Discrimination on the basis of race, in the United States and elsewhere, is a tenacious social pathology that has plagued Western civilization. It is among the most potent topics for public discussion, in particular among interracial audiences. Most scholars trace the origins of discrimination to the Atlantic slave trade and European colonization. Subsequently, African-Americans are cast as victims and Euro-Americans by way of the slave trade as the perpetrators of African-American victimization. Eventually such victimization spread to other non-European, non-biracial, male, gay, and lesbian immigrant populations, whose demographic status located them on the periphery of the Western power structure. However, the origin of racial and other forms of discrimination is much more extensive than the Western power structure, which historically Western scholars in particular have been unwilling to acknowledge. The inability to do that has dampened the worth of scientific investigation, in that science and the academic community at large has been misled by a simplistic dichotomous view of discrimination. Motivated by their allegiance to the racial status quo, mainstream scholars have elected to ignore the works of victim-group scholars who trace the origins of racial discrimination to its prehistoric genesis. Doing so, they presume, would be an affront to the academy that has contributed to sustaining the current world order. In fact, tracing the origins of racial discrimination to its genesis offers the best opportunity for a solution and thus its eventual demise. By expanding the search for facts independent of race and political sensitivities, the worth of scientific investigation will be enhanced having been freed from dictates of the current status quo. Additionally, discrimination—as it pertains to people of color and other victim-group populations—will be amenable to acknowledgment and subsequently more rigorous scientific investigation. Under the circumstances of such investigation, victim-group discrimination as per victimism will be revealed as a contingent of the more traditionally acknowledged Western version. The fact is discrimination, perpetrated by postcolonials and victim-group populations, extends from a common genesis consisting of the following chronology: (a) the prehistoric glacial evolution of mankind; (b) color confrontations as perceived inadequacy; (c) Western colonization; (d) development of the authoritarian personality; and (e) the ecological perspective relative to people of color and other victim-group populations who discriminate. The hegemony of Western scholars and social work activists in their scientific investigation has been the most potent obstacle in distorting the aforementioned.

In 1994, two relatively obscure Euro-Americans Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published a widely noted book called The Bell Curve [1]. They professed to explain the racial intelligence differentials between blacks and whites using statistical analysis. No doubt, differentials do exist as for all groups for various reasons irrelevant to race. The authors’ all but stated purpose was to warn society of the social, political, and economic consequences of racial intelligence differentials for the construction of comprehensive policies. The obvious unstated purpose was to serve the subjugation of dark-skinned people under the environmental auspices of the lighter-skinned, postcolonial status quo. Unfortunately, the effort failed scientifically as The Bell Curve is rife with pseudo-facts and statistical errors in suggesting that African-Americans by virtue of being black are endowed with a gene for inferior intelligence. This hypothesis is based upon intelligence test score differentials between blacks, whites, and Asian-Americans. Without reference to any significant details, the authors conclude from such differentials that African-Americans value intelligence tests equal to that of Asian-Americans and whites and that the tests are a valid measure of intelligence. Given the intelligence test differentials between Northerners and Southerners, the upper and lower class men and women not acknowledged in the book not only reduces the scientific quality of the work but leaves the suspicion of an ulterior motive. It is not prohibitive that such research be conducted but that it should be subject to scientific rigor worthy of legitimate scholarship. Despite this, The Bell Curve was a monumental financial success in Europe and America, where lighter-skinned, postcolonials dominate the political, economic, and social environments. Upon release, it is reputed to have sold 400,000 copies worldwide [2]. Many Americans—and conceivably some conservative blacks—displayed a keen interest in the book. It was successful in resurrecting an old stereotype, which proposed that blacks are intellectually inferior by genetic heritage. Similar beliefs have been assigned to other people of color, such as Native Americans—whose reference in the book was secondary to that of blacks. Global interest is evidence of a loosely defined conspiracy on the part of lighter-skinned, postcolonial folk to dominate and control the environment of human reality by professed genetic superiority, giving license to discriminate. The need on the part of some to scientifically validate white supremacy, associated with racial discrimination, is a consequence of their prehistoric evolution within a hostile glacial environment where control, domination, and aggression were indeed the sustenance of life. In 1978, Michael Bradley applied this rationale in his explanation of white supremacy, which culminated eventually into victimism as victim-group discrimination by victim-group populations.

Michael Bradley is a light-skinned American, of mixed-race genetic parentage, who describes himself as a white man. He is currently a Canadian citizen and author of a book titled The Iceman Inheritance [3], which is no less controversial than The Bell Curve. However, the scholastic quality of Bradley’s book exceeds that of Herrnstein and Murray’s work. While Bradley is critical, he is careful to direct his criticism in the first person and never fails to accept responsibility for the atrocities he associates with the West. Western scholars, while they embraced Herrnstein and Murray’s work, have not embraced Bradley’s work or acknowledged the scholarly worth of his theory. Some have responded with uninformed criticisms given to emotional platitudes, no doubt as a consequence of his less than complimentary accusations. Bradley has found an audience, however, among Afrocentrists. From their perspective, The Iceman Inheritance is the first theoretical construct to logically explain the evolution of today’s worldwide domination of dark-skinned people by those having light skin and the subsequent tendency to racial discrimination. Bradley attributes this domination to the prehistoric Western evolution within a hostile, unforgiving, glacial environment.

According to Bradley, during the prehistoric era, Caucasoids were forced to adapt to extreme glacial conditions, unlike darker-skinned people of color whose tropical surroundings accommodated nonviolence and viable human life. Scientific data exist to support this notion, as the impact of glacial adaptation can be found among lighter-skinned Caucasoids today. Bradley states:

These special adaptations had incidental side effects which resulted in an exceptionally aggressive psychology, an extreme expression of the Cronos complex, and a higher level of psychosexual conflict compared to all other races of men [3].

Thus, Bradley would differ with Herrnstein and Murray, attributing the advanced technological state of the postcolonial West not to its proposed superior intelligence but a tendency toward violence and aggression against the darker-skinned masses they perceive as an environmental threat. Such aggression is a prehistoric product of the hostile environmental experiences, which required domination and control in order to survive. No longer confronted by a hostile, glacial environment today, lighter-skinned Caucasoids have applied the same aggressive tendencies to dominate the human social, political, and economic environment by dispersing themselves geographically and culturally, at the expense of the darker-skinned members of mankind. This postcolonial penchant for aggression and environmental domination, while coincidental with glacial evolution, has resulted in a defensive mentality among today’s Western populations. According to Bradley, advanced technology, chemical pollution, exploitation of earth’s resources, and the ever-present threat of a nuclear confrontation are the end results. Furthermore, Bradley contends that the modern-day penchant for aggression among lighter-skinned postcolonials is manifested by their inability to cope well with intellectual conflict. That inability is relevant to the American Puritanical tradition, which denigrates sexual displacement activities intended to reduce aggressive behaviors within the human species. Bradley suggests, “We have a low frustration tolerance because glacial adaptation robbed us of sufficiently effective sexual displacement activities” [3].

Thus, Western problems in philosophical and religious conflicts derive from a glacial corruption of therapeutic primate behavior patterns initiated by light-skinned persons. In brief, this is Bradley’s explanation of white supremacy and the ongoing attempt of Herrnstein and Murray to substantiate intellectual superiority as a rationale for discriminating against people of color. If successful, The Bell Curve will scientifically rationalize the worldwide subjugation of all victim-group populations by their assumed superior counterparts who are predisposed to aggression and domination, according to Bradley, in the aftermath of having survived a hostile prehistoric glacial environment. With their eventual encounters with a human environment dominated by darker-skinned people, the lighter-skinned descendants of prehistoric Caucasians necessarily acted out prehistoric tendencies. They then applied the same aggressive domination, previously thought necessary to survive a hostile glacial environment, to nonwhite humanity. Extending from Bradley’s work, an African-American psychiatrist acknowledged this modern-day color phenomenon and labeled it the Cress theory.

In 1970, Dr. Frances Cress Welsing established the Cress Theory of Color Confrontation and Racism [4]. The Cress theory is a clarification of skin color confrontation that seeks to explain discrimination and the current racial world order. As a scientist, Welsing takes the position that all observable human phenomena can be explained or, at least, are amenable to explanation by rigorous scientific investigation. No doubt, similar to Bradley, her work has sparked controversy among scholars, but it is no less scientifically significant. Those such as Herrnstein and Murray have been less apt to consider Welsing’s explanation of Western world domination given its potential to challenge Western intellectual superiority. Their objective is an aggressive attempt by discrimination to dominate the human social, political, and economic environment. They intend to do so by arming social engineers and policy makers with scientific evidence that will standardize the postcolonial status quo. By reputation, the Cress theory lacks mainstream validation because its color explanation of black/white racial differentials undermines the current distribution of wealth and power.

In her formulation of the Cress theory, Welsing encountered the work of Neely Fuller. Fuller acknowledges the need for a functional behavior theory that could be applied by those seeking to bring about social change that would end discrimination. At the risk of controversy, Fuller suggests that there is one single explanation for the current world order associated with the subjugation of dark-skinned people by those who are lighter-skinned. On the basis of skin color, Fuller challenges his readers to identify and then to demonstrate the functional application of racial discrimination by any of the world’s dark-skinned, nonwhite peoples. Since there is no functional racism among any of the world’s “colored” people, the genesis of worldwide domination is “white” supremacy. That is not to suggest colored people are incapable of racist behaviors, as victimism suggests they are. However, in a postcolonial Western dominated world, nonwhites are ultimately the victims of the white supremacy process. Fuller places emphasis on the treatment of darker-skinned people of color within Western societal institutions, where racism can be verified by the obsession with intelligence testing. He ignores morality and individual, localized cases to make his point. He instead systematizes racial discrimination via the patterns of relationships between those who are effectively without color and those who make color salient throughout humanity and who are thereby perceived as a formidable environmental threat.

The pronounced existence of color in blacks is perceived not only as an environmental threat but as a provocation as well. In an effort to rescue their self-esteem in a color-norm world, some have responded with defensive mechanisms, including white supremacy, to account for feelings of skin color inadequacy. Initially, according to Welsing, they repressed the thought or sense of inadequacy. Eventually, this repression became deeply rooted and gained in complexity as the world moved toward increasing levels of heterogeneous social interaction. It resurfaced in the universal inability of Westerners to congregate in the presence of darker-skinned, nonwhite populations. Segregated schools, housing, and education throughout the West is explained by the Cress theory as the psychological discomfort experienced by those who, in the presence of their dark-skinned counterparts, are confronted with their skin color inadequacies as the prerequisite to a tendency to discriminate. Unfortunately, efforts on the part of some in the West to rescue their self-esteem in the wake of skin color issues have always been futile, in a human social environment dominated by people of color. Thus, their prehistoric penchant for aggression, in perceiving people of color as an environmental threat, culminated in an unprecedented effort to colonize the entire nonwhite world.

According to Harry Kitano [5], colonization is defined as the peopling of foreign territory previously settled by a native population with operatives from the mother country [5]. Since the Atlantic slave trade, another form of prehistoric aggression has prevailed through colonial powers. Colonial powers have consistently dealt with their subjects in one of three ways: eradication, exclusion, or assimilation [5]. More often than not, the victim groups exposed to such domination were influenced to perpetrate discrimination themselves, despite their skin color contrast with their lighter-skinned colonizers. Ironically, it is the colonial experience of people of color with Western domination that then facilitated their victim-group discrimination against other victim-group populations, which scientific investigation has all but subverted. Subsequently, the historical impact of colonization has predisposed dark-skinned and other victim-group populations to the internalization of prehistoric and postcolonial ideals.

The remaining European black colonies have been emancipated or otherwise gained their independence over the years. Some gained independence by confrontation while others were freed on moral grounds. However, as it pertains to feelings of color inadequacies, Western aggressive attempts at environmental domination prevail in this postcolonial era. While people of color are no longer relegated to overt colonization, they have succumbed to covert manifestations as victim-group discrimination. This form of discrimination cannot be fully understood without reference to Bradley’s white racism and Welsing’s subsequent feelings of skin color inadequacy. Both theories play a major role in describing the willingness of people of color and victim groups to oppress other people of color and other victim groups, despite that they might find the act objectionable.

According to Anthony Powell, it should not come as a shock that an unusually large number of African-American soldiers deserted while serving in the colonized Philippines; many joined the Filipino struggle for independence [6]. Even so, today’s Filipino skin color hierarchy is ever so subtle but nonetheless exists both at home and abroad. In every country colonized by European powers, a light-skin hierarchy given to victim-group discrimination exists under similar circumstances, including Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Panama. In fact, Cuba is regarded by some such as Carlos Moore—a dark-skinned Cuban—as the most prejudiced society in the Hispanic Caribbean. The physical, social, and cultural mores exported by colonial powers were thus shaped and modified to effectively sustain people of color under a system of colonial domination. The beneficiary of course was the colonial motherland. The success of this system was largely dependent upon the experience of the first generation of people of color to be colonized [7]. Although their lives were directly impacted, dark-skinned and light-skinned people of color, prone to discriminate, would continue manifestations of colonization covertly reflected in their Western migration and color select marital patterns.

Language, bloodline, and urbanization became symbols of status among covertly colonized people of color in the modern era. In an effort to reach higher moral ground, postcolonial powers found another way to maintain control and/or dominate victim groups of color. Furthermore, the ability of these powers in affecting a social hierarchy by skin color was no less formidable than traditional overt colonization having an impact upon the psyche of victim-group populations. A system of social stratification that eventually overlapped with skin color and/or race can be summarized as follows: The postcolonial powers found a way to maintain environmental dominance via race criteria. They associated light skin with prestige, which meant that people characterized by dark skin were universally regarded as inferior. This reinforced sociocultural notions of human hierarchy. By the time overt colonization had come to an end, a subtle but no less effective covert system of colonization by hierarchy had been put in place that was particularly evident in the psychological ideals exhibited by people of color. In other words, the indigenous mores of native people had given way to the prehistoric influences of Western domination. That is not to say that racism per se is typical of people of color, but that their psyche in particular has not withstood the assault of covert postcolonial influences or their regard for mankind relative to status within society.

The common Western experience with oppressed nonwhite populations fostered a sense of superiority among similarly oppressed groups. However, under the circumstances, solidarity between oppressed whites and nonwhites was discouraged. Among all people of color, colonization remains a significant influence upon their societal status. Resulting influences preceded the indiscriminate application of alien skin color ideals among nonwhites. The uppermost in status became those whose color approximated that of the dominant mainstream white population [8]. In an effort to circumvent humiliation, people of color then accommodated a denigration of self. In the aftermath, their own oppression was enabled due to a differential in power, which motivated instances of stigmatization, as reflected in Eurogamy and various other forms of institutionalized hypergamy.

Covertly colonized people of color, who marry and settle in Western countries today, exhibit a color-based hierarchy commensurate with white somatic ideals. In the West, where race dominates, skin color is strictly applied to formal and informal group interaction among and between victim-group populations. Whereas Europeans may be differentiated by socially selected cultural traits, in the West people of color are distinguished by socially selected physical traits, that is, dark skin [9]. Designation by physical group traits would have little or no meaning in the West if the dominant population did not recognize or acknowledge such traits as stigmata. Hence, in Western countries including the United States, the classification of nonwhites as being aliens is dependent on the perceptions and definitions held by members of the Western mainstream. Whereas some Europeans, such as darker-skinned Italians, did not fit the Western ideal initially, they are not now differentiated as alien to its skin color norm. They do not regard themselves as stigmatized nor are they so regarded by the mainstream Western population [10]. Covert colonization of nonwhite people implies the ability of colonial-descended groups to otherwise impose their ideals, omitting consideration for reactions [11]. Regardless of the particular methods used, colonial-descended groups may then construct a social environment extended from self-prescriptions. Furthermore, aside from the more obvious aggressive tactics, true colonization may derive from influential behavior and relative status. In the West, dominant groups have always been in a position to impose their ideals upon the dominated, who have been stigmatized as alien to their skin color norm [12]. As individuals, Americans may act out covert colonization of nonwhites in particular, without ever making conscious or overt decisions to do so. The willingness of nonwhites to acquiesce is rooted in their having been socialized to pursue the “American Dream.” Pertaining to the dynamics of this scenario, research suggests dominant groups acquire power directly by emphasizing competence and action. Covertly colonized groups acquire power by virtue of identification with and/or submission to Western group ideals, an example being the marriage of conservative Republican Senator Phil Gramm to Asian-American Wendy Lee Gramm [13]. Given the status differential, resulting interactions between nonwhites and Western citizens of colonial descent are thus tantamount to institutionalized servitude.

Consequent to covert colonization, nonwhites who relocate to the Americas and who intermarry will have biracial offspring, a group with which many Americans may have had little or no experience. Although the literature acknowledges the existence of a Eurasian population, there has been minimal discussion of the significant differences and similarities indicative of biracial Americans and how these differences and similarities might impact the identity of the nonwhite population. Instead, discussions regarding biracial Eurasians in the West tend to incorporate them into Asian or white groups on the basis of skin color and other racial criteria that render them invisible. In the aftermath, social scientists ask the following questions: (a) First, in what ways are Eurasians diverse, and in what ways are they similar? (b) Second, what are the implications for culturally and racially diverse populations to be perceived as members of an alien group based upon skin color and other racial attributes?

Modern-day standardization of the authoritarian personality exists today, in this prehistoric glacial aftermath and colonization of the nonwhite world attributed to skin color. The authoritarian personality is a mainstay of victim-group discrimination perpetrated by people of color. Victim-group discrimination is a prerequisite to victimism by which Westerners maintain colonial control and domination of what is perceived as a glacial human environment.

The sensitive nature of discrimination has discouraged scientists from an investigation of that acted out by people of color. In particular, the role of mulattoes—biracial, light-skinned blacks who took part in slavery during the antebellum—has intimidated most scholars from study and pursuit of the facts. For all intents and purposes, discrimination is no less insidious on the basis of skin color or racial heritage. Arguably, those biracial antebellum mulattoes who took part in the antebellum slave trade are significantly more culpable than were their white counterparts in the social and biological associations they may have had with those they enslaved. Any attempts to justify black ownership of slaves as beneficial to the slave or their family is disingenuous. To then investigate discrimination absent the role of participating biracial blacks is tantamount to a mockery of objective social science.

Contrary to modern beliefs and stereotypes, discrimination is thus no longer peculiar to the white community, but is much more extensive and complex as a result of power. Relative to authority within human social structures, power is acted out by those in control, in contrast to those who are the subjects of power. According to Robert F. Bales [14], the enacting of power exists in deference to two primary forms of authority: (a) authority as an instrumental form where subjects are required to assist in the achievement of some group goal or (b) subject authority that occurs in the reinforcement of group unity and harmony relative to in-group membership. To be effective in promoting discrimination throughout society, both instrumental and group unity forms are necessary with regard to those members of victim groups, being less powerful, who are willing to demean themselves.

More often than not, the two primary functions of authority vis-à-vis power are acted out by different personnel, relative to authoritarian personality in the exercise of leadership. According to Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales [14], the existence of such personnel and the division of roles are evident within the traditional Western nuclear family unit. The patriarch exercises instrumental authority while the matriarch provides group unity via warmth, comfort, and so forth. Evidence of this among Western families establishes its relevancy to humankind, and is not identified with any one racial, ethnic, or religious persuasion.

In addition to its different manifestations, authority can be realized through a variety of methods. In their classic mid-twentieth-century work, Lewin, Lippit, and White address authority as being domination associated with leadership. They exposed youths to three forms of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. They then observed the impact of the leadership styles on the subject membership behavior [15]. The results revealed a number of differentiations. Under the authoritarian style, the leader is the sole determinant of group activity, such as policy and the designation of specific tasks. Under the democratic style, policy and specific tasks are determined by group discussion, which include participation by the leader. Lastly, under the laissez-faire style, the subjects are in complete control, assisted by a very minimal input from the leader. What is more, the way in which leaders praise and criticize the youthful male subjects differs by style as well. In reference to authoritarian leaders, group criticisms are personal. Those exposed to democratic leaders experience an environment of fairness and objectivity. In contrast to the laissez-faire group, leaders comment little and otherwise leave group regulation totally to the subject male youth.

In the aftermath of these differing leadership styles, according to Marvin Shaw [16], subjects experience 30 times more hostility in the authoritarian group, necessary for discrimination, than in the democratic group, including eight times more aggression. Additionally, under authoritarian leadership, subject membership participate in significant levels of scapegoating, where others were assigned blame—as in racism, sexism, homophobism, anti-immigrant, anti-biracial, and so forth. Those exposed to democratic leaders appreciate them more than those exposed to authoritarian leaders, by 19 of 20 boys. Additionally, 7 of 10 boys prefer the laissez-faire leaders to the authoritarian style. While no appreciable difference in in-group productivity exists, apparently the products of the democratic leadership style appear of better quality than of other groups.

Relative to leadership is the manner in which leaders emerge from the membership [17]. According to George C. Homans [17], group leaders are generally those who manifest something unique and are accorded a special status by group members. In addition, other investigators contend that leaders consist of persons who play a major role in the activities of the group [18]. Subsequently, leaders may be predisposed to lead and followers predisposed to follow. Thus, the most critical element of group behavior is a matter of person-centered behavior versus circumstances requiring action.

Following World War II, sociologists at the University of California-Berkeley investigated the notion of a person-centered hypothesis to determine its significance. They concluded that there is a specific personality type that is predisposed to rigidity and group hierarchical authority, hence the authoritarian personality. The essence of their psychology is descended from the authoritarian dichotomous paradigm necessary for discrimination. The result is a subject inclined to blind obedience and submission to domination in committing discriminatory acts against less powerful, nonwhite populations [19]. To illustrate this, investigators gathered empirical evidence from American respondents using clinical interviews and attitude tests. What they consistently found was the tendency of some respondents toward obedience, which they again defined as authoritarian personalities. Relative to the authoritarian dichotomous paradigm, in-group authoritarian personalities are prone to discriminate against nonwhite Americans and also maintain specific sentiments regarding authority. These sentiments include submission to those in power, harshness to those they regard as powerless, and a pronounced belief in the significance of power and domination of others. The authoritarian personality is associated with a consistent agreement with such statements on the attitude scales as, “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”; “Most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, the crooked and feeble-minded people”; and “People can be divided into two distinct classes: [i.e.: dichotomous] the weak and the strong” [19].

The University of California-Berkeley researchers further contend that this attitudinal pattern is a demonstration of subliminal personality traits subjects may form during childhood. Subsequently, respondents who score high on minority prejudice and authoritarianism also depict their childhood as being dominated by a rigid, all-powerful father figure who demands absolute obedience. In a Freudian manner, children dominated to such an extent have few options other than to suppress or negate any hostility toward their power superior father. They cannot afford the mere acknowledgment of such hostility, necessitating that its existence be forced from consciousness. They develop what psychoanalysts describe as a “reaction formation” [20]. That is, as the powerless victims of their all-powerful father’s domination, they adopt the inverse response by becoming totally obedient as a matter of justifiable virtue. However, their hostile feelings are not diminished completely, but instead are redirected at less formidable victims including nonwhites, women, gays, lesbians, biracial Americans, immigrants, or other less powerful out-groups. To sustain this redirection of hostility, they place high value on “toughness” and an equally valued “taboo on weakness.” Thus, the hostility these respondents could not acknowledge within themselves is redirected as existing externally in others. In Freudian terms, they displayed another defense mechanism called “projection,” where the ego expels any personal attributes it cannot assimilate into its ideal personality structure [20]. Using such logic, any victim group is perceived by whites prone to aggression and environmental domination as being hordes of destructive barbarians who would annihilate peaceful and/or weaker populations if given the chance. Thus, in Western parlance, victim out-groups including people of color, biracial persons, gays, lesbians, women, and immigrants require control by subjugation to the power of white authority and, if necessary, violence. The status of the aforementioned victim-group populations, comparative to colonial power and authority, is similar to domination by a rigid all-powerful father, which predisposes the culprit to discrimination.

Compared to principles of the authoritarian dichotomous paradigm, classical definitions of authoritarianism emphasize the rejection of victim groups. In the West, in today’s predominantly Judeo-Christian environment, victim groups include more than traditional nonwhite populations [5]. Recently, this particular form of group psychology manifested an emphasis on absolute devotion to the dominant-group population in response to what it perceives as environmental aggression. This reaction further contributes to societal discrimination, where the risk of harm is not only ignored but may be an integral part of a strategy. As a result, Americans are convinced that discrimination against nonwhites will enable their valued exercise of power and domination over the environment and the defeat of alien nonwhite forces. Both the membership and the leadership of such groups are then characterized as indicative of the authoritarian personality. Continuing evidence of white supremacy suggests that the human environment is dominated by such a personality, no longer exclusive of victim-group populations. Western domination of victim-group populations has resulted in the environmental standardization of racial and other forms of discrimination. It is this environmental influence, referred to as ecology, that is the last step in the eventuality of today’s victimism form of discrimination, enacted by victim-group populations.

Succinctly put, ecology is a branch of science that investigates the relationship between organisms and their environments [21]. Extended from ecology is the perspective utilized as a construct for integrating theories of human behavior [22]. This construct is tantamount to a metaphor enabling the organization of people and their environments into a common entity where one is defined in context of its relationship to the other. That relationship is differentiated by reciprocity, in which people and their environments constantly manipulate, define, and occasionally alter one another to make the relationship a transactional phenomenon.

Reciprocity is a significant aspect of the transactional phenomenon, where the human organism produces momentous changes over time. In contrast to linear cause-and-effect relationship phenomena, the environment in transactional phenomena is altered as a consequence of changes in the organism [23]. Thus, through transactional phenomena, both entities are impacted, making for a circular exchange. The occurrence of any major event will then commence at one point and influence at another circuitously between the organism and its environment [24]. This unprecedented view of human behavior determines how it is structured, analyzed, and perceived. In the aftermath are found more effective strategies for meeting personal needs in manners consistent with values, ethics, and principles of defining—in this case—a Western entity. Thus, as a result of the ecological perspective, victim-group populations succumb to bio-psycho-social problems in the occurrence of victimism as their own version of racism and/or discrimination.

Assessment of bio-psycho-social problems is enhanced by utilization of the ecological perspective. The “bio” takes into consideration the implications of genetic endowment, such as race and skin color, for the function or dysfunction of human organisms that contribute to quality of life. The “psycho” takes into consideration the implications of psychological endowment, such as covert colonization, in the adaptive strategies extended from environmental demands contributing to the same [25]. Finally, the “social” involves an ability to carry out roles in relation to other members of the group, community, and/or society at large, such as subjugation of victim-group populations, in a manner consistent with the aforementioned [26].

Adaptation is a concept germane to the bio-psycho-social apparatus of an organism. Adaptation is frequently confused with adjustment, but in fact is distinguishable in that adjustment refers to a passive effort to accommodate the environment [27]. Pathological consequences are all but irrelevant in the context of adjustment. Conversely, adaptation contains a therapeutic dimension and is proactive, that is, relative to adaptation, human organisms attempt to engage “goodness-of-fit” between person and environment for the fulfillment of needs, aspirations, and other quality-of-life conditions. Should fit be ill suited or should the environment change, per adaptation, human organisms will actively attempt change in themselves, the environment, or both, including the organism’s internal and/or external dimensions. Thus, unlike adjustments via the ecological perspective, adaptation accommodates the preferred needs and objectives of the human organism relative to its bio-psycho-social environment [28].

The pro-activity of adaptation should not imply that passivity is totally irrelevant. From the ecological perspective, human organisms may actively choose to be passive in certain extreme situations. When this occurs in an adaptational context, the critical dynamic is psycho-system control in making the decision to be passive. Furthermore, passivity in the context of adaptation may involve manipulation of the environment as in geographic relocation, group association, and so forth [29]. Accordingly, in the effort of the organism to obtain goodness-of-fit, passivity may enable movement toward or from pathological circumstances. Hence, adaptation occurs whether the movement is by active confrontation or passive avoidance. The specific aspects of such adaptive movements are fashioned by the bio-psycho-social styles endemic to groups at various stages of existence, reflected in what they think of themselves. The incidence of discrimination among victim-group populations exists because victim groups think less of themselves, having evolved in an environment dominated by authoritarian, Western bio-psycho-social ideals to which few have been held accountable.

Some in the American mainstream would probably be astonished to know that victim groups, including people of color, would discriminate against one another on the basis of having light skin color. Their having evolved under an authoritarian ecology relative to bio-psycho-social function should otherwise dispel confusion. The time and effort invested by all to do away with discrimination might somehow make victim groups appear less given to practices against which they have rallied constantly. However, the idealization of light skin is a postcolonial bio-psycho-social issue that is deeply rooted and complex. It is so institutionalized throughout the world through Western influence that it is widely accepted that any victim of discrimination is prone to impose such idealization upon other victim groups as well. To some extent, those who immigrate and settle in the West give in to the perpetration of discrimination once they arrive, regardless of their previous cultural experience or skin color.

For victim-group populations, the idealization of light skin has a long and established history. Contributing to their ignorance is the fact that for decades Europe has been portrayed as the ultimate human ideal. Proximity to European traits has become a psychosocial objective of victims, which facilitates discrimination against those with dark skin and nonwhite racial features. There should be no doubt as to the accuracy of this assumption. Notwithstanding, to then characterize discrimination in a narrow white context is tantamount to escaping from reality. It enables the otherwise absurd rhetoric that only white Americans or persons of European descent are capable of discrimination in a modern world that has elected a black man as president of the United States. Analyzing the role of victim groups in acts of discrimination is a necessity. Hence, and never previously suggested, it is imperative to investigate discrimination as acted out by people of color, women, gays, lesbians, biracial Americans, and immigrants. While it is no doubt politically incorrect to cite victims of discrimination or stray from the white perpetrator model, avoidance would be tantamount to fraud. The role of victim groups in the perpetuation of worldwide discrimination is one of the unspoken dynamics of the process in this postcolonial era. The fact of less attention to victim-group discrimination is not irrelevant to the aggressive suppression of nonwhite ideas, referred to in the modern era as Eurocentrism.

Eurocentrism is defined herein as a Western worldview of the human universal social environment. It is an intellectual extension of prehistoric Caucasian aggression, where domination of the environment was perceived as a necessity for survival. Eurocentrism is the reason for the Western discrimination model and the inability of scholars to acknowledge discrimination perpetrated by victim-group populations. Although victim groups such as people of color have acknowledged skin color discrimination back to the antebellum era, the narrow Western perspective of the human social universe has rendered it all but nonexistent.

Eurocentrism is a prehistoric paradigm that has prevailed into the modern era and has impacted the professoriate throughout American history [30]. It is the foundation for both eugenics and the white supremacist, intelligence theories of Herrnstein and Murray. This otherwise obvious assumption has not been subject to challenge in the least. Western academia is no doubt a recapitulation of the prehistoric glacial experience that has spurred the current world order. Furthermore, despite the globalization of knowledge, higher education remains a bastion of Eurocentric operatives [31].

Thus, commensurate with these operatives, higher education evolved in correlation to Eurocentric problems, Eurocentric theories, Eurocentric perspectives, and Eurocentrically appointed intellectual icons. Hence, it was virtually inevitable that the incidents of victim-group discrimination, despite being well known among victim groups themselves, would go virtually unnoticed by otherwise learned scholars. That inevitability reflects constrains upon nonwhite intellectuals and the resulting trivialization of their perspectives.

In the aftermath, higher education and scholarship in general have become a marketing outlet of Eurocentric perspectives and experiences [32]. This pronounced contradiction between the ethos of academia and the experiences of an increasingly diverse student population mandates profound challenges to its current structure and ideological configuration. In order to remain viable, the Western professoriate must accommodate flexibility in thought to facilitate emerging trends in population shifts. The inability to do so will encourage accusations of propaganda from the various tools of propaganda it proposes to confront [33]. The implication of this bias is that scientific investigation will convert to a myopic state, in both shape and substance. Scientific objectivity will then lend itself accordingly to Eurocentric standards of fact at the expense of the universal human social and intellectual environment [34].

In this millennial moment of endings, not only are the implications of victim-group discrimination being bandied about but, indeed, the entire world is poised for universal transformation. In this new era, an official end to discrimination in all of its various manifestations is a potent human possibility. Antiquated notions of race as a biological concept are becoming extinct with alarming rapidity. The ceaseless exploitation of social and political polarization has rendered race as little more than a gigantic storehouse of raw emotion, destined for the archives of both real and imaginary colonial political objectives. With this understanding, it is now possible for all of humankind to begin the work of rewriting and redefining the universal human social environment. The antiquated notion of defining discrimination by white perpetrators and black victims has come to an end in the sense that miscegenation in the new millennium will continue increasingly to be the norm. That fact is apparent, given that the relationship between phenotype and so-called race is changing drastically for Eurasians, Afro-Asians, and genetic heritage in general. It is an interesting social evolution between the emerging importance of the nonwhite perspective and the waning intellectual dominance of Eurocentrism. This new dynamic has caused the world’s peoples to be engaged in an unprecedented era of intellectual evolution. They are, in fact, the agents of intellectual evolution. Social science, presently Eurocentrically organized, is losing its ability to assess this evolution, being obliged to serve, instead, the whims of a Western intellectual power structure that is driven by prehistoric intellectual forces it cannot acknowledge nor fully comprehend and which are not irrelevant to victim-group people of color.

Mexico is America’s most immediate, southern, victim-group neighbor. Its past president, Vicente Fox (Vicente Fox Quesada), is a primary example of the Eurocentric mentality visited upon victim-group populations that have been dominated psychologically by colonial ideals. While the circumstances of Fox’s anglicized name are subject to challenge, the change from Zorro to Fox is readily apparent. Like many other members of colonized victim-group populations, he has taken part in the public display of black denigration. While defending illegal Mexican immigrants, according to reports, he told white participants in a Texas business meeting that “illegal aliens are doing the jobs that even blacks in the U.S. won’t do” [35]. Such a statement is not an intended slight upon the black community. Descended from a Eurocentrically colonized population, Fox merely manifests a form of victim-group discrimination no less apparent among other similarly dominated victim-group peoples [35].

This millennium will witness a radical reorientation of victim-group populations in the increasing miscegenation of intellectual discourse. The intellectual traditions of Eurocentrism will continue to decline until it is defunct. Accordingly, a new concept of scientific investigation will emerge, one in which a narrow view of discrimination will be less and less significant. Thus, the assumption that discrimination is contingent upon white perpetration will be diminished as an obstacle to scientific objectivity. The end of white discrimination as the sole manifestation is evident in the growth of discrimination litigation brought on the basis of skin color by victim-group people of color in US District Courts, such as Walker v the IRS. Furthermore, the influence of skin color is validated by various skin color studies that have been conducted by scholars who are sensitive to current trends. The scientific method also forces Western society to correct itself. It raises the possibility of realistically and permanently changing the prescripts of discrimination. Undoubtedly, if it can be done, it will be done.

Thus, the end of the twentieth century is actually the beginning of a new era in the perception of discrimination in the West and the world at large. Not long ago, the West had little idea of how radically its fundamental ideas about racism and discrimination would be overturned. In fact, given the new velocity of nonwhite scholarship, it is logical to expect changes to be proportionately radical. It goes without saying that such expectation is mere speculation. However, at a critical point in history, this new millennium offers a basis for such speculation. It can be rationalized in the utilization of two criteria that will manifest as megatrends (general shifts in thinking or approach affecting countries, industries, and organizations) [36]: skin color miscegenation and intellectual miscegenation.

Heretofore, skin color miscegenation has been the primary megatrend. It would appear illogical on the surface, but this is because the first and most fundamental objective of a group, racial or otherwise, is to conserve its own being. That notion extends to the cultural mindset of all world populations. It cannot be stated with any degree of certainty just how strong a drive it is. Notwithstanding, perhaps the fundamental idealizations of light skin are not written in stone, but they are habits that may be broken, in the spasms of intellectual debate, and then transcended. Accordingly, past notions about light skin have defined discrimination, leading to pseudoscientific conclusions extended from a lapse in scholarly rigor. However, legitimate science and biology, in fact, would suggest otherwise. Taken in a biological context, the freedom to engage in skin color miscegenation is a megatrend that is justifiable on moral grounds. The antebellum assumption of colonialists illuminates the point of how far power structures, with their collective obsessions, are prepared to go to dominate the mass mindset, by presuming to affect the universal characteristics of human reality.

The idea that no one color group will actually dominate is among the most radical changes in this new millennium—indeed, the ideal of light skin color will cease to exist. Scholarship will be less given to political solvency and more to the dictates of a multi-intellectual perspective. Similarly, in the world there will be less intellectual homogeneity and Western intellectual domination. This fact no doubt will extend to the attitudes and respect for multiracial and multicultural ways of thinking. However, the idealization of a nonwhite multi-intellectual perspective in some form may not, unfortunately, dominate but will still survive. Those who celebrate the new millennium will continue to be discontented over past and present injustices upon victim-group populations by the practices of discriminatory behaviors. Even so, the new millennium promises a trend toward total rebirth and worldwide regeneration. It will continue to be cultivated in the intellectual seeds that will be sown by victim-group scholars and how they scrutinize discrimination and other narrowly defined social phenomena.

The questions thus remain as to what lies ahead amid the end of Western Eurocentrism as the intellectual ideal. To what could history be pointing with its ruthless discarding of such a sacred Western concept? A clue may rest in the end of the tyranny of a Western perspective as the standard ideal. Science has already seen technology end the tyranny of repetitive labor. In that time, the West has led the world in charting the course of mankind in a new direction. Along the course of this new direction will come the human effort to reorganize social life, to reinvent the family, and to liberate victim groups from the tyranny of their universal denigration. Enabled by their conscious and active intervention, the ideals of Eurocentrism that are central to defining discrimination will be compromised in order to facilitate the civil evolution of mankind well into the new millennium.