History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
Racism, yes. Continental borders being racist, hardly.
Gladly. You first argue there are no racist continental borders. But:
How does that even follow?
Gladly. You first argue there are no racist continental borders. But:
How does that even follow?
We choose to use the Urals as the continental dividing line, and to a lesser extent the southern borders of the North African countries, because using these means that the continents divide more neatly into ethnic categories. You end up, in this way, with an Asia full of Asians, an Africa full of Africans, and a Middle East full of Middle Easterners. Masada is correct to point out that the location of the dividing line, with a few exceptions, is almost entirely arbitrary.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Maybe one of reasons is that the Urals is roughly the eastern boundary of major language families that exist in Europe.
For example Ugro-Finnic languages are spoken near the Urals, but also in Finland, Hungary and Estonia.
======================
If continental borders were racially drawn then North Africa, Anatolia, the Middle East, Arabia and perhaps most of India would be in Europe.
Also there are White people - Russians - near the Pacific coast of Asia. So Siberia would also be a part of Europe in such case.
That's why there are several versions of the dividing line, each slightly different from all others.
For example Ugro-Finnic languages are spoken near the Urals, but also in Finland, Hungary and Estonia.
======================
If continental borders were racially drawn then North Africa, Anatolia, the Middle East, Arabia and perhaps most of India would be in Europe.
Also there are White people - Russians - near the Pacific coast of Asia. So Siberia would also be a part of Europe in such case.
That's why there are several versions of the dividing line, each slightly different from all others.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
And what do you think about this:
Is the border between Western Europe and Eastern Europe tinged with racist concepts of Western Europeans?
Well, indeed according to many geographers, Eurasia is a continent. Europe is technically a peninsula of Eurasia.
So Europe is a peninsula and can be called a subcontinent - just like India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontinent
In such case the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus region would good boundaries for the European subcontinent.
Is the border between Western Europe and Eastern Europe tinged with racist concepts of Western Europeans?
Mouthwash said:
Well, indeed according to many geographers, Eurasia is a continent. Europe is technically a peninsula of Eurasia.
So Europe is a peninsula and can be called a subcontinent - just like India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontinent
In such case the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus region would good boundaries for the European subcontinent.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Asia was called Asia to keep the Asian on separate continents. Asia was called Asia well before the people who called it Asia knew there was a whole bunch of land up north that had no non-arbitrary dividing point. It was called Asia when Asia was a bunch of Greek colonists, some Hittites, some Persians, etc.
When you're in the Mediterranean, it made sense for the land to the south of you separated by water to be one area, the land to the east of you separated by water to be another, and your land (not separated by water) to be a third.
When you're in the Mediterranean, it made sense for the land to the south of you separated by water to be one area, the land to the east of you separated by water to be another, and your land (not separated by water) to be a third.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
IMO Europe is at least to the same extent a cultural concept as a geographic one.
But if we start calling Asia Eurasia, some Asians might accuse us that we want to steal their heritage.
After all first civilizations were (excluding Egypt) all located in Asia - Mesopotamia, India, China, Anatolia.
In Europe we only had those city-states on Crete - and that was still much later, IIRC.
But if we start calling Asia Eurasia, some Asians might accuse us that we want to steal their heritage.
After all first civilizations were (excluding Egypt) all located in Asia - Mesopotamia, India, China, Anatolia.
In Europe we only had those city-states on Crete - and that was still much later, IIRC.
That is pretty much the best solution.
JEELEN said:
Easy. I don't think that our current continental borders owe their origin to racism. But this doesn't preclude people now thinking of continental borders in those terms. It's the difference between Africa being a geographic concept to the Greeks and Africa being a dirty word in a lot of modern European discourse.
Yeah. And as you noted, Eastern Europe is a specious term that for a lot of Western Europeans carries all sorts of negative connotations. I admit I use it as a geographic concept because it's convenient. I guess from an Antipodean perspective the word lacks a lot of the connotation common to say England. Where people seem unduly petrified about Romanians/Poles/Eastern Europeans "flooding" the place.Domen said:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't think Asians typically have a strong sense of being "Asian", Asia being after all European construct. I certainly can't see why, e.g. a Chinese person would have any more reason to regard ancient Mesopotamia as "their heritage" than a Swedish person.
The idea of "Asianness" really was a reaction to the idea of "European-ness" or "the West". It's like pan-African or pan-Indian (as in America) identities; created in response to systematic persecution/humiliation by Western colonialism.
Don't be surprised though if ten or twenty years down the track pan-Asianism becomes a thing again, in response to China's growth perhaps.
That wasn't the point. The point was 'racially tinged'. And the Middle East is not a continent, Africa is not full of Africans, Asia is not full of Asians, etc. The whole idea of any racial tinge is not based on current ethnic dispositions.
I think what matters in this question is how people divide up the world rather than the strict definition of 'continents', and I do think people distinguish between the 'Middle East' and 'Asia' in the same way as they do between North, Central and South America. I think people definitely do divide the world in a way which happens to coincide with broad racial categories, but I'm not sure if you can say that the categories precede the division or vice-versa.
Apparently the Urals only became the accepted border between Asia and Europe in the 1860s. Earlier mapmakers tended to use either the Volga or Don as the border. I'm not sure why this changed but it could be related to the perception that European civilization was advancing into Asia carried on the coattails of Russian settlers.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That Jeleen can make the claim "Africa is not full of Africans" and be generally understood seems like evidence for rather than against geographic divisions having a racial tinge. When "African" can be used to describe sub-Saharan Africans specifically, other people from Africa being therefore "non-African", that doesn't suggest that the geographic categories are free of racial connotations, only that our racial categories aren't very good at apprehending the human realities, and that's something we knew already.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Actually Boers of South Africa are arguably even more "South African" than Bantu of South Africa. That's because ancestors of first Boers migrated from Europe to southernmost part of Africa already before first Bantu-speaking tribes started to migrate to the same territory from areas located further north.
Both Boers and Bantu expanded at the cost of previous native inhabitants - San people.
And later came another group of invaders - British people.
=======================
In other words - Bantu are just as much "colonizers" in South Africa as Europeans.
=======================
BTW - when it comes to evil Boers and Brits persecuting innocent Bantu:
"Apartheid" was also applied by expansive Iron Age Bantu farmers against Stone Age San hunter-gatherers.*
*That was during the 1600s to the 1800s of course, but I refer to technologal levels of Bantu and San.
Cape Town was founded by first Dutch settlers in 1652.
By that time Bantu tribes had not yet crossed the Orange River in their southward expansion (maybe except for some small groups of settlers).
Areas of modern South Africa located to the south of the Orange River, as well as entire Namibia, southern part of Angola and western part of Botswana were still inhabited mostly by San tribes, and Bantu expansion was just beginning there - just like European (Boer) northward expansion from Cape Town.
When first European colonists founded Cape Town in 1652, entire area around it was inhabited by the Khoikhoi branch of San people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi
The Khoikhoi had developed pastoral agriculture by that time, unlike other groups of San people who were still hunter-gatherers.
Painting from 1805 showing Khoikhoi people, who fell victim to both Bantu and European expansionism and racism:
San people look very differently from Bantu people. Many of them have much lighter skin colour and are smaller than Bantu.
I can imagine that Bantu had similar racist feelings towards San people as later Europeans had towards Bantu people.
Both Boers and Bantu expanded at the cost of previous native inhabitants - San people.
And later came another group of invaders - British people.
=======================
In other words - Bantu are just as much "colonizers" in South Africa as Europeans.
=======================
BTW - when it comes to evil Boers and Brits persecuting innocent Bantu:
"Apartheid" was also applied by expansive Iron Age Bantu farmers against Stone Age San hunter-gatherers.*
*That was during the 1600s to the 1800s of course, but I refer to technologal levels of Bantu and San.
Cape Town was founded by first Dutch settlers in 1652.
By that time Bantu tribes had not yet crossed the Orange River in their southward expansion (maybe except for some small groups of settlers).
Areas of modern South Africa located to the south of the Orange River, as well as entire Namibia, southern part of Angola and western part of Botswana were still inhabited mostly by San tribes, and Bantu expansion was just beginning there - just like European (Boer) northward expansion from Cape Town.
When first European colonists founded Cape Town in 1652, entire area around it was inhabited by the Khoikhoi branch of San people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi
The Khoikhoi had developed pastoral agriculture by that time, unlike other groups of San people who were still hunter-gatherers.
Painting from 1805 showing Khoikhoi people, who fell victim to both Bantu and European expansionism and racism:
Spoiler :
San people look very differently from Bantu people. Many of them have much lighter skin colour and are smaller than Bantu.
I can imagine that Bantu had similar racist feelings towards San people as later Europeans had towards Bantu people.
Really? You are aware of the Indian subcontinent... in Asia?
By 1860 there were already plenty of Europeans in Asia. Again, I don't see how any of this relates to race.
Again, that makes no sense. Nor does it relate to race. Africa is not full of Africans, because there's no such thing as 'Africans' - even disregarding 'subsaharan Africans'. The same applies to Asia and virtually every continent on Earth. This race issue simply does not apply to continents, but rather what people think of continents. Those are two very different things. Racism is a thing of the mind. The continents don't care. Earth doesn't care. And essentially, people don't care, as they mix - and have mixed - since there were humans on the planet. Only certain people care - about their own perceived 'race' or tribe or nation. Now if we were living in the heyday of imperialism, things might have been different. But we don't. Get over it.
JEELEN said:
Yeah, so what. The point I was making is that the definition of what constituted Europe and what constituted Asia changed. I posited that this might have had something to do with the consolidation of Russia's hold over parts of what was once Asia but is now Europe presumably as a result of settlement.
JEELEN said:
Yes it does. People throw around the term African as though it has some meaning. That you think those people are stupid is neither here nor there.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that - people from India are referred to as 'Asians' just as people from China are.
Really? Arab peoples are also Asian. The entire Middle East East of Egypt is Asian, but we don't refer to them as Asians. So there might be a racial tinge there. Once again, that doesn't refer to the continent, but to the people inhabiting the continent. Not the same thing.
Well, then I'm afraid you have no point. Any idea when Russians had a hold in the Americas?
The whole Europe/Asia division is arbitrary, no matter where one draws a line. Geographically speaking Europe is just part of the Eurasian continent. But I'm sure Russian racists decided in 1860 to draw the line along the Ural Mountains (yes, they are that) to not have Europe appear so small. Well, if you can prove that ofcourse.
Yes, it does what?
We aren't discussing Africans but Africa - i.e. a convention for continental division. You have yet to make your 'racial tinge' clear with that. What 'people' think of 'Africans' is neither here nor there. It doesn't relate to the continent. So far everything is still in your mind then.
Well, then I'm afraid you have no point. Any idea when Russians had a hold in the Americas?
The whole Europe/Asia division is arbitrary, no matter where one draws a line. Geographically speaking Europe is just part of the Eurasian continent. But I'm sure Russian racists decided in 1860 to draw the line along the Ural Mountains (yes, they are that) to not have Europe appear so small. Well, if you can prove that ofcourse.
Yes, it does what?
We aren't discussing Africans but Africa - i.e. a convention for continental division. You have yet to make your 'racial tinge' clear with that. What 'people' think of 'Africans' is neither here nor there. It doesn't relate to the continent. So far everything is still in your mind then.
- Status
Similar threads
