The origins of racism are often framed as if racial ideology emerged first and then drove centuries of domination, exploitation, and inequality. Yet when we return to first principles and examine the historical record with a clear sociological lens, a different picture emerges — one in which racism is not the cause nor the motive of domination but an emergent counter-narrative. 

Human societies have always competed for land, labour, resources, and security. This is not a uniquely European phenomenon; it is a universal feature of human social organisation. When we look at the major systems of domination across history — slavery, colonisation, caste hierarchies, forced labour, land dispossession — the underlying drivers are remarkably consistent.

Slavery arises from labour scarcity and economic need. Colonisation emerges from the pursuit of territory and geopolitical advantage. Caste systems stabilise class hierarchies. Forced labour extracts economic value. Land dispossession secures resources and strategic control. None of these were based on racism. Occam’s Razor: greed is a simpler explanation for human behaviour rather than a complex ideological fabrication. 

The Christians wanted to Convert 

The earliest European justifications for domination were religious rather than racial. In the 15th to 17th centuries, Europeans framed their expansion in theological terms. Non‑Christians were “heathens”, and Christians had a duty to convert them. Resistance to conversion was interpreted as moral stubbornness, which in turn justified coercion. Papal bulls authorised the conquest of non‑Christian lands; the Spanish Requerimiento was read aloud to Indigenous peoples as a formal declaration that refusal to accept Christianity legitimised conquest. Missionaries described colonisation as a spiritual obligation. This was not racism. It was theological hierarchy — a way of reconciling conquest with Christian self‑perception.

The Capitalists wanted to Conquer

As Europe secularised, religious justification weakened, and a new narrative emerged: the civilising mission. Colonised peoples were described as backward, primitive, childlike, or uncultured. Europeans cast themselves as bearers of civilisation, progress, and refinement. The logic shifted from salvation to uplift: “We dominate them because they need civilisation.” This was paternalism rather than biological racism, but it served the same function — it made domination feel benevolent. The civilising mission became the moral currency of empire, allowing Europeans to see themselves as agents of improvement rather than exploitation.

As colonial administrations expanded, they required a legal rationale for rule. Thus emerged the narrative of law, order, and good government. Colonised societies were portrayed as chaotic, despotic, or lawless, while European governance was framed as rational, orderly, and just. This narrative justified taxation, policing, land seizure, and administrative control. Again, this was not yet racial; it was legal‑administrative paternalism. But it further entrenched the idea that domination was necessary for the stability and improvement of colonised societies.

The Scientists wanted to Classify

The Enlightenment introduced a new intellectual tool: classification. Naturalists began categorising plants, animals, and eventually humans. This produced the first pseudo‑scientific racial hierarchies. Europeans were described as more evolved or more advanced, while others were cast as less developed. Progress was imagined as measurable, and some groups were deemed naturally suited for labour or subordination. This is where racism, in the modern sense, begins. Scientific racism provided permanence, inevitability, and moral comfort. Inequality was no longer a matter of religion or civilisation; it was framed as nature itself. This was the first justification that made inequality hereditary and unchangeable. Thank the scientists for Eugenics.

Oppressed groups needed a language to describe the injustice and a framework to reclaim dignity. They had a problem that needed labelling. The solution? Counter-ideologies emerged: abolitionism, anti‑colonial nationalism, Pan‑Africanism, Indigenous sovereignty movements, and civil rights ideologies. These were responses to material domination, violence, and structural inequality. Oppressed groups labelled the behaviour — slavery, oppression, colonisation, exploitation, as racism — and built counter‑ideologies to challenge it.

The emergent narrative (blaming racism) is simpler, more powerful and because of its visceral inequity, much more motivating and effective at galvanising the resistance movement.

In addition to that,  domination and exploitation creates a moral problem. Human beings, even when acting violently or exploitatively, rarely see themselves as cruel. Groups engaged in conquest or subjugation almost always construct narratives that make their actions appear necessary, righteous, or inevitable. This is not a uniquely Western impulse; it is a human one. And when behaviour contradicts self‑image, ideology emerges to resolve the contradiction.

The oppressors accepted the ‘racism’ label for reasons one can only speculate about. The claims of racism were unified, consistent and loud. It surely would have seemed easy to accept it, rather than admit you are greedy or cruel? And with ‘science’ documenting racial inferiorities (lower IQ etc) it would have seemed legitimate and justifiable. You can’t argue with gravity, right?

But I don’t believe there is any evidence of human beings discriminating against other human beings based on heritable/ genetic traits–height, colour of your eyes etc–why would skin pigmentation be the first and only example? There is some reference in the ancient days to ‘barbarians’ having ‘bad blood’, but I don’t see that as evidence of racism based on traits; it is more of a ‘catch-all’ term to lump together certain kinds of behaviours.

Ancient Greek attitudes toward "barbarians" were primarily ethnocentric—centered on cultural, linguistic, and customary differences (e.g., non-Greek speech sounding like "bar-bar," or perceptions of foreigners as effeminate, despotic, or cowardly due to climate or habits). No single visible physical trait reliably marked someone as a "barbarian"; it was often changeable through acculturation (e.g., adopting Greek customs could elevate one's status).

Human beings DO discriminate, because they need something to create boundaries with that would define their group, community etc. And skin colour at best would have been one of those signals for some groups, but it really was just that - a signifier.

But actual racism has been a convenient mythology. The original sins of slavery, oppression and colonialism have long since been dismantled, and discriminatory legislation not only erased but expressly rewritten to forbid it.

We’d all agree that the hillbillies (bogans/ commoners) who would divorce themselves from the elites/privileged. And vice versa. People of colour can and are readily included amongst the elite - because this discrimination is based on other traits and behaviours, not skin colour. It is quite ironic that accusations of racism would come from the Obamas and the Winfreys of the world, who by definition couldn’t be more privileged.

Skin colour is a weak signal (just like your diction) which serves as a basis for in-groups to be formed. Just like ‘bad blood’ used to be a short-hand. But I don’t find any compelling arguments of humans discriminating based on heritable traits in the history of mankind.

There was a period when actual racism became institutionalised in law, education, science, religion, bureaucracy, and culture. Once institutionalised, it gained a life of its own. Even when the original economic or political motives faded, the ideology remained. It became inherited, normalised, unconscious, and structural. But, as far as I can tell, there is not one country in the western civilised world that actively practices racism. Those institutions have been dismantled a long time ago.

There are some perceived remnants of racism (wealth gaps, incarceration levels, housing), but I would argue that these are symptoms of racist legacy practices, not current evidence of racism. That does not mean there isn’t anything else to do, but it certainly is not what it was before.

Whenever a ‘solution’ is offered when someone is a victim of injustice, and that solution requires something of the victim, the knee-jerk reaction is to label it as ‘victim-blaming’. This is often counter-productive, because sometimes the victim is part of the solution too. Just like the 12-steps program requires the addict to do something to climb out of that hole, sometimes the person that needs the solution must examine and acknowledge their own role in manifesting the solution.

This racism ‘scaffolding’ is now counter-productive, and the people claiming it are actually practising self-harm. When black families teach their children to look out for racism, they are extending its shelf-life. 

When ‘racism’ accusations are levelled at the cop for an innocuous traffic stop, you stoke the fires of perpetual victimhood that serves no one but the actual racist who may still exist. 

When accusations of racism become a shield to protect you from owning you/ your community’s ‘ghetto’ behaviours, you fan the flames of black fatigue. And what the world really does not need right now, is for ‘race’ to become a thing again. 

When you demand DEI and reparations, you are signalling that you are weak and you need special treatment, you limit your ability to grow, and you annihilate the possibility of earning the respect of those around you. Alternatively, it is experienced as being manipulative and to ‘guilt’ people– who were not complicit in the problem, and in fact were the architects of dismantling it– into paying for the past mistakes.

(It is true that past discriminatory practices prevented some black people from accumulating generational wealth. This cannot be undone, much like a cake that has been baked and burnt cannot be unburnt. Twenty years of DEI conceivably made up for it somewhat: but either way, the best, most sustainable way to resolve it without stoking further resentments and tensions, is to capitalize on the opportunities you have now.Prove them wrong, don’t whinge.) 

The ‘white’ nation states have done that by removing all those barriers, rewriting the laws and dismantling the institutions. Now it is up to the black people to stop the shouting, and just be. Blacks don’t have to be taller, smarter, richer, whiter or prettier to be accepted: you are already accepted just the way you are. The Christian ethos is that all people are equal before God.

It will be hard, because it may mean taking two steps back to go forward in a different direction. You cannot demand to be loved and you cannot demand to be respected. But you can decline the offer of special DEI treatment, because it will earn you respect. Be respectful and accepting of an authority figure, even if it is a white cop. Let go of historical grievances and stop yelling about reparations. 

Let’s consider the example of ‘racial profiling’. Does that exist? Does it prove racism?

Any person/ cop or whoever who claims they don’t do it, is lying. Racial profiling does happen, but it doesn’t prove racism. Judging other people is deeply ingrained by evolutionary mechanisms. Just like a guy would instinctively judge a girl for ‘mating potential’, we judge people based on whether they are a threat and so forth.

It is true that white people get a free pass more often than black people. And black people who are innocent in that instance, are entitled to righteous indignance. 

The question is how is this fixed? Do you punish the cop for following natural instincts? Do you retrain? Do you set quotas? ALL of these measures  generate the unintended consequences of forcing people to consider race - when that is the opposite of what we all want., 

The simple fact of the matter (for whatever the reasons) is that black people over-index on crimes. That is what drives the profiling: it is reinforced for the cop because it is positively reinforced. It sounds crude, but the only way to stop racial profiling is to make it ineffective: lower the crime participation rates and the profiling will not work, and it will fade away. In Australia we make a big deal about the number of young Aboriginal kids who die in police custody. Every community and every Government ever has failed to solve the problem, because the solution has nothing to do with ethnicity, but with the behaviours that result in you being held in custody. If you don’t want to die in jail, don’t go to jail.

Racial profiling is not purely racial. The cop (following instincts) may not even be aware of the agglomeration of factors that fires their instincts. It is the look of an eye, the swing of a hip or the turn of a lip. Many small signals, including skin colour, combine to trigger what we call racial profiling.

When racial profiling goes, so does racism, right?

Any psychologist will tell you that you can’t move forward without letting go. It is easier for me to say it than for a black person to do it, but this is the reality. And cannot be escaped.