Roots of Radicalism

RACIALISM: Fact or Emotion?

Dr Henry Campbell M.A., Ph.D., A.C.P., F.R.S.A.

What is meant by Racialism?

Let us look at the family; here is a unit bonded together for whatever reason, social or economical. It is a clear fact; the family is a tightly-knit unit that guards its own secrets and its own unique customs. Within its confines it decrees its own laws that a 'visitor' would not infringe out of respect for the family. Age old taboos have generated a code of manners that is unwritten and unbroken.

From the family this extends to kinship links, the same unwritten code of ethics partly conforming to the code of the large societal structure and partly to the unique code of the family group linkage. Progressively this 'code structure' is embraced by groupings of families; neighbours, streets, districts, villages, towns. The street gang as kids, the village team, the local team, the big city teams and so on; all expressions of the pride in the unique 'unit', large or small. This is the pride in a bond community, the bond of family, of schooldays, of shops, cars, customs, moans and all the package of 'living our lives'.

This natural bonding is the essence of being a race of people brought up together from generation to generation over the period of time that it has taken for that particular 'area' to have formed itself into the nation, or race, that it is. When strangers come into this very personal and self-contained area, how can they but be alien? Visiting they might be accepted, regarded kindly and tolerated; but let them antagonise the code and customs at their risk. Ranks would be firmly closed against them.

Attempts to integrate into the home structure would never meet with complete success no matter how good the intention. Phrases such as 'the Italian down the street' are only too common, and these precipitated merely by a national distinction of language only and not by an obvious physiognomical and skin pigmentation differential.

The non-race individual will always stand out, and it is just this 'standing out' that causes the problem; the basic problem of just not fitting, of just not being in the right place.


We know that the ultimate emergence of homo sapiens led to the formation of small hunter-gatherer groups. Anthropologists have traced the social structure of these groups, the male domination developments, the kinship bondings, the genetic relations governing the size of the groups and the formation of colonies. We know how great a part was played by natural geographical barriers in containing tribal formations.

We know how a communication system evolved, firstly a semiotic format and then a linguistic schema that would be particular to the specific group. With the evolution of language and reason - specific within the group area - would have come trade and commerce.

This inter-group relationship within the whole tribal structure would have developed a strong kinship bonding throughout the whole large group; the nation, the race would have developed a unique code of ethics which would have been generated from the basic small group societies. With the stabilisation of society areas through agriculture, commerce, trade routes, the nation considered as an isolated agglomeration would have evolved its own peculiar character.

It would have been bound by a common language; a common language that was initiated in the first group and from thence spread via the colonisation to the whole tribal and national area occupied by that particular tribe. It can be envisaged that the geographical restraints would have kept the thinly populated areas to specific regional zones.

Mountain ranges, wide rivers, and areas of plain land, heavy forestation; all such conditions would be effective barriers and consequent markers of territorial boundaries. It must not be forgotten that in the evolution - the development - of the individual nations, also would have evolved the genius of homo sapiens in the area of aesthetics.

Art forms would have evolved pari-passu with the linguistic and technical prowess; taboos and religions would have abounded in the individual groupings and would have passed onto the tribal groupings. In all of its ramifications and diversities a national character and culture would slowly have come into being; a national character and entity that would be as proud and possessive of its national customs, culture and inheritance as any individual family unit from which it was engendered.

Within the national 'network' of small groupings areas such a pride of area, pride of family, pride of 'zone' would sharpen the sense of national pride as a whole. The natural spirit of competitive relationships - strongly related to basic survival dispositions - would manifest itself as national unity and a national pride when the trade and commerce routes became extended and nation had contact with nation.

Not only would the individuality of specific nationality now be accentuated by diverse language formations - and consequently diverse thought and concept areas - but marked variations of physiognomy and skin colouration would set the differences in greater relief and consequently elevate the threshold level of national pride. Discounting any allusion to Colonial Imperialism and a 'white man overseas' attitude, the uniqueness of the individual nation would still promote the sense of pride and nationalism of the particular nation. What, then, is meant by Racialism?

It is wrong to be proud of one's own family? Is it wrong to be proud of one's own village? Is it wrong to be proud of one's own tribe? Is it wrong to be proud of one's own nation? Such a pride involves the guarding of racial customs, the upholding of national 'frontiers' of custom and culture. It involves even the guarding of one's own nation's 'weak spots'. It is basically a jealousy of personal property. The other relevant fact that all this can be explained on a sociobiological structure in great penetrating depth is irrelevant to the man in the street.

The pride of race - Nationalism - Racialism - whatever name it is given, is a gut feeling. It is a fact, a fact of emotion. This emotion is the fact. To be a racialist is to be proud of one's own race. It is a natural 'instinct', and instinct is what we, in the long run, live by.

The fascinating diversity of humanity – the result of racial differences.