GROK answers the question...How did the paradigm of two non colors supersede dozens of actual ethnicities?

 How did the paradigm of two non colors supersede dozens of actual ethnicities?

Your question seems to touch on the complex and often contentious shift in how human diversity has been categorized, particularly in modern socio-political contexts. I assume you're referring to the "paradigm of two non colors" as the black-and-white racial binary (where "black" and "white" are not literal colors but social constructs) and how it has, in some ways, overtaken more nuanced distinctions of ethnicity. Let’s break this down historically and conceptually.

 

The black-white binary emerged largely in the context of Western colonialism, slavery, and subsequent racial ideologies, especially in places like the United States. Before this, human groups were often identified by specific ethnic, tribal, or regional affiliations—think dozens or even hundreds of distinctions like Yoruba, Han, Basque, or Pashtun. These were rooted in language, culture, geography, and lineage, rather than broad skin-color categories.

The shift to a simpler binary was driven by power dynamics and convenience. During the Atlantic slave trade (16th-19th centuries), European colonizers grouped diverse African peoples into a single "black" category to justify enslavement and dehumanization, ignoring ethnic differences like Igbo, Fulani, or Akan. Meanwhile, "white" coalesced as a unifying identity for European settlers, erasing distinctions like Irish, Italian, or German in favor of a shared privileged status. This wasn’t accidental—it served economic and political ends, creating a stark "us vs. them" framework that was easier to enforce legally and socially.

By the 20th century, this binary calcified in places like the U.S. through policies like the "one-drop rule" (any African ancestry made you "black") and Jim Crow segregation. It overshadowed ethnicity because it was less about describing reality and more about maintaining control—dozens of ethnic identities were harder to police than two rigid boxes. Globally, colonialism spread similar reductive frameworks, though places like Latin America or South Africa developed their own multi-tiered racial systems (e.g., mestizo, coloured).

Today, the black-white lens dominates in part because of its historical momentum and media reinforcement, especially in Anglo-centric discourse. It’s simpler for narratives—think civil rights, pop culture, or political debates—than grappling with the messiness of, say, Hmong vs. Somali vs. Navajo identities. Critics argue it flattens human complexity, while defenders say it reflects lived power dynamics that still linger from its origins.

Does that get at what you’re asking? If you meant something more specific by "non colors" or a particular context, let me know—I can dig deeper.