I’m quite surprised at your sudden aggressive tone towards me. Perhaps it’s because I have ignored you. That has because in many ways you confuse your fantasy with “a genius realization”.
You obviously do not pay attention, because I actually value the cultural diversity that we have in the world but reject the idea that one culture or one skin colour has any claim to dominance. In fact, it is the very idea of elitism or “chosen” people that I reject. An art collection, or a symphony, which is made up of variations of one theme soon becomes boring.
I am a universalist who says that if we agree on the transcendental values, truth, unity, beauty, goodness and love, we can build a colourful humanity based on compassion and diversity. I have no dream of a “melting pot” but if there is a mixture of ethnicities, so be it.
Modern idealism makes the assertion that it is our common consciousness or sense of experience that unifies us. Old traditions say that it is because our physical appearance is a temporary feature of consciousness in skin. Our physical existence is seen is an inhibitory experience, due to the need to survive, which drives every living species, whether animal, plant or fungi.
The diverse and unified existence amongst humans is made possible by mutual borders that we agree on, whereby the freedom of one is limited when it threatens to restrict another. It is the result of an agreement we make, which we used to call civilisation, the problem was the insane idea that one group was more worthy than another. Imagine a village where families attacked each other like nations in the world do. The village would soon be burnt down.
I don’t know whether you actually know the origins of the term “Woke”. It originates from African American Vernacular English (AAVE), where it is the past participle of “wake” and has been used since at least the 1930s or earlier. It was first used within Black communities to mean being aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the phrase “stay woke”. Eventually, it took on the figurative meaning of generally being “awake” or alert to social and political injustices. It has expanded to include other social justice concerns such as sexism and homophobia.
The inequalities are the subject of “woke” and socialism is, unlike nationalism, an international movement, which calls upon all oppressed people to unite. You may mean “national socialism” which was a trojan horse, because it called upon the white race to unite against a perceived degradation of genetic material. This came from Eugenics, which is considered anti-woke because its foundational principles and historical applications directly contradict the core values of “wokeness,” which centres on social justice, equality, and opposition to discrimination.
Your assessment of the situation in Africa is woefully ignorant of the exploitation of supposedly “superior” races who used their advanced extermination machinery to subjugate the people there. I’m not saying that any ethnic group is better than another, far from it. I’m saying that Western colonialism extracted the wealth, resources, and population to serve its own populations and continues to do so. If a diverse but unified humanity is ever to come to be, this exploitation has to end, and trading begun amongst equals.
True, there has never been a fair and truly egalitarian system of segregation suggested or implemented—nor one where harsh penalties for racial oppression ensured genuine equality.
The most prominent attempt to justify segregation as “fair” was the doctrine of “separate but equal,” established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This doctrine claimed that racial segregation was permissible as long as the separate facilities for different races were of equal quality. In practice, however, this was a “sham;” Black Americans consistently received inferior treatment and resources, and the doctrine served to entrench racial oppression rather than prevent it. There were no meaningful or enforceable penalties for racial oppression within these systems—discrimination was not only tolerated but legally sanctioned.
Efforts to create egalitarian societies have focused on abolishing segregation and promoting integration, as seen in the goals and achievements of the Civil Rights Movement. The philosophical and practical consensus, as reflected in both historical experience and egalitarian theory, is that segregation inherently produces and perpetuates inequality and injustice, regardless of any theoretical penalties or safeguards.
Historical and contemporary scholarship overwhelmingly shows that capitalism has not only coexisted with racial segregation and oppression but has often exacerbated these issues. The concept of “racial capitalism,” developed by scholars like Cedric Robinson, argues that capitalism was built on and continues to rely upon racial differentiation and exploitation. Rather than erasing old hierarchies, capitalism has frequently extended and deepened them, using racial categories to justify exploitation, expropriation, and the uneven distribution of resources and opportunities.
International socialism has historically positioned itself as an alternative to capitalist systems, with the explicit aim of overcoming the inequalities and oppressions—racial and otherwise—produced or exacerbated by capitalism. Socialist and Marxist theorists have argued that capitalism’s reliance on exploitation and hierarchy, including racialized forms of oppression, can only be overcome by fundamentally transforming economic and social relations.
So, I’ll ignore this exhibition of your ignorance and hope that you have learned something from the above.
