Mon 23 Mar, 2009
Edward James Olmos, Battlestar Galactica, the U.N., and race
Comments (35) Filed under: Thinking about race, privilege and inequalityTags: Battlestar Galactica, Edward James Olmos, Race, Racial identity, United Nations
[Update: I’ve been reposting this inspirational video once a year, and I talk about the implications of what Olmos says here and especially here. If you want to read about his views or comment on them (and please do!), just follow one or both links.]
The United Nations hosted a panel on Tuesday about the television series Battlestar Galactica, covering such real-world themes as terrorism, human rights, religious conflict, and children in wartime.
The panel was moderated by Oscar-winning actress Whoopi Goldberg, and featured Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning Battlestar Galactica cast members Edward James Olmos (Admiral William Adama) and Mary McDonnell (President Laura Roslin), as well as executive producers Ronald D. Moore (of Star Trek fame) and David Eick.
What, exactly, did this panel have to do with race?
There are, of course, a variety of interconnections between race and the humanitarian issues addressed by the panel. However, one of the participants raised directly the subject of race as a social construct and an outmoded category of thought, and I think his remarks are worth attention.
Here is what Edward James Olmos, one of the nation’s most prominent Latino actors, had to say about race as an outdated historical fiction:
I still find it incredible that we still use the term race as a cultural determinant. To this day—you should have never invited me here because I detest what we’ve done to ourselves out of a need to make ourselves different from one another—we’ve made the word race a way of expressing culture.
There’s no such thing and all you high school students bless your heart for being here. You are a hundred champions right now that are going to go out understanding this. The adults in the room will never understand it. Even though they’ll nod their heads and say you’re right they’ll never be able to stop using the word race as a cultural determinant.
I just heard one of the most prolific statements done by one of the great humanitarians. He’s really trying to organize and bring us all together and he used the word race as if there is a Latino race, an Asian race, Indigenous race, Caucasian race or a Latino race.
There is no such thing as a Latino race, there never has been, there never has been. There never will be. There is only one race and that is what the show brought out. That is the human race period.
Now the pressure comes, why did we start to use the word race as a cultural determinant? The truth is that over six hundred years ago the Caucasian race decided to use it as a cultural determinant so it would be easier for them to kill another culture. That was the total understanding, to kill one culture from another culture. You couldn’t kill your own race so you had to make them the “other” and you to this day—I’ve spent thirty-seven years of my adult life trying to get this word out and now I am done and well prepared as the admiral of the Battlestar Galactica to say it to all of you—there is but one race. That is it.
So say we all. So say we all. So say we all.
The panel also included, from the U.N., Radhika Coomaraswamy, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; Craig Mokhiber, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning; and Famatta Rose Osode, Permanent Mission of Liberia to the U.N.
Hat tip: Womanist Musings
gabs says:
Hey, I read the excerpt and must say I totally agree with Edward James Olmos. Race is not biological and looking through out the years, who is what category and the names of each category has changed. Since, race is ever changing, lets hope that one day it will change so much that we will not look at people and judge them according to their "race". I agree that the younger generation is more open to looking past race, however we are not fully there. I took a class in school where we learned about how and why people get discriminated against and how a large group of people can be manipulated to follow one person. It was a vary interesting class and it opened up my eyes. I think that all schools need to offer courses like this. Yet it should not stop there. It should all start in the home, because how their parents are is how the kid is going to be, like the saying the apple does't fall far from the tree.
Edward James Olmos on the fiction of race | The Living Consequences says:
[…] Today is the first anniversary of remarks by actor and activist Edward James Olmos at the United Nations about the idea of race as a social fiction. […]
Tracing Center » Edward James Olmos on the fiction of race says:
[…] Today is the first anniversary of remarks by actor and activist Edward James Olmos at the United Nations about the idea of race as a social fiction. […]
Brett Davey says:
I agree. Used it for an opener to talk about race and set up a lesson plan centered around what he said.
Nicholas Oefinger says:
The "classic" racial theory involves Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White people. It is totally unscientific and is based on nothing more than skin color. This is the only proper use of the word; an improper theory. It has no respect from the general scientific community. We need to drop this word from our vocabulary.
Ben says:
nice words, except this is pretty inaccurate: "The truth is that over six hundred years ago the Caucasian race decided to use it as a cultural determinant so it would be easier for them to kill another culture. That was the total understanding, to kill one culture from another culture."
Spidermanus says:
Except that there was (60 years ago) and is (today) no "Caucasian race." Europeans self identified by town, ethnic or tribal group, and, in some instances, later on, by nation state. Lumping them all together as monolithically united shows your own bias.
AK says:
Nicholas,
That's not entirely true, if you are using "race" as a biological differentiation. There are differences in the "races" (or ethnicity if you prefer?) between people. These are very slight in our genetic code (after all, we are all but a percent away from our DNA matching that of rats or pigs), but there are still differences. I'm not just speaking of physical characteristics (skin, epicanthic folds, etc). In just terms of Medicine, different "races" metabolize drugs differently. For example, a dose of a particular drug may be perfectly acceptable for someone of the "white" or "Caucasian" race, but the same dose may lead to toxicity in a person of Asian decent. Another drug may lead to significantly large decrease in mortality in people of African decent, while leading to good (but less impressive) benefits in the other "races".
We still need to acknowledge and understand our differences, but not as separation, but rather as an accumulation of strengths. Physical differences such as skin color and eye shape or other features aren't as important as the genetic differences that may influence medical care, but they should still be embraced and understood. We are different for reasons, though these reasons matter far less as we slowly increase our adaption of nature around us with technology. Acknowledge, but do not judge based on differences.
The word race could be replaced. I'm don't think of it as a stumbling block, but I certainly see the point of those that do.
Dave says:
Ahh, if only there weren't any caucasians, those evil people. If we are just the human race, and I agree we are, then why did the caucasians start everything 600 years ago. And what about before 600 years ago and all that killing that was going on then. Where is that information located so it can be verified. Oh Iknow…it can't. That's an opinion.
Eikin Kloster says:
Skin color is the least relevant element of race and everybody knows this intuitively. It is about the shape of the face, it's about thickness of hair, it's about body hair and body odor. And humans never needed race in order to be cruel to each other. Africans sold Africans to the Europeans. Europeans killed other Europeans. Native Americans perfected ways to torture their fellow native Americans in rituals of blood of gore that lasted decades.
Race matters. Humanity too. There are no easy answers. We have to share space with ugly people we don't want around, and with beautiful people who don't want us around. With dumb people who can't understand us, and with geniuses we can't understand.
These difficulties aren't easy, and won't go away just because we every now and then feel perplexed that they still linger. They are actually bigger than calendar (yes, it's the 2010s, *so what*, mankind has been around for tens of thousands of years, what's so special about 2012? Technology doesn't work miracles, our nature didn't change that much just because we have ipods), these issues are bigger than technology, speeches or charismatic celebrities. We're all together in this, and the war *will* rage on.
Alex Luyckx says:
So Say We All.
Fantastic.
Jonathan Hall says:
SO SAY WE ALL… we are the world.. ONE PLANET ONE VOICE!!!
LEF says:
Even if there were only one race, people would still kill each other, enslave each other, and torture each other. I refuse to respect Olmos, who is by the way a descendent of white Spaniards who invaded the Americas with their war and diseases. There were 6 million Native Americans residing in the Caribbean the day Columbus set foot on one of those islands. In a matter of only a few years, there were only 12000 Native American survivors. Olmos, you white and Hispanic Hollywood idealist, stop encouraging the guilt and look in the mirror. I am so sick of Hollywood actors and actrices knowing what is best for the rest of society. They are out of touch with reality.
Kaleb Coberly says:
Alright, let me straighten this all out for everyone…ha, just kidding, like someone posted already, there are no easy answers. I do have a criticism to offer for the "racial abolitionist" camp, though. And, it's simply this: race exists.
I am on board with fostering a humanitarian sense of oneness, which I think is the best of intentions behind the movement to abolish race. However, we can't undo race, even though 'we' created it. Indeed, 'we' each actively participate in (re)creating it everyday whether we want to or not when we act within a racialized society and perceive within a consciousness formed within a racialized society. Race is more than skin and phenotypical visual cues, it is also acted out in linguistic and other social cues. We can ignore race. We can bury it deep under layers of cultural cues and consciousness, but we can't expunge it.
Here are two dangers of ignoring race, and they operate together: 1. Invalidating Difference 2. Ignoring Racism. Race has developed recursively with ethnicity and culture. Race and ethnicity are absolutely not the same thing, however, they overlap. Many own our race as a piece of their identity. It is incorporated into our sense of belonging and personal make-up, even heritage. To try to take that away or ignore that is an act of cultural aggression and invalidation. Not only that, it is egocentric to think that race belongs only to those who wish to abolish it.
Secondly, ignoring race means ignoring racism. Now, I understand that the big thrust behind racial abolitionism is an anti-racist sentiment, but a pragmatic look beyond intentions is always a good idea. Perhaps as long as race exists, racism will to. I don't know. I do know that as long as racism exists race will to. I also believe that, though we can't expunge race, we can combat racism. Racism (i.e. the systematic oppression of one or more groups of people, and privileging of another group, based on race), is measurable and therefore avoidable. And, while not everything about race is bad, nothing about racism is good. Racism is the target, not race. And, if we stop paying attention to race, we can not pay attention to racism. And, because racism exists with and without conscious intent of any individual, ignoring race will not make racism vanish.
Just as we must by default exist and operate in a racialized society, we must by moral imperative operate intentionally, cognizant of race, in order to resist and end racism. Ignoring race will only ensure racism's perpetuity. Perhaps one day race may really be a "fiction" of the past, but not until racism has come to a grinding halt and its passengers, no longer invested in racism, have left it behind them. I mean, if we're talking about BSG **spoiler alert** why do you think it wasn't until they totally abandoned their ships that the Cylons were presumed as no longer a threat? 😉
Kaleb Coberly says:
One more comment as the finishing touch on my previous essay: It was only after abandoning the war on the Cylons, the ultimate phantom "other", that the phantom vanished. And, unity and diversity go hand in hand.
James says:
As the post author, let me see if I can offer a few thoughts in response to today's comments:
AK, Nicholas is right that "race" does not exist at all as a biological concept. It's true that there are genetic differences between all individual human beings, and that some genetic differences tend to match up roughly with what we perceive as race. But there are simply not distinct racial groupings in a biological sense; any such divisions are arbitrary social classifications.
For instance, a dose of a particular drug may have differential effects based on genetic heritage, but the gene in question won't align with other genetic differences or with "race." An example: it was long believed that black Americans tended to carry a genetic trait designed to protect against malaria, and which also results in sickle cell anemia. It turns out that this was a misunderstanding based on the tendency of doctors and researchers to think in terms of race. In fact, that genetic marker is carried by those descended from populations that traditionally lived in regions where malaria was endemic, which included much of the Mediterranean basin, and only part of Africa. So Italian-Americans, for instance, were suffering from sickle cell anemia but were not diagnosed with the condition, because it was assumed to be a susceptibility of black people.
If medical researchers hadn't mistakenly thought in terms of race, they would have seen the natural pattern of this genetic marker in populations based on geography. There are many physical and/or genetic differences like this that may tend to be present in certain populations, but simply do not align with one another into natural "racial" groupings.
On the other hand, Nicholas, it's important to bear in mind that while race has no biological meaning, it is a significant social category, both historically and today. If we were to drop the word from our vocabulary, we would be hard-pressed to see the extent to which inequality today results from the historically different treatment of people based on race. We would also be blind to the racial prejudice that still exists so widely in our society today.
Ben, what do you find inaccurate about that quotation ("… over six hundred years ago …")? I might question the phrasing, but race was, indeed, adopted as a concept (a "cultural determinant," in Olmos' language) in order to perpetuate institutions like slavery and colonialism.
James says:
LEF, you say that you refuse to respect Olmos, yet you seem to be endorsing his beliefs. When he speaks of centuries of violence by members of the "white race," don't you think he's including the history of the European discovery and exploitation of the New World and its people? How is his argument invalidated, just because some of those Europeans were Spanish and some of them became the ancestors of those who, like Olmos, are Latino/a today?
Kaleb, I think you raise an excellent point when you suggest that we should not attempt to ignore race, both because we should not be blind to racism (a point I've raised on this blog in connection with what Olmos has said) and because we should not deny the identity of those who see themselves in large part on the basis of race, as a social and cultural construct (a point I've failed to acknowledge until now).
Doug says:
to reeducate myself. So say we all Mr Olmos.
Myra Davis says:
I have pondered why I never use the word "race." I may use culture…cultural background…ethnic backgrounds (because I doubt anyone has just one). But I strongly dislike the term "race." This enlightened me. And so to Mr. Olmos I affirm "So say we all!" And by the way, Happy Birthday Edward James Olmos. May sound silly, but I'm proud to be a fellow Pisces!
Jim says:
I like how he goes on and on why we should not use race as a determinant, and then uses it as a determinant in the last paragraph.
James says:
I think you may have misheard him, Jim. He says we shouldn't use race as a determinant, and then he points out that historically, this was done, and with deadly consequences. There's no contradiction there.
Chris says:
James –
He does go on about race being an illusion but then says that the illusion was created by "the Caucasian race," which I think kinda undermined his argument. I do, of course, agree with Edward's overall sentiment. Humanity has big problems to tackle and we won't overcome them if we're divided.
James says:
Chris, I really don't see the contradiction here. Olmos is saying that race is a social construct (an "illusion," if you will), but not that no one has ever classified human beings into races.
Quite the contrary, Olmos says that human beings have believed in this powerful lie for centuries, and have used it to murder and oppress. That much is historical fact, and I don't believe that the scientific fact, that race has no biological meaning but purely our own invention, does anything to change that.
If you're suggesting that he shouldn't refer to a "Caucasian race" at all, given that it's a lie that there is really such a race, I would respectfully disagree. Historically, the atrocities he refers to were, in fact, committed by people who believed they constituted a separate "race" and used that belief to justify their actions. (Note that Olmos puts the "race" in "Caucasian 'race'" in quotation marks, suggesting that we can identify those who were considered to be Caucasian, without believing that they were ever really of a different "race.")
The historic importance of the social construct of "race," despite the lack of actual races of human beings, is precisely why we must strive to eradicate this lie, while simultaneously not trying to be blind to the social realities of how people have been, and often still are, treated differently on account of "race."
If we were, for instance, to try to be color-blind today, we would fail to notice that prejudice based on race remains widespread today, and we would be blind to the racial inequality that remains with us as a result of historic discrimination.
Being cognizant of the lingering social importance of "race," while thoroughly recognizing that there is, in fact, only one race of human beings, is a tremendous challenge, but there is, in the end, no other path forward.
Eikin Kloster says:
James, I think Chris point is this: How could the Caucasian Race invent race, if before they invented it there was no race? How could they *be* "the Caucasian Race" in order to invent race, if they hadn't invented race yet?
It is a contradiction, and one easy to solve: The Caucasian Race didn't invent race. Race exists, and has always existed. What has changed through the ages is the social constructs we create *around* it. It's like gender and sex. Gender, a social construct, isn't constructed out of thin air. It is based on the biological reality of sex. It can be constructed in a number of different ways, and still, it wasn't simply "invented" in any historically determinable moment.
James says:
Thanks, Eikin. Do you really think it's a paradox that people invented the idea of race before that idea existed? Do you think that European societies couldn't invent the concept of race without already being a race? Perhaps the apparent paradox is simply that a group of people invented the concept of race, under which they could identify themselves as being of one particular race, and thus could retroactively describe themselves as having been of that race all along.
The idea that race has always existed is, as Olmos indicates, a fantasy. From a biological perspective, the idea of race simply doesn't hold up, and quickly sinks under a morass of contradictions. From a sociological or historical perspective, we simply don't find societies thinking or talking about race, in anything like the sense in which we known mean that word, prior to the early modern period.
In fact, even today, the idea of "race" varies tremendously across societies, to the point where no one could point to the existence of any particular races or to any particular ideology of race. For example, do you believe that the classification of races that is dominant in the U.S. is the "race" that has always existed? If so, then you must believe that the ideas of race subscribed to in other societies around the world are all socially constructed and objectively unreal.
In this way, race simply isn't anything like sex and gender. Sex clearly exists in a biological sense (even if it isn't always a simple concept), and can be found, obviously, in any human society throughout history. Our social ideas about gender, as you say, vary considerably but all arise around that objective, biological reality.
You can't point to any parallel idea of race in human biology. Yes, there are a host of physical and genetic traits that are passed down in population groups, but they simply don't cluster together in populations that can be defined as "races." It would be as if there were physical differences between human sexes, and a variety of chromosomal differences, but that these differences w3ere spread out instead of (tending to) come together in "male" and "female" humans.
If you simply mean that there are superficial physical traits that sometimes cluster together, and more often don't, and that it's possible to artificially call people with particular combinations of physical traits "races," then we agree. But that's precisely what a social construct is. From a biological perspective, these groupings are entirely arbitrary. And most genetic variation across the human population, even that which arose specifically because populations historically lived in particular regions in relative isolation, doesn't match up well with any particular physical characteristics.
Biologists, for instance, find it much more productive to talk about genetic traits, even ones we associate with race (like the gene for sickle cell anemia), separately from one another and from any concept of race. To speak of those traits, and to conduct research or treat patients, as if they were primarily characteristics of particular races substantially worsens research and treatment outcomes.
FormCritic says:
Yes – The caucasian race invented racism…because everyone knows that other cultures never killed or robbed each other and were very nice to everyone who was different until the mean-ass white people started racially profiling everyone.
It was one dumb line in an otherwise good speech.
James says:
FormCritic, I appreciate that you can see the value in Olmos' remarks, and take issue with just that one portion. But I do think you're confusing the theft and killing that have often taken place in human history with the specific ideology of race and racism that arose during the period Olmos is referring to.
He isn't suggesting that human beings have been angels, simply that the western notion of "race" that our society subscribes to today was historically inspired by, and helped to sustain, a series of atrocities by those of the Caucasian "race" against those of other "races." In other words, our notion of race isn't simply an arbitrary social construct; it was historically used to justify some of the worst atrocities in human history.
FormCritic says:
The idea that Europeans invented the concept of race, or that Europeans were the inventors of racism, or that Europeans were the only people to plunder and subjugate people of other races is preposterous.
James says:
FormCritic, there have been, of course, many different conceptions of "race" over the millennia.
Also, you're right that many peoples have plundered or subjugated others in the course of human history. Sometimes the victims were of other races, and when that was the case, there were often justifications offered on the basis of ethnicity, religion, culture, or even something akin to modern ideas about racial difference.
But there's no doubt whatsoever that the current conception of "race" that prevails around the globe, especially in the West, arose during the centuries of European expansion, New World slavery, and colonization. In fact, the prevailing contemporary ideology of race, including stereotypes or notions of racial hierarchy, arose specifically in response to the western institutions of slavery and colonialism, as part of ongoing efforts to explain and justify those practices.
The idea that earlier historical examples of oppression across what we now consider to be "races" must have been race-based depends on the belief that there is something objective or inevitable about the way our society thinks about race.
That's simply not so, which is the main point Olmos makes in this video.
FormCritic says:
You would contend, for instance, that the Japanese concept of themselves as a special race derived from previously unknown contact with Europeans during the early Middle Ages?
The Hebrew concept of themselves as a special people was somehow transmitted to the Bronze Age Near East by European traders?
The Egyptian concept of themselves as a people specially favored by their gods was the result of prehistoric European influence on Egypt?
The list could go on and on. The idea that "there's no doubt whatsoever" about the European creation of the idea of a racial heirarchy does not bear up under even a moment's scrutiny of actual history. This idea is…as I said…preposterous.
The Europeans won a technological race that led to world travel and colonization. It would be a mistake to equate that with the creation of the concept of race.
Bringing up such a ludicrous idea in his speech weakened Olmos' overall point, which was that race should now be an outmoded concept.
James says:
The Japanese conception of themselves as a special people is hardly without precedent in human history. Indeed, it's quite common.
However, it's a long way from there to the idea that the human race is divided into several distinct races, with all that comes with this notion in recent centuries. The Japanese didn't believe anything like this prior to extensive contact with the West.
You list several similar examples, but at no point do you raise any doubt about the European creation of the modern notion of race. In fact, your repeated use of the term "people" in your examples only underscores the fact that you're referring to examples that have nothing to do with the notion of race as we know it today. The mere fact that ancestry plays a role in some of these examples doesn't mean that the concept of race is involved at all.
Do you think, for instance, that the ancient Egyptians defined themselves as a distinctive race, physically and mentally distinct from all the other peoples of the surrounding area? Why, then, did they make no apparent mention of these races, such that today, for instance, we cannot readily identify which pharaohs belonged to which of the modern races (or other physical grouping)? Why do ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Japanese writings also make no mention of such an idea, even as they emphasize, as you say, that the people of their societies were special? Why do they place such great weight, instead, in each case, on such factors as cultural and especially religious distinctiveness?
Indeed, every one of your examples involves a "people" that defined themselves primarily in religious terms. It is only in looking backwards that we can re-interpret such ancient ideas about people, religions, and cultures and think of them in terms of our own modern, western ideas about "race."
Kaleb Coberly says:
To get a better understanding of the history of race and racism as we know it today, it might help to remember that people and cultures have had drastically different paradigms than we do today. I mean, the very bedrock of our consciousness' today was not always there in the minds of people, things we take for granted or don't even know we know. It might be useful to consider how the invention of science completely changed the very shape of Western consciousness. Or, consider how the invention of a simple technology like the printing press turned everything upside down since it reached down into how people thought about and treated knowledge. Likewise, it is useful to understand how the ideas and mechanisms of race and racism, as social technology so to speak, as we know them today developed in a unique way historically. It is also useful to understand more pieces of the "technology" of race and racism in the West, in that their evolution corresponds with the creation of "whiteness" or the "white" race, which itself has been in flux since its inception.
Here are a few excellent sources on whiteness in the West. There are a ton of places to look, as this topic is ongoingly chronicled.
It might be useful to start with "Power, Privilege and Difference" Alan Johnson, a quick and foundational read, especially if any white person finds s/he is feeling a little defensive.
Online (some good launching points):
"Whiteness Studies: The New History of Race in America" Peter Kolchin https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/Whiteness/ko…
"Slavery and Race" Gearld Foster http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slavery…
Wikipedia: type in some keywords (e.g. whiteness, racism, american racism), read an article, check out the references
In Print (these get into the history more):
"A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America" Ronald Takaki
"The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics" George Lipsitz
"Habits of Whiteness: A Pragmatist Reconstruction" Terrance MacMullan
Like I said, these are only a few pieces of a huge and growing field, but they will definitely demonstrate the unique historical nature of race, racism and whiteness in America.
Eikin Kloster says:
As for the argument that race isn't a concept biologically relevant, read Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
As for why references to race are absent from ancient texts… are they really? One thing to consider is that in the ancient world they didn't have nearly as much *contact* with different races. So unless someone read some account of a Roman campaign in Nubia and noted no reference to Nubians as fundamentally different from them in some way, it's hard to say that the ancients really didn't use racial appearance to differentiate between groups.
James says:
Eikin, it's true that ancient societies generally had much less contact with people who, today, would be considered to be of other races.
However, history is also replete with examples of societies which did have contact across racial lines, and while physical differences, such as skin color, are often noted, ancient writers did not use those differences to classify people into different races, much less ascribe significance to race.
So, for instance, the ancient Greeks and Romans did, in fact, have contact with people from Nubia. And while they would sometimes note skin color or other physical characteristics–and note that they did not always bother to do so, which itself is striking–they did not generally attempt to ascribe any significance to those outward differences.
As for the Wikipedia article, it simply covers a 2003 paper which argues from a technical standpoint that one can group populations into (arbitrary) racial groups based on the statistical frequency of a variety of different genes.
If you'll look closely at the article, you'll see that the paper is taken seriously but is controversial; that the statistical grouping it describes does not mean that two individuals of different "races" won't be genetically more similar to each other than to members of their own "race"; and that for a variety of reasons, biologists argue that this statistical genetic grouping doesn't lend any biological significance to the concept of race. In other words, biologists believe that race is still an arbitrary classification which only has meaning as a social concept; these groupings do not represent a basic division of the world's population, etc.
Tom says:
Olmos is right when he says that there's no such thing as race. There's no biological basis to justify it in any way. Also, the US currently has a population of around 310 million. 84 of these are billionaires. Aside from Oprah, can you name another one of color? No you can't. Why? Because the other 83 light skinned ones want all of the money and power for themselves.
That's why Olmos is right about indigieous people being killed. The lighter skinned said right. Dark skin=evil=subhuman, etc. Therefore we must either kill them or control them. You could say this continues to this day.