The recent story about Donald Trump wanting the Hispanic Judge to recuse himself got me thinking. Trump has called for illegal aliens to be deported (most of which are Hispanic), a wall to be built across the border with Mexico, and has made statements about Mexican illegal immigrants being criminals. Then, as soon as he gets the nomination, a law suit is filed against him. The timing of the law suit is obviously political. The judge assigned to the case turns out to be a 1^st generation American with Mexican immigrant parents. Trump thinks maybe the judge won’t be fair because he may be sympathetic toward Hispanic illegal immigrants. Also, it turns out; the judge also belongs to a La Raza (“the race”) lawyers group. La Raza has not been supportive of Trump’s campaign.

Because Trump asked the judge to recuse himself, both Republicans and Democrats have labeled Trump a “racist”. The assumption is that Trump thinks because the judge is Hispanic, he cannot be fair (making an assumption that Hispanics are inherently unfair?). Aside from the fallacious argument Trump’s detractors are using (could it be that Trump thinks the judge may be mad about his positions on immigration?) the use of the word “racist” got me thinking. Being a “racist” implies that you think certain “races” are better than others. So what “race” is a Hispanic? Hispanics can be 100% Spanish European, part Spanish part Amerindian, part African part Amerindian, part Spanish part African, 100% African, or 100% Amerindian. So the “race” of a Hispanic is ambiguous at best. In fact, in my opinion, Hispanics kind of disprove the entire concept of race. The traditional concept of race is that there are 3, Black, White, and Yellow. Hispanics are basically different combinations of all three. So without knowing what combination of heritages the Hispanic judge has, is it correct to call Trump a racist? What if the judge was 100% Spanish? Is Trump still a “racist” then? This is why I think “race” is a ridiculous concept.

I believe that the Ark story is true, and that it actually happened. Based on this, there cannot be 3 races. While there were 3 brothers, the sons of Noah on the Ark, there were also the 3 wives. All these people were descendants of Adam. So where do the 3 races come from? It basically comes from how different Europeans, Africans and Asians look. These people look different, but basically, they are ALL related. Also, the race concept does not take into consideration how people in the in between areas like North Africa, West Asia and the Caucus look sort of a combination of the areas they separate. North Africans look sort of Middle Eastern and African. West Asians look sort of like Middle Eastern and East Asian. Caucasians look sort of like European and Middle Eastern. In fact, if you just look at the extreme ends of Asia, Europe and Africa, people look quite different. But if you consider all the people in between, the concept of race becomes ambiguous.

If you believe we are descended from Adam, or if you think that genetically we are all descended from a Mitochondrial Eve, as a book I read on DNA says, then the concept that we had 3 parallel “races” that developed independently of each other is ridiculous. Fact is, no matter how you look at it, we are all related to people who came from the Middle East. The gradual change as you head North, South and East is basically the result of hunter/gatherer migrations, and people inbreeding with one another, and gradually looking different from each other as they moved further away.

Anthropologists think we are all descended from a guy in East Africa. This is the real “racist” idea. The implication is that Africans, or more specifically Bantu people, are less “evolved” than the people who migrated out of East Africa through the Sahara Desert to the Middle East. I think this is ridiculous, because hunter/gatherer people would find it almost impossible to migrate through the Sahara. I think that the fossils that were found in Africa are not an indication that man evolved there. With the uncertainty of dating techniques and some fossils later discovered to be apes, and not human, the idea that we evolved from there is not proven in the slightest. The evidence shows that we most likely started out in the Middle East and migrated away from there to the North, South and East. Hunter/Gatherer bands can move as fast as a mile a day, so covering the earth in a short period of time is possible. In the 6000 years since Noah got out of the Ark, mankind has migrated away from their initial location in the mountains of Ararat. The Bantu people are simply the descendants of people who migrated through the Sahara fairly recently. The lack of established civilizations is proof of that. The same thing goes for the people who migrated across the Bering Sea to the Americas. Both people groups, the Bantu and the Amerindian needed newer technology to migrate across the huge deserts of the Arctic and the Sahara. Boats, knowledge of ecosystems and knowledge of getting water in the desert were required for these migrations. The evidence shows that these people are actually “newer” (and if you believe in evolution, MORE evolved) than the rest of the earth’s people. I believe that humans did not cross the Arctic desert and the Sahara desert until they possessed the technology and knowledge to do so.

What does this all mean? Basically, calling Trump a “racist” is bogus.