Purity is a selling point. If we think something is 'pure' we'll pay more for it.. or at least most of us. People want to pay extra for mineral-water because they are told that it is free from lime, and from dirt, and doesn't need to be 'processed'. People want it because it's pure'. Christianity is 'good', Christianity is 'pure'.
What's my point? Do I believe that? No. So what's my point? My point is pure is, widely seen as a good thing. Whether it be to con people into joining their 'belief' or whether it be to charge someone out of an extra buck, pound, krown, yen etc.. etc.. But all of a sudden, this does not seem to apply when it comes to race and/or culture.
This can be blamed on the over-liberalisation of the world.. especially the western world. People are taught not to be proud of their race because they can't help it. Ths is mainly from Christian groups, who claim to be 'pure', yet they want everybody to blend together so that we are all colorless.. how can that be pure?
Going on about this in a purely religious sense is stupid, as it just looks like I'm bible-bashing. Mixing can be judged as bad in it's 'lowest' forms. Colour is the issue here, so I could very well talk about paints. Let's imagine I have some simple paints.. red, blue, yellow, black, white.
I can look at all of these paints and find an attraction in each. The red is fiery, and passionate, the blue is deep and 'emotional', comparable to either the ocean, or the sky. The yellow is colourful and inspiring, the black is 'full', and can be used to represent all sorts of ideas, and finally the white is.. (no pun intended) pure.
If I were to mix the red and white, I would get pink. Whilst pink may be 'pretty' to look at, it loses the pureness of the white, and it loses the aggressiveness of the red. You do not get a perfect colour with the best qualities of the two former. Merely, you get a 'half colour' that just detracts all the good qualities of it's 'parent'. It dilutes the red and it taints the white.
This is the same for breeding with other races. Whilst some 'cross-breedings' may be attractive to the eye (euro-asians being an example), their make-up can be severely wrong. For example, I am part (from what I can tell) Hallstat Nordic.. though not completely pure. Hallstat Nordic's are generally quite tall, with small bodies and long legs. They are also lean.
So let us say that a person such as myself bred with a race that typically had wide hips and very wide shoulders (Hallstat's are only moderatly broad-shouldered). This would result in someone who could not support their body, for they would have bulky parts and a moderatly lean body.. whilst they would cope, this is not good for them.
I can say that my mother is much shorter than my father.. my mother is most of the other 'mixed stuff' in me. I could say we should try keep to our 'own races in races', but in England that is rather difficult due to all the mixing and such.. this is even worse in the case of the USA.
So just to sum up this first, short, quick post. Wanting to be 'pure' is not a bad thing. It is not dismissing other races as inferior (one of the members to the community at the time of this being written is a Native American.. the same 'pure theory' should apply to all races.).
Anybody else, feel free to post any articles on heritage and such. They don't have to be by you, but if they are somebody else's work, make sure you state their name and book/website/newsletter and such.
Current Mood: happy
Current Music: Immortal