Discussion in 'World History' started by Flying Pig, Jan 22, 2017.
That applies even more so to European nations, I would think.
In Europe you dont have colonized people. You have serfs. You dont have to deal with the reality that you are supplanting a preexisting reality with your own, because you've already been there for centuries.
Well, the most long-lasting and intense racism (even, as I've said, in places without slavery) was that towards Africans, who were not indigenous to the Americas. It's just a puzzle I'm trying to work out.
By all accounts, the Africans who actually lived in colonial Africa were treated with more respect. Even the genocides that occurred there were a result of state-sponsored exploitation, not a grassroots ethnic hostility.
African imports to the Americas, most specifically the Anglo Americas, were dehumanized for the purpose of justifying slavery. It is legitimate to keep them as slaves if they are inferior to "Our People". This became ingrained. But even after the Civil War, the motives of economic exploitation and preventing Blacks from economic competition with whites continued. And there is a lot of hate which is simply the legacy of having lost having the level of control of these people which they previously did.
Is this even true though?
would help channel the rage of original Americans , at least those who survived the glory of Spain , against others . Whom the Whites hated with vigour , helping the original Americans feel good about it .
IIRC the longest racism has been antisemitism.
I meant, the the forms of racism associated with European-descended societies of the late and early modern era. That is what this conversation was about.
I don't see what your getting at, are you saying the worse racism is/was against blacks in the new world?
Why didn't the Mongols travel east to Alaska and then south to America (presumably to conquer it)?
Was there something stopping them? It's certainly no farther away than it was to Europe. They didn't have success against Japan but the Native Americans didn't have those kinds of fortified defenses.
Edit: lmao I said “no farther away than it was to North America” when I meant to say Europe.
...The Pacific Ocean?
The Bering Strait ?
Horses and thousands of miles of snow don't combine well. They starve.
Not even that, just Siberia proper. While Koreans, Tanguts, and Manchus did extend into Manchuria, civilization did not go further much north than the Stanovoy Range.
To the Mongols, to their north was a huge, never ending forest full of Bandits and Primitives, with deadlier and dealier winters. I doubt Mongolia had a presence in Yakut or Kamchatka lands, even by merchants.
The Mongolians, like any other steppe culture, are based on existing alongside a sedentary culture to either plunder, take tribute from, or replace. No such thing existed in the hundreds of KM of forest and tundra to their north and north-east. There would be no local base to draw any meaningful support from and going through even Siberia would be seen as fruitless. Even Japan at this time had barely touched Hokkadio, for example.
This is just Asia. America would be worse: the Inuit of Alaska, the Sub-Arctic peoples, the Mountain and Coastal tribes would be little to no value to the Mongols, and even past that there's barely anything until the Pueblo and Mexico, thousands of miles south.
All the good stuff was to their South (China, Korea) or West (Silk Road, Forest Road, etc). The Mongolians weren't the type to expand into every space and saw nothing worthy in the North.
ı would say Hokkaido was still underdeveloped in the 20th Century , ı used to read Time or Newsweek articles about the island being pristine and isolated - in the 1980s . Guess construction booms have "corrected" that by already . Russian expansion into Siberia was due furs that could make a tidy money in Europe that was floating on speculation and the like about spices and could afford it , while the Mongols were already fitted for cold , as a further flippant point . Same for Canada . People do not like much snow and ice even if they are like Civ III AI , expanding everywhere .
How far were people in Medieval Europe aware of the relationships between different languages? I know that they were vaguely aware that French, Castilian, etc. all derived from Latin, while at the same time they were not aware that the Brythonic and Gaelic languages were related, but what about things in between that, such as, for example, the relationship between the different Germanic languages or Slavic languages? Or the non-relationship between Basque and everything else?
I think there is a strong argument that antisemitism is the earliest form of proto-racism. This developed in Spain in the context of the Reconquista, and manifested in the notion of "blood purity" and the idea that Jewish people who had converted to Christianity were still a problem. This ideology morphed into racism during the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the New World, and the management (and attempts to make sense of) the indigenous people there, and then fully modern racism emerged with the importation of African slaves.
In this view racial antisemitism would indeed be the longest-lived form of racism.
That anti-semitism did not start out as racism, and arguably was never such. It was a religious conflict, between hegemonic region and a minor one. Made worse by the fact that members of that sometimes happened to be wealthy and visible.
"blood purity" was a thing only for the nobility. Ennoblement of, even say knighting, a black person would cause scandal because he could not obviously be a descendant of the old nobility (it could still happen, but only against the opposition of the nobility!). And accusations of having jewish ancestors were about the same: failure to have a pure lineage... this was a late medieval/early modern phenomenon, the usual thing that happens when stable elites try to fasten their grip on power and exclude all outside possible competitors. Down below, among the masses who were excluded from political power by those elites, people did not care to trace "blood purity". The ideology was not pervasive, need not be, and in that it was not what is now conventionally called racism. It did have elements of it, but was more complex.
I'm not familiar enough with the social stratification of spanish america to feel able to comment on how these ideas developed there. Only know that they did develop into stratified societies but there was some mobility between strata. Birth (and ethnicity) were only in practice a barrier to certain top offices?
I agree that it is not fully-fledged racism at that point, which is why I used the term proto-racism. But nonetheless that is clearly the origin point of positing inherent biological differences between people, as opposed to the purely cultural chauvinism (our culture is the best, but others can join it by acting like us) which is more-or-less universal in history.
Separate names with a comma.