Just too much ado over race

Show seriousness in punishing racists instead of wasting time drawing up new laws to safeguard race relations.

WHAT’S the big fuss about race and ethnic origins? It’s all about how far back into your ancestry you want to go. If we trace our lineage back to 60,000 years, we are all Africans.

There is this fascinating National Geographic documentary on the genealogy of humankind on TV this month.

Just as I finished watching it last week, the news was on and among the highlights was the Government’s plan for a proposed new law to safeguard race relations in the country.

The Journey of Man, hosted by geneticist Dr Spencer Wells, shows that all humans descended from a group that walked out of Africa about 60,000 years ago (or perhaps another 40,000 years earlier, if the opinions of dissenting archaeologists are taken into consideration).

His study is based on DNA €“ the scientific historical link that we carry in our blood.

Tiny spelling mistakes in our DNA, in the form of changes in sequence which happened in the past, provides the linkage in genealogical ties.

Dr Wells has traced our common DNA to the Y-chromosome of this man, our veritable Adam, who lived in the eastern or southern part of Africa.

He suggests that our early ancestors could have looked like the San bush people of the Kalahari, whose facial features make up a composite model of people from all the world.

He posits that the first batch followed the southern coastline of Asia, somehow crossed about 250km of sea to Australia 50,000 years ago, leaving behind the current aborigines as their descendants.

Archaeologists, however, say the first wave of migration could have occurred about 100,000 years ago, based on fossil records.

Earlier this year, three studies that looked at human diversity through genetics, supported Dr Wells’ contention that humans left Africa, walked into Central Asia and fanned out east and west to populate the planet.

They also confirmed that the ancestry of many seemingly “purebred” ethnic groups were traceable to more than one continent.

What does all these tell us? We now know that scientifically, there is no such thing as a pure race.

Not a single characteristic, trait or gene distinguishes members of one “race” from members of another.

Genes influencing skin colour have nothing to with the genes influencing blood types, type of hair or shape of eyes.

As Dr Well explains, humans who first evolved in Africa had dark skin because they needed protection in the form of melanin, our natural sunscreen.

Those who moved into the northern hemisphere 40,000 years ago did not need such protection and lost some of their pigmentation to allow sunlight to synthesise Vita-min D needed to grow strong bones.

“Our differences are only skin deep. We are all African cousins separated by, at the most, some 2,000 generations,” he says.

But if race is a relatively recent concept, why does it invoke such fervour, even to the point of dying or killing for?

Deep down, it is just a powerful social and political means for groups of people to gain access or protect geographical territories and resources.

Throughout human history, the concept of race or the assumed superiority of one over another, have been used to justify territorial wars, hegemony, slavery, ethnic cleansing and other abominations.

Even in countries deemed to be progressive and democratic, racial practices such as segregation and apartheid were institutionalised norms not too long ago. They still exist today, although in more subtle forms.

How about us? Let’s not pretend that racial sentiments do not lurk as the underlying factor in most aspects of our lives.

From cradle to grave, Malaysians are constantly reminded of the race they belong to, resulting in a segment of the population feeling that they can never be regarded as equal citizens of a diverse and potentially dynamic nation.

This fanatical focus on race has since spawned more despicable forms of racism such as hate crimes against foreigners, the latest being the senseless murder of an African student from Chad last week.

As for politicians, publicly they spout about national unity, but in reality many remain unrepentant rogues when it comes to using race as an expedient tool.

Against such a backdrop, talking about a Race Relations Act akin to the law that Britain has, sounds like a bad joke.

It’s farcical to formulate a new law to fix racial discord when we choose not to see the root causes of our problems.

Over the years, we have heard endless racist talk from politicians who should know better, the latest being Bukit Bendara Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s infamous “squatter” remarks.

Just how many of them have been arrested, investigated charged in court? Or even counselled to change their ways, as in cases of recalcitrant religious deviants?

Instead of wasting more precious time drawing up new legislation, the Government should show immediate seriousness in punishing offenders using the array of existing laws.

It should also consciously help educate all Malaysians on the need for unity and eliminate practices and programmes that cause disunity among the people.

Perhaps the most urgent task at hand is a review of the National Civics Bureau (Biro Tata Negara), a training institution that is supposed to be conducting nation building programmes to instil loyalty and discipline among tertiary students and those on Public Service scholarships.

Shocking allegations of BTN’s “racist” indoctrination courses which seem to be in conflict with national unity, the principles of Rukun Negara and the aspirations of Bangsa Malaysia, have been circulating in cyberspace for several weeks now.

Strangely, there has been no clarification or denial yet from the Prime Minister’s Department, which BTN comes under, the Home Ministry nor the Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry.

M. Veera Pandiyan
The Star