to some extent silly, defusing and mutually retorting at worst. By virtue of all this, they defuse the situation because they cannot be important. And therefore they are just as they ought to be: benign!

While this sounds somewhat contrived and fanciful, one cannot deny that it is a total neutralization of the connotative impact such that much will be defused.

The most important thing to remember is that when color becomes more than a simple identification then it becomes an untruth which will have negative consequences in the long run.

It is time to go colorless.