History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

[Traitorfish]

Thought you'd be interested in the subject matter, at least.

Yeah, fair dos, I'll try a serious answer. I outlined by thoughts on this in a recent thread:

I think the key thing to understand about "whiteness" is that it's a category developed in the context of colonialism, so the classification of people into white and not-white can very broadly be seen to reflect their categorisation into people that it is and is not acceptable to colonise, which itself was often worked out from whether or not those places contained social and political structures that Europeans were prepared to recognise as legitimate. (This is the source of "the Irish weren't originally white": people didn't start with kooky theories about Irish racial inferiority, but with the fact that Ireland was an English colonial possession, that Irish society was not regarded as a genuine society but as a state of barbarous pre-society, and worked out the theories from there.)

This becomes particularly pronounced in settler colonies because it becomes a logic not simply of organisation but of exclusion. In order to make room for colonists, the racial "Others" are permitted to exist at the absolute bottom of society, or entirely outside of it. Their capacity to participate in society is refused. Non-settler colonies assume to at least some degree the ability of whites and non-whites to understand each other and to develop shared interests; settler colonies tend towards the opposite assumption, that white and non-whites are competing over limited space and resources. In the former, it is often necessary to imagine non-whites as people making stumbling little baby-steps towards "civilisation", that their integration into colonial institutions is expressive of a shared historical project; in the latter, it is assumed that "civilisation" is categorically beyond them, that their exclusion from colonial institutions is expressive of the impossibility of any such project.

 

[r16]

the very first web forum ı joined had a "typically" vocal Russian and some German and German had determined statements that Luftwaffe could achieve local air superiority in 1945 . Going against air power is tough ; but the need would have created a need . One can never cease to be amazed at the flexibility of politicians . If a defeat would end the Soviets , we would only see a more determined effort . Russians might shoot their top ace with 80 kills for political needs and declare the 62 one as tops yet that would not be the case if that was what it would take . One can only look at post war stuff ; T-54 starting in 1944 or thereabouts in fits and starts and Reactive explosive armour studies in 1949 and all of them might have been brought forward somehow . America stopped the Easter Offensive , but North Vietnam did not have Siberia kind of silly sentences .

as for settlers , moving away is probably proof enough that you weren't doing good in home country . Starting a new with hopes of making better , you perhaps wouldn't be happy with competition . Especially if coming from peoples with an history of being oppressed or taken advantage and determined not to let that happen again , so helping each other . In reality or fiction .

 

[Mouthwash]

This becomes particularly pronounced in settler colonies because it becomes a logic not simply of organisation but of exclusion. In order to make room for colonists, the racial "Others" are permitted to exist at the absolute bottom of society, or entirely outside of it. Their capacity to participate in society is refused. Non-settler colonies assume to at least some degree the ability of whites and non-whites to understand each other and to develop shared interests; settler colonies tend towards the opposite assumption, that white and non-whites are competing over limited space and resources. In the former, it is often necessary to imagine non-whites as people making stumbling little baby-steps towards "civilisation", that their integration into colonial institutions is expressive of a shared historical project; in the latter, it is assumed that "civilisation" is categorically beyond them, that their exclusion from colonial institutions is expressive of the impossibility of any such project.

So it's simply a consequence of the colonizing mindset? You think it could happen in seemingly innocent projects like the settlement of Mars? Or had the Americas been empty, there never would have been anti-black racism?

EDIT: I'm asking if it's due to some sort of conquest mentality built up against the natives, or simply the act of migration.

 

[JohannaK]

It is not about migration. It is about settlement. The very act of settling in the colonial sense implies a certain perception that the 'civilization' brought forth is either filling a void or supplanting an incomparably inferior one.

Anti-black sentiment in America is not really about that, however. Evidently it is about attitudes ingrained within the colonial society throughout the years of slavery.

 

[abradley]

So it's simply a consequence of the colonizing mindset? You think it could happen in seemingly innocent projects like the settlement of Mars? Or had the Americas been empty, there never would have been anti-black racism?

EDIT: I'm asking if it's due to some sort of conquest mentality built up against the natives, or simply the act of migration.

If we settled mars and there was a resource that we needed manpower to exploit then we might import slaves.

This is what happened in most the Americas, Indians didn't make good slaves.

 

[Mouthwash]

It is not about migration. It is about settlement. The very act of settling in the colonial sense implies a certain perception that the 'civilization' brought forth is either filling a void or supplanting an incomparably inferior one.

Anti-black sentiment in America is not really about that, however. Evidently it is about attitudes ingrained within the colonial society throughout the years of slavery.

Then why did it take root in the North, even in places with strong abolitionist sentiment?

 

[Cutlass]

Why was racism and ethnic hostility more prevalent in European settler nations than in their parent countries? I mean, obviously there was slavery and expansionism, but neither of those things were very relevant in the twentieth century. You'd think that a roomy, underpopulated country with lots of economic low-hanging fruit would be more easygoing about race than one with established institutions, traditions, locuses of power, and massive colonial populations to keep under its heel. America was clearly much more religiously tolerant (with the Jews probably being the foremost example of this, in both the Union and Confederacy), and right now it seems to be able to integrate foreigners much more easily than Europe is, for the reasons you'd expect.

In simplest terms:

• To confiscate the lands or other properties of the colonized people.
• To control the labor, or product of the labor, of the colonized people, or imported slaves.
• To deny all of the above people a seat at the table in government, such as to continue to control them.

The foundation of the racism is to deny them equal humanity as a way to rule them, remove them, and take their stuff.

 

[Mouthwash]

That applies even more so to European nations, I would think.

 

[JohannaK]

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.

 

[Mouthwash]

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.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

 

[sophie]

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.

Is this even true though?

 

[r16]

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 .

 

[abradley]

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.

IIRC the longest racism has been antisemitism.

 

[Mouthwash]

Is this even true though?

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.

 

[abradley]

I don't see what your getting at, are you saying the worse racism is/was against blacks in the new world?

 

[caketastydelish]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why didn't the Mongols travel east to Alaska and then south to America (presumably to conquer it)?

Was there something stopping them?

...The Pacific Ocean?

 

[caketastydelish]

The Bering Strait ?

 

[innonimatu]

Horses and thousands of miles of snow don't combine well. They starve.