Rasicms Orgin?

 

Well logically as most West European countries had colonial empire and most of colonial power cover their greed with a racist ideology� most of European ought to have been racist. Nothing hard core necessarily but racist nonetheless. Just see nowadays over 30% of European openly admit they are racists...

Then it wasn't a very good choice of word.
Granted

I suppose the Japanese colonisation in the far east wasn't 'colonial' either? What was it? Third wave?

Precisely not. Japanese expension was closely related to that second wave of colonisation. The third wave is neo-colonialism.

What you seem to be doing is to restrict your definition of 'racism' in some way to theories similar to Nazism, and then saying Nazism is the prime example.
I don't Lenine and Rosa Luxembourg clearly hinted this way. So did Hannah Arendt when she called colonisation a totalitarism.

(While of course also expanding the definition enough so that it includes 99% of Europeans in the 1930/40s. Put those two together and you're saying, in effect, that Nazism best represents the views of 99% of Europeans when I was a child. Which just isn't true.)

Of course I'm not saying that. Take the thesis of Zeev Sternel about the Frendh origin of Facism and Nazism (you may not agree with him but it shows that the general idea was well spread).

Maybe but here we have the Parlementary Papers�
 

There are some similarities. But for instance the Nazis, at least in the longer term, advocated replacing the population of conquered territories with 'Aryans' (like the extremist Israelis making their settlements in Palestine), while the colonial racists, mostly, were concerned to exploit the native populations, while leaving them in place.
I didn't say they were the same, I said they had distressing similarities.

I don't know enough about Japanese racism, I think it was an awful mix of traditional suprematism and new scientitism

You are considering the "target" of racism which may be interesting but not in this case. What I think is important is to discuss the racist side itself.
I'm not saying that scientific racism arrives out of the blue, the target and even the actions it induces are often very similar.
But I'm convince that there has been a very important qualitative transformation during the 18th century. Before the feeling of racism was a mix of nationalism and religious hatred. Truely enough these elements do not disappear and will have an active role both in the colonial and fascist experience.
In my opinion, the great philosopher Montesquieu is a very good example. He was strongly opposed to slavery and famously attacked those saying that a soul could not be found in a black body. But on the other hand he had problems  to explain the barbarism of Africa (his views not mine) and he tried a scientific method. He put a tong of sheep in a cold and in a warm environment. In the cold environment the tong became rigid while in the warm one it became spongy.
He concluded that the cold environment was better for the brain and thus that people living in environment cold (but not too cold either) had better cognitive capacities. Hence white people were by nature superior but black people�
 

I'm sorry but it is not because Mussolini supported the creation of Israel and only initiated the racial laws in 1938 that fascism was not racist: remember Ethiopia! If anything fascists were racists because 99% of European were racist at that time.
The similarities between fascism and nazism is another debate, let just say I do not agree with you.
 

'Colonial racism', as, for instance, displayed at times by the Spanish in America had nothing at all to do with the scientific revolution.
By colonial I meant the seconf wave of colonisation�

Colonial racism is age-old, reaching extremes in all sorts of places, like the Teutons in Prussia or the Japanese in Korea. It basically arises from 'We beat you hollow so we're better than you'.

The 'right of the spear' is indeed age old. The novelty with 19th century colonialism is that the argument was reversed "we are better than you (ie civilised) hence we conquer you" (see the argument of the left-wingers in France around 1880: lets colonise them to save them from barbary).
 

 

In which case you can hardly expect the inhabitants of Johannesburg or Birmingham, Alabama, or Nanking, or the Burmese hinterland to associate racism primarily with Nazism.
If you consider nazism and colonial racism as two side of the same coin you'll realize that for a great deal of the world population it is indeed the most recent experience of racism. But as I said it is certainly not the last, as the unfortunate formula of "islamo-fascism" shows we are in a period of transiton from a focal point which was the period 1917-1945 to a new one that we could sum up by 11/9.

 

Originally posted by pinguin   In Latin America, particularly in South America, there is also Nazism and racism. In Nazism in some places of South America has usually being based (hard to believe, but true) in the idea of the supremacy of mestizo.

 

Actually there is at least some scientific evidence for that in other species. Mongrels are always fitter to survive.

 

Originally posted by TheDiplomat Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by TheDiplomat Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by TheDiplomat Racism is much more extreme form, and the most famous one is, as es_bih pointed out, the theory that the Anglo-Germanic north of Europe is superior to everyone else. A famous one, certainly, but only the most famous one if you have a very limited cultural and historical horizon.   Equally famous have been the doctrines that the Han Chinese are superior to everyone else, that the Japanese are superior to anyone else, that the (ancient) Greeks were superior to anyone else, and that the Jews and the Aztecs are the chosen people of God (different gods of course).   And I doubt that is an exhaustive list.     I said the most simply because when you talk about racism and its theory, what spring to the minds initially are  the Nazis and their theory. For many people around the world, the most well-known example of racist theory is the Anglo-Germanic north of Europe is superior to everyone else, and the best example for racism is Nazism.   That's what I mean by a very limited cultural and historical horizon. It's like saying the most famous Spanish artist is Picasso. Or the most famous European composer is John Lennon.     Let us not compare apples with oranges.   Ofcourse many people know KKK and think that the very establishment of Israel is racist. But you look from only your point of view, whereas I am trying to put things in a wider context. I am trying to think from the angle of someone living in a small city in Nicaragua, or someone living in a small place in a small country...

I don't know about Nicaragua, but try a small town in Bolivia. Or in the north of Burma. Or Palestine. Or the Sudan. Or even Korea still.

 

(I'd be interested in Pinguin's and Pekau's views on that.)

 

Limit yourself to European and North American high schools and you might be right.

Maybe I should have used a different word otehr than the most famous. But generally in the mind of people racism is symbolized with the Nazis. Everyone knows Nazis..since they are the most extreme example of racism, they and their theory will always be remembered  with racism before all else..   You just can't change that.

 

Agreed, though I was thinking in terms of 'formal' and 'informal' racism. I think we mean the same thing.

 

I said the most simply because when you talk about racism and its theory, what spring to the minds initially are  the Nazis and their theory. For many people around the world, the most well-known example of racist theory is the Anglo-Germanic north of Europe is superior to everyone else, and the best example for racism is Nazism.

 

Evolution necessitates that all humans (and not only humans) are related with common ancestors, which is a powerful argument against racism.

 

Originally posted by TheDiplomat Racism is much more extreme form, and the most famous one is, as es_bih pointed out, the theory that the Anglo-Germanic north of Europe is superior to everyone else.

A famous one, certainly, but only the most famous one if you have a very limited cultural and historical horizon.

 

Equally famous have been the doctrines that the Han Chinese are superior to everyone else, that the Japanese are superior to anyone else, that the (ancient) Greeks were superior to anyone else, and that the Jews and the Aztecs are the chosen people of God (different gods of course).

 

And I doubt that is an exhaustive list.