Imperialism and Racism
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26737
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 13:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Imperialism and Racism
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Imperialism and Racism
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 21:44
|
How intwined do you believe the two to be. Was it as clear cut as say "were white, your'e black" #
How racist where the British and French while in Africa, or where they more trying to civilize the colonised people? Particulary at the late 19th century, with the rise of scientific racism, did it influences policy and politics of the time?
|
Replies:
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 00:30
|
In the 1800s? Yes, absolutely. "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race...If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible." - Cecil Rhodes |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 12:08
|
Hmmm...Note that Rhodes didn't think it was a good idea for the world to be painted French blue or Spanish greeny-yellow or Russian whatever.
Rhodes was nationalist rather than racist. What is it begins at Calais?  ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 12:28
I'd say he was both. Rhodes considered the Anglo-Saxons as a superior race, meaning he was racist without necessarily including all Whites in the dominant caste. If confronted with the issue though, I have no doubt Rhodes would rank the French, the Spanish or the Russians as racially superior to any non-white people. Concerning the topic there can be no doubt that European imperialism contributed greatly to establishing the notion that people with European features are racially superior. It's not hard to imagine how people were led to this conclusion as nearly the entire globe was subjected to European rule and even ancient empires such as India and China crumbled before European parvenu powers. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 13:05
Well ... he thought Africans were an inferior race. French ... not quite as inferior, but inferior still! He was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist (rather than a general white supremacist). Note that what begins at Calais has its etymological roots in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg Ie it is a disparaging term for the French, Italians, and other Continental populations which equates them with Africans. |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 13:24
|
Every day I'm more given to think that the difference between biological racism, ethnic nationalism, and "classism" is very blurred. For example, imagine a hypothetical situation that one nationality "A" conquers nationality "B"; and members of nationality "A" tend to have curly hair, while those of nationality "B" have straight hair. It is logical that in any empire, the conquerors would occupy a higher social echelon than the conquered. Therefore, people of nationality A (who tend to have curly hair) would naturally tend to occupy higher positions; while those with nationality B (straight hair) would occupy lower positions. As time goes on, people would natually associate having "curly hair" as a sign of social superiority, by the very fact that members with these features tend to occupy higher positions. This, in fact, is a form of racism without any conscious racial ideology. Although the pre-modern era empires such as the Romans, Macedonians, Persians, Arabs, and Turks did not have any racial ideology, these prejuidices regarding one's appearance or accent must have existed. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 13:25
I believe that what Graham was thinking was that.....Asia begins at Calais (or France, but what's the difference?  ).
Rhodes was a nineteenth century man.
|
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 14:42
|
Cecil Rhodes was a ruthless racist " robber baron " imperialist.
Much of wealth obtained through European Imperialism based on racism.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:19
Possibly. One doesn't exclude the other.
But the case for Rhodes being nationalist is more easily demonstrated.
But 'Anglo-Saxon' isn't a race.
My point is that what you say there is hypothetical, whereas his nationalism is well-evidenced.
I suspect myself that Rhodes (and most 19th century Britons) would rank a British-educated Indian prince like Ranjitsinhji socially superior to a random European.
I don't think one should try and apply 21st century categories here. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:26
Most of the wealth obtained through European Imperialism was based on sheer commercial greed for profit - certainly British imperialism. Racial aspects weren't important to the average 'robber baron' any more than they were to the robber barons of late 19th century USA.
Deals were done with anyone - Chinese, Jews, Arabs, Turks, Japanese - and colonies annexed, irrespective of race.
The people who benefitted from the Opium Wars for instance couldn't have cared a fig about the racial origins of the Chinese, as long as they continued to buy opium. ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:39
Imperialism is about economic gains. Full stop. The origins of all imperialisms, from Ancient Egypt to 20th century USA, is the same: make more money. Racism is often the fruit of imperial conquests, when the conquerors try to distinguish themselves from the conquered as a higher caste. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 18:12
|
Maybe not in reality, but it was to Rhodes. He specifically said, "race".
Hitler's nationalism is pretty well-founded too. The only difference is that Rhodes was British, and therefore much more insular about it. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 20:41
|
I'd reccomend anyone to read J.A. Froude's 'The English in ireland in the 18th century. The racism of the that 19th century English historian towards the Gaelic Irish is a case study in itself (And indeed, there is much written about it)
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 20:45
Precisely, which is why I phrased it "Rhodes considered...". ------------- |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 03:32
In ancient past,peoples around the globe didn't think or talk about race as much as today.
I don't disagree,but the Europeans and White-America incorporated " racism or race-based agenda " in their imperial conquests at later stages.Of-course,they started out innocently searching for sea routes to the Far East for trade and Spaniards & Portuguess discovered there were plenty of gold for their takings in the Americas.
As a result,we witness fruition of blossom racism ingrained in many White people today.Their ancestors weren't like that.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 11:20
|
I think too many different versions of the meaning of 'racism' are floating around here.
'Racism' to be bad must include the belief that some races are inherently and necessarily inferior to others. Just recognising that people belong to different races isn't 'racism' - or if it is then 'racism' isn't necessarily bad, if, for instance, it leads people to increase their efforts to educate racial groups that have been denied, or not had access to, education in the past.
Believing that some peoples at a particular time in history are less well-educated, or less wealthy than other peoples is not 'racism' in any bad sense. It is simply recognition of a fact.
People like Kipling and Haggard were imperialists in thinking that British rule was - at the time - beneficial to the populations ruled. But that wasn't based on any feeling that Indians in the one case or Africans in the other were inferior genetically, merely deprived. You only have to read their work to recognise that.
Rhodes in his will left £10 million to fund scholarships to study in England. There were absolutely no racial conditions attached to who could benefit. ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 11:32
|
What we refer to "racism" commonly refers to the 19th century colonial concept that mankind is divided into several biological distinct races where some are superior to others. Nevertheless, during other eras and other civilizations, similar ideologies and practices have also been present. - In the Spanish Empire, the fact that individual with a higher percentage of Spanish blood enjoyed higher social status although the Spanish lacked any biological concept of a "white race", but is this racism? - In North Africa, the segregation of white Berbers-Arabs with their blacks slaves. Is this racism? - In India, the rigid caste system; where members of higher castes consider themselves divinely and innately superior to those of lower castes, where intermarriage is forbidden. Is this racism? - In the Roman Republic, patricians and plebeians were forbidden from intermarrying; because the plebeian bloodline was considered as inferior. Racist or not? The line is not so clearly defined. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 11:42
Exactly, which is why it baffles me how the politically correct will jump on you the instant you start operating with the term "race", as if merely speaking the word is tantamount to racism. If one doesn't buy the concept of race, fine, that's a difference of opinion but not a moral high ground. It's also extremely tiresome how we can't have a single discussion about race without having to go through the "what is racism"-tirade each time.
Quite, but their reputation has been dragged through the mud by the guardians of political correctness to the extant that school teachers today rarely introduce pupils to their work without first explaining what evil imperialists these Victorian writers really were. Of course most never bother to actually read their works and check for themselves, so these attitudes endure. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 12:10
You bring up two interesting problems with these questions; for what is the difference between class discrimination and race discrimination if the former is based on skin colour? And to what extent can race be defined by skin colour? Considering the example of Spain it would seem as if the negative social associations came first, the discrimination towards a certain skin colour group then followed. It was a result of darker skin being associated with foreign Muslim invaders who had eventually been overcome and reduced to second rate citizenhood - it was not as if they were considered lower status from the outset because of their complexion. As a natural consequence lighter skin became associated with the "genuine" Catholic Iberians who hadn't mixed with the foreigners, and the "limpieza de sangre" ("purity of blood") became a prerequisite for higher state offices while Iberian aristocrats aggrandized themselves by claiming heritage from the Goths. It can be concluded then that race discrimination stemmed from the social status associated with a certain perceived race, and within the framework of Iberia skin colour was seen as a way of establishing a person's genetic and religious heritage. In other words we find racism, class discrimination and religious discrimination in one volatile soup. ------------- |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 13:23
One story aired on 60 Minutes ( or Dateline ) news magazine program in the USA ( 1990's ).A middle-aged British woman published a book about her childhood years in Africa and in reconciliation of the past not as redemption for her late mother's racist sins.She wrote about her mother being a very racist person,described her attitudes toward black population and regarded " Africa " as if it's owned by her and European people.I didn't watch the interview in its entirety ( because I have very little interest in Africa ),so can't tell you the book title.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 14:02
Racism shouldn't be confussed with clasism, elitism, nobility titles and the search of the "blue blood".
I am afraid, though, the Goths weren't the ideal of intelligence for old Spaniards at all, but an example of barbarian. "Vandalo" in Spanish comes from Valdalus, and means savage
 . Nope, the ideal weren't germans but romans. Spaniards believed they were authentic Romans.Besides, the same obsesion that anglosaxons have for skin color also exist in the Iberian peoples, but not with respect to color per se but facial features. So, some groups are excluded or downplayed precisely because the facial features don't fit the ideal.
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 14:46
My point was that racism and elitism aren't mutually exclusive but tend to work in tandem.
There is an article on the medieval Iberian aristocracy, IIRC it was the Portuguese to be specific, in the book "Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe" (available on amazon). The author explains how noblemen would pride themselves on being descended from los Godos. I doubt this phenomenon was limited to Portugal, and while I haven't encountered the claim that some preferred a Roman ancestry it wouldn't surprise me. ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 14:53
Racism is just one type of elitism. I personally do not see such a difference between the black-white apartheid in the USA and S. Africa and that practiced in Muslim North Africa. Despite the latter has no biological ideology behind it, the consequences are the same. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 14:59
It was called " racial segregation " in the USA.
|
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 21:33
|
Racism and imperialism/colonialism work hand-in-hand. If you are an imperialistic power, you use racism to justify your imperialistic actions. Colonial powers have often tried to prove that their race is superior to others, even in certain sciences such as eugenics (in which they prove a single master race contributes to evolution and the betterment of mankind) and phrenology (stating that the shape of a persons head determines their intellectual and physical capability) which are exclusive to europeans. They also impliment race-inspired literature such as Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden", or Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings", or even Burrough's "Tarzan" where he impliments the idea of 'The Noble Savage' who is loyal and inferior to white men. And yes, ancient greeks/romans incorprated racial supremacy into their society that allowed them to conquer "inferior powers" or "barbarians" (romans especially). Eugenics (Hitler incorporated this to an even higher degree):  Phrenology (especially famous in the late middle ages/renaissance):  ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi 
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2009 at 08:07
I would disagree. No nation ever conquers another motivated by racial differences. The differences are always "invented" later to justify the domination. In this sense, the ancient Romans, Greeks, Persians and Chinese were not particularly "racist" people in that they barely classified their "barbarians" on biological terms, but rather by language and tribal affinity. Romans looked down on Germans and Celts not because they were tall and blond, but rather because they were illiterate and didn't live in cities. Nevertheless, a German or a Celt could integrate into Roman society if he was a Roman citizen and gew up within the norms of Roman society. Furthermore, the Romans constantly incorporated "conquered" nationalities and "foreigners" into their mainstream; a practice radically different to the apartheid system of the 19th century European superpowers. Int the 1st century B.C. Marius and Cicero, who came from families who received Roman citizenship only 2 generations ago, were considered by some conservatives as "foreigners" who questioned their "Romanness". Nevertheless, they too would have considered many principate era emperors: such as Trajan, Hadrian (hispanics), and Septimus Severus (Moor) as "barbarians" for being of provincial descent... Bigotry and elitism surely existed in these ancient empires; yet the prejuidice and sense of superiority based on skull-shape and colour skin as in the recent centuries was yet to come. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2009 at 08:35
Superiority complex of antiquity not equivalent to modern day institutional racism born out of European Imperialism from 18th century if not earlier.In the 15th-17th centuries,spice trade and treasures were main motives ( not about conquering non-White peoples ) of the Dutch Spaniards Portuguess British French mercantile and imperialists.
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2009 at 19:03
|
From Rhodes' will, which established the Rhodes Scholarship: I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings; what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence ... ... The idea gleaming and dancing before one's eyes like a will-of-the wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire ... think of those countless 1000's of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men ... ... It is our duty to seize every oportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses. In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe ... So you see, the object of the Rhodes Scholarship - as it was originally implemented - was to give scholarships to members of the "Anglo-Saxon race" living abroad, to ensure domination of the colonies by a master race, and prevent any from leaving the British Empire as the US did. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2009 at 22:54
|
RHODES: The Life & Legend of Cecil Rhodes
Programme Notes and Review: Rhodes, the video, is the outcome of many years of interest on the part of its originator, author, and executive producer Antony Thomas. Antony Thomas was brought up in South Africa during the 1950s when, as part of the backlash against Afrikaner nationalism among English-speaking whites, he was taught to see Rhodes as the progenitor of a liberal multi-racial tradition that had been destroyed by Apartheid. So it came as a shock in later years to discover that Rhodes was a racist and by no means a liberal.
I watched this BBC series on local PBS channel in the late 90's,it was a superb TV production and riveting biography drama.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:24
My statement is still accurate. There are no racial conditions attached to qualifying for a Rhodes scholarship. Also your extract merely confirms what I said earlier about Rhodes opinion of the French and the Germans (that is, I said French, and the extract says Irish but the sentiment is the same). There's no doubt that Rhodes was an imperialist and a nationalist (as I originally said) but to call him a 'racist' in a situation where the modern meaning of 'racism' is obviously implied, is wrong.
He did not, that is, believe in the superiority of the 'white' race.
And the fact that he described the Anglo-Saxons as a 'race' is irrelevant to that. ------------- |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 12:36
This is not " bigotry "
 !? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 14:03
|
Of course it's bigotry. It's not racism. The two words do not mean the same thing. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 18:16
|
It's racial supremacism. " we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." "Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings" "for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire" (Ein Volk, ein Reich!!) "more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses" This is plainly racial supremacism. Whether or not racial conditions were attached to the scholarships is irrelevant, Rhodes' idea was that Anglo-Saxons were "the best" "race" and they should rule the world, and the scholarship was set up with the object of cultivating sympathizers to that end. Their race didn't matter, so long as they advanced the interests of Anglo-Saxon supremacism. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 19:00
| It's not racism as we speak of today. Don't get hung up on the word "race", it was used quite differently back then. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 09:04
|
Racism evolved to present form.The word " race " matters to modern day Western people more than any ethnicities.As a fact,they have racist groups.
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 09:36
Nobody gives a crap about races here - ethnicities are much more important. The US Americans seem quite into races, but that's not the same as the whole Western world. The point still stands, words change.
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 10:49
I think in most European countries it is ethnicity, religious background, and nationality that matters far more than race. Prejuidice does exist, but different groups usually do not perceive themselves in a "racial sense" as they do in America. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the line is pretty blurred. Many xenophobic Spaniards hate any foreigner who's from a poorer country; doesn't matter whether they're Moroccan, Rumanian, Dominican, Ukrainian, Chinese, Ecuadorean, or even Portuguese! It is interesting that human society has always divided itself into "in-groups" and "out-groups", only that the criteria for discrimination changes over time and place. The Romans and Greeks used legal status as the prime discriminator (citizen, foreigner, or slave); medieval Europe used religion and bloodline (noble or commoner), Central Asia used tribal affiliation... the concept of "biological race" only came about in the 19th century. It is interesting to think that in the early days of European imperial expansion in the 1600s, Europeans colonists did not perceive their differences with the natives along "racial lines". The early British in India perceived the Indians as a different nationality and marriages between Britons and Indians were common, provided that they both belonged to the same social class. Upper class Britons could marry higher-caste Indians, and lower-class Britons with lower-class Indians. What was more unacceptable was the marriage between different social classes rather than between different "colours". In the 17th and 18th century many European noblemen also had native-American or African blood, yet contemporary sources commented very little about it; what was important was that they were of noble bloodline. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 11:14
Because those European nations don't have large percentage " racial minorities " except for UK Germany France & Russia.
America's White people don't divide themselves by respective European origins or ethnicities,they're bonded by the superficial racial category " White ".
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 11:40
You claimed people in the West care about races more than ethnicities. This is pure nonsense, whatever the reason may be. Again, if you meant America, then please say so. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 11:59
I wrote in reference to " Western people " in generic term not " West " specifically.
I always know US operates the biggest propaganda machine in the world.This country often presents itself as " The West " in representation of continental Europe & all European peoples,it's pure nonsense to me
 .They were Europe's " country cousins " .1950's was the last decade of Eurocentrism in America.Canada and British Pacific Oceania are more English culturally and politically than USA. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 12:37
That proves my thesis that Nazi Germany just copied the British Empire, and that it was the source of inspiration for the dreams of glory of Hitler, the invasion of Russia and the Holocaust
------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 12:52
You're wrong. If you go to any major European capital today you'll find people of all colours, languages, and religion. Try Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Zurich, Viena, Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon, Milan, Rome..... The point is that the principal dividers of European societies is not "race", but ethnicity (perceived identity), religious background, nationality, and (most important of all) social class. In many European countries, ethnic groups with visible "racial differences" are far better integrated and accepted than other ethnic groups with little or no visible racial differences. For example, in Italy the most discriminated nationality are the Rumanian Gypsies, followed by Albanians and North Africans; none of which are "racially distant" to autoctonous Italians. In Spain, black Africans, Chinese, Colombians, and Cubans are far more accepted than North African muslims; yet "racially" speaking, the difference between Iberians and North Africans are far more subtle. Even among Arabs, citizens of the rich gulf-Arab states receive a very different treatment to the poor "Moorish" immigrants of north Africa. Xenophobia, elitism, nationalism, and bigotry do exist in most European societies; yet it is very rare that one nationality would be accepted more than another just because they have the same colour of skin as the "majority". |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 12:53
The imperialist Japanese also modeled British system of racial classifications in occupied lands in the Asia Pacifc.
Japanese ( the overlord ) = first class
indigenous population = second class
immigrant-stock population = third class
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/HIS/f07/HIS-334-01--F07/History334%20F07.pdf - http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/HIS/f07/HIS-334-01--F07/History334%20F07.pdf
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34387733_ITM - http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34387733_ITM
|
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:00
Same as in Tokyo Shanghai Taipei Singapore and many global metropolitan cities.
Nope.They don't make up a large percentage of overall local population in those countries other than the ones aforementioned in my previous post.
Do those European countries have 15% black population & another 20% brown-Latino population ??
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:00
|
No, not really. This isn't from 1780 or anything. It was penned in 1877, at a time when race was defined more or less the same as it was during the era when individuals like William Z Ripley, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Arthur de Gobineau, etc were laying the foundations for Nazi-style racial concepts (mostly during the 1890s). Most changes to racial supremacism have been superficial at best since then (different classifications, different 'master race' and so on). |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:15
10% of the Spanish population is foreign-born. In Barcelona and Madrid these figures jump to 15-20%. There are also between 1 and 2 million Spaniards who are of the "Gypsy" ethnicity. As in 2008, the main foreign nationalities are Rumanian, Moroccan, Ecuadorean, Dominican, Colombian, British, German with smaller minorities of Africans from Senegal, Mali, Nigeria. In Holland and Belgium the population of foreigners and children of foreigners is probably up to 20-30%. In Switzerland 15% of the population do not have Swiss nationality; that is not including citizens born of immigrant parents. I have a "Swiss" friend who is actually Italian. She was born in Switzerland of Sicilian parents and has lived there all her life; but she is still Italian. In her town there are many who are like her. What would you define as a "racial minority"? Where do you draw the line of someone of the "same race" and of a "different race"? Are Moroccans and Iberians the same race or a different race? Are Colombians the same race as Spaniards? Are Germans and Brits the same race as Spaniards? Are Italians and Albanians the same race? Unlike the USA, most European countries, with the exception of UK, are forbidden by law to make census based on "race", partly because "racial categories" are not so easy to define. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:22
California is over 50% non-White and in most cities as well.
Since late 1990's,there is a box for multi-racial individuals to accomodate America's ever diversed population.
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:28
Benidorm and some parts of the Canary Islands are more than 50% British and German. By all means, I think that classifying people by "race" doesn't make any sense. In most European countries the population could be classified by - passport (to distinguish citizens and foreigners) - place of birth (to distinguish citizens by birth and immigrants) In other non-official census other factors such as religion, and nationality of parents could be taken into account; which also makes sense; but "race" is a category too difficult to define its precise borders. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 13:40
It's a " tool " of racist-imperialists of European Imperialism.
My early years in the US,I didn't understand why would people refer themselves by " color "
 .It took me some years to get use to calling majority population by the word " White ". |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 17:19
|
"The white race" was invented at an age during which the countries of the entire world were falling into 2 categories: the empires and the colonies.
Due to the fact that industrialization began in northern Europe, most "imperial nations" were light-skinned Europeans, while people of the colonies were mostly darker.
This was when British, French, Belgian, and Germans felt that by being European and light skinned they were naturally superior to the rest of human beings because it was what they saw all over the world.
At the same Darwin proposed the evolution theory, and a handful of pseudo-scientists invented he notion of different biological races of man that had distinct origins.
The greatest irony is: although racists abused Darwinist theories; Darwin himself didn't agree in the existence of biological races. According to his very theory, all human beings must have shared a common ancestor, and his prediction was that we all originated in Africa; which explains the great diversity in African phenotypes.
|
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 18:51
This phenomenon extended to Asia in recent years,Japan being the first and only full-fledged industrialized non-European nation of mostly light-skinned Orientals.Also Sinophobes lend support to the theory of " pure " northern Mongoloid ( de facto Siberian-Mongolic ) origin for Japanese,the fact is otherwise.
Asia mirrors Europe past and present,southerners were the cultured people historically regarded population of the north as uncivilized " barbarians ".The trend reversed in the last 2-3 centuries and continues to present time.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 05:49
Hello pebbles. I think we agree that it is used like a tool. However, i don't think it has anything to do with the over used charge of racist imperialist Europeans. That may have been true at some time in the past. Now it is used by any ethnicity with an axe to grind, or so it appears.
You don't understand because it has all become politically driven. I mean if i were to tell you that i was some average white guy, images of the typical white person will probably start dancing in your head. Affluent, intelligent, greedy, selfish, uncaring, mean spirited, keeping people of color down & ect... all the negative connotations and stereotypes you can think of might come into play! What would the truth be behind that statement? Well, the truth is very, very boring. Affluent - I'm certainly not rich or well off, in fact... i'm probably about to lose my home, again. Intelligent - i hope i am, but i must humbly state that i was only able too attend some college but couldn't finish for private circumstances. As far as being greedy, selfish or uncaring - I'd give the shirt off my back for any person in need, regardless of color, religion, nationality & ect. Mean spirited - Heck, i've got a guilty conscience a mile long. And danged if you haven't got me too admit to it!  So.. what are you really learning about the average white person? Truth be told, they are no different then anyone else. Racism exists in all colors. Thinking it only exists in whites only, is a little naive. I'm not saying you are, mind you. I'm just saying that believing ones race is impervious to racism and perfectly acceptable in another, seems quite racist in itself. Wouldn't you think? ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 11:17
|
Ironically, I find the American affirmative action rather racist in itself; because it constantly reminds people that the difference in "races", and whatever you do they ask you to fill in your "race". Rather than encouraging intermixing, it is fomenting racial separatism.
Personally, I wouldn't be so happy if the society in which I live constantly reminds me in a "patronizing" manner that I belong to a "disadvantaged minority" that needs public sympathy... I would find it rather insulting in fact.
In a way, it could possibly drive minorities to look down their own genetic heritage because they are constantly reminded that it is a social "disadvantage" that needs to be compensated.
I reckon the best way to fight against racism is to not make so much a fuss about racial differences. Certain cases of discrimination should be dealt with, yes; but by categorizing people into racial category for every type of statistics is going way too far.
|
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 11:57
It has lingering legacy,Western people ( not all are like that ) seemingly are more incline to racist view in thoughts and behaviours.As I've clearly stated in one post,their pre-17th CE ancestors weren't like that.
In America & Europe,there have been racially-motivated hate crimes commited against Asians ( even during great economic boom of the 90's in America ) Middle-Easterners Central-Asians Blacks etc.
Of-course,all other races are capable of practicing racism.Japanese can be very racist,some resident foreigners ( include Western people ) feel the sting of bigotry living there.I have been told that " prejudice " is a human nature by someone who has a psychology degree.I don't doubt there are people do use the " race card " to gain advantage or as blame game.
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 12:56
Hate crimes exist everywhere. I heard that Indonesia and Malaysia have a very high rate of hate attacks against people of Chinese origin.
In India, hate attacks are common between Hindus and Muslims.
In most European countries, hate crimes are perpetuated by a small minority of extremists; and tend to be strongly condemned by public opinion. At least in Madrid, Barcelona, and Madrid, whenever there was a xenophobic attack, most people who come out to protest are not minorities nor foreigners, but autoctonous nationals.
I also like to specify that the ideology of Far-Right groups in Europe and the USA are somewhat different.
In the USA it usually involves a "white supremacist" ideology; while in European countries it is commonly linked with "extreme nationalism", which are not the same. "White supremacism" has very few followers in Europe, except very isolated neo-nazi groups.
The French National Front, for example, is openly xenophobic, anti-Islam, and anti-semetic, but they rarely mentioned the word "race". Ironically, it recruits a fair percentage of followers of African, Carribean, and North-African descent assimilated into French mainstream society.
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 13:36
Smells like bullshit to me. Please show me some sources on this. |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 13:57
Aren't those places colonized by the British Empire except Indonesia was ruled under Dutch East India Trading Company ?!
Several South-Pacific born ethnic Chinese forumites @ CHF discussed the issue extensively.European colonial powers had " divide & conquer " strategy by placing the " foreigner " Chinese in commerce as middlemen and keeping the indigenous population as manual labor force in lower-tier economic class.This is the root cause of ethnic rift or clash.Of-course,there are some other factors ( mainly economic ) involved in modern time.I am not from there,so have nothing more to add.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 14:12
The concept of 'racism' as we use the term today is indelibly associated with the idea of racial purity - as it was with the Nazis. It has just about forever in British history been true that the 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'English' 'race' is not pure but hybrid/mongrel. That was (and still to some extent is) advanced by those who believe in 'Anglo-Saxon' supremacy as a major reason for it - hybridisation is seen as strengthening the 'race' not tainting it.
I'm pretty sure that's why Rhodes for instance would have considered the 'Anglo-Saxons' superior to the 'pure' German stock (of which he had a low opinion, in common with many Englishmen of his generation and the following one). And I'm pretty sure he would have admired explorers like Shackleton, generals like Wellington, admirals like Saumarez, empire builders like Robert Clive, engineers like James Watt - maybe even a politician like Disraeli, for creating the idea of the Indian Empire - and above all perhaps Queen Victoria despite their varying degrees of Irish, Scots, Jewish, Norman and German (etc.) 'blood'. And of course he was a close political ally of the German-born Lord Milner in the run-up to the Boer War.
So again you are wrong to attribute to Rhodes concepts of racial descent and superiority that he - and other imperialists - would not have shared. Or, probably, even considered. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 14:15
Forget about "sources." You can find anything on the Web...including probably the "anti-StormFront."
This whole thread smells like BS because 99% of it is.
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 14:17
You might be right but you can't blame all the problems on the Europeans.
As far as I know, hate crimes have always existed and is independent of any biological racist ideology. It is an extreme form of intolerance to anyone who's different: different color, accent, dress style, religion.. or whatever. It is part of a tribal instinct taken to the extreme.
As early as the 1st century A.D., a hate mob of Greeks and Egyptians exploded in the city of Alexandria who murdered, set fire, and looted the Jewish community.
In Istanbul back in the 50s and 60s; Turkish mobs looted Greek businesses.... Last year, xenophobic violence exploded in South Africa where zulu and native tribesmen beat up on immigrants from neighbouring countries randomly.
In Rumanian, there are hate crimes directed against Gypsies, Muslims, and members of the Hungarian minority.
In Chiapas, Mexico, Central American migrants are often beaten up by local farmers.
Black African migrants are insulted and attacked for their colour more often in Morocco and Algeria than in Spain, Portugal, or France.
..... the list goes on.......
Did they have a racial agenda? The answer is no.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 14:21
True, but I'd add to that in Britain at least, the educational level and background. (Though that is connected with social class of course.)
It's why I mentioned Ranjitsinhji earlier: I've no doubt the rulers of the empire felt they had more in common with a Harrow and Cambridge-educated Indian prince who could score 180 before lunch against Sussex as an amateur than they would with a professional like Hobbs, who was probably a better bat but only born in Cambridge, not educated there.
PS. Look at scorecards from cricket matches around a hundred years ago. If you were 'one of us' they printed your initials before your name. If you were not 'one of us' they just gave the surname, or if necessary to distinguish, the initials were placed after.
Ranji was always listed as 'K.S.Ranjitsinhji'. Hobbs was just 'Hobbs'. ------------- |
Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 01:25
yay first time I hear the Muslim thingie for Rumania. Hungarian-Romanian violence is just a stupid circle of revenge-revenge stuff caused by the town ethnicities sharing Transilvania and each claiming first right to it. Cycle is present-1918 romanians ruled the land, 1918-sec X hungarians ruled, sec X-274en all the different migrators, 274en-106 Roman Empire rules, 106-sec III BC dacian/thracian ruled and before indoeuropeans and before neolithic cultures etc. Gypsys are a common scapegoat in whole Eastern Europe being the last migrators in the area on visibly different from the locals. And Muslims absolutely never heard of anything like that. Can you share your sources on it? And overall its not racism but ethnic differences, crime rates caused by poverty within certain communities for which the whole comunity gets the scapegoat status and so forth. I am interested on your muslim source pls as it's the first time I ever heard something like this. |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2009 at 08:49
|
yay first time I hear the Muslim thingie for Rumania.
I can't exactly quote the source, but I have read it somewhere on the internet news about Muslims being attacked in Rumania or something like that. It was probably a very isolated incidence.
The point I was trying to make is that hate crime could exist with the complete lack of biological racist theories.
|
Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 01:57
fair enough maybe you can find the source. I am not the holder of absolute truth nor am I informed of everything that happens that is for sure.....so if you find the source please post it so I can get my head around it. if you talk about when Wallachia had border with the Ottoman empire than it is more likely since turks happen to be muslim so you could draw this interpretation (even though it is wrong) but you have used the present tense this is why I was a bit stunned. Another argument is that for most of the time things are reciprocical (sp?). I don't remember muslims attacking romanians so I see no reasons for the reverse to happen. In all other cases it is a classic case of relentless payback cycle in which the victims and the agressors keep rotating and afterwards its all about propaganda...in front of the west victimize as much as possible and in situ boast and chest thump. |
Posted By: Etnad
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 15:23
|
Its a hard question, I would discribe the imperalists as .. "positive racism", because of the fact that the imperalists had a mentality that said they needed to help the the ignorants. They showed them democracy and their way of living, because they thought it was their duty as some sort of "supreme" human. |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 17:09
|
One can maybe say that the ideological and "scientific" concept of race were rather unique for the west (or at least for some western countries, like UK, the US, Germany, Sweden). Here some authors wrote extensively about that theme and they also influenced politicians and others.
One of the more rabiat of these ideologists was Robert Knox (a former anathomy student of Cuivier) who wrote a rather infamous book with the title The races of man. A fragment (1850) where he goes on about the darker races inferiority and the alleged causes behind it, for example a lower quality of the brain. He also wrote "Race is everything: poetry, science, art, shortly civilisation - everything depends on the race."
He and others like Gobineau came to influence others and the notion of race and racial purity came to be important in several countries. As an example Sweden got an institute for racial biology which had as one of it´s objects to keep the Swedish race pure from so called lower elements. Here in Sweden the doctrines of that institute came to affect societies treatment of minorities as the Samis and the Romani people (gypsies).
|