Thanks. I was trying to imagine myself as an “Asian” in the US and the thought of a South Asian of another race/ ethnicity, or even a Chinese of who grew up in the US claiming to represent me as a group if I don’t know his/her background, would probably turn me off but I may just show some form of superficial support depending on the extent of their actions if there was a history of oppression similar to that of Black people just for pragmatic reasons. I’m not sure if Black people also think this way.
Note: I do not know what the situation is like wrt stuff like attitudes, impressions, job prospects, lifestyles and general treatment of Black people in the US TODAY other than what I hear from Black(very few around here) and White friends IRL and read on the news so my views are very open to change.
Further note: It is easy for me to identify with systemic racism, both overt and “unspoken” forms of it since I’ve been through it, but slavery and it’s ramifications on the next generations isn’t something I can understand. I don’t even know how it was really like. It could have been exaggerated or much worse than what I’ve read and watched in movies and documentaries.
As an example, I have a maid from the 3rd World. She takes care of my parents and has her own room with her own laptop, Iphone and wifi, cooks the stuff she and my parents like and spends most of her free time on facebook doing stuff like posting selfies with my cats while earning 3-8x what she would be earning in her own country depending on the location of residence. In her own country, she would be treated like shit and looked down on by the people in the cities since she’s from the rural area. Sometimes she pops by my house since it’s a 10min walk away to help my wife out but they mostly just spend their time chatting and playing around with makeup like schoolgirls.
People call this “indentured servitude”, which is pretty much a form of slavery and it’s true in theory if you only look at the terms in her contract. I understand it’s complicated since there are lots of maids being treated like shit elsewhere while this chick doesn’t seem to even want to go home on holiday even though I pay for her plane tickets and give her extra money to buy stuff for her family lol.
I don’t know where I’m going with this and I’m probably coming off as pretty ignorant but I’m just throwing out my thoughts, which, as I wrote above, are very open to change.
I doubt many Black people would agree. Especially with the idea that Black culture does not exist.
Different European groups using different available resources.
What is the difference between the above and what White Americans did?
You can not call it American culture because other groups will claim “Am I not American?” or “That is not “American Culture” that is some White people shit”.
Seems White Americans are shit out of luck because claiming to be proud of being Irish when your great grandparents were Irish is IMO stupid.
Possibly true technically, since knowledge of genetics was not a thing in those days. But it seems to me that they considered their kingdom separate and superior, and “other” people from neighbor regions inferior by nature, and perfectly willing to make them chattel… which would seem to be the definition of racism on a psychological basis. I could be wrong though.
I think the concept of culture is fascinating, but I don’t know any real answers. Off the top of my head though I would say yes - cultures share norms, experiences, and behaviors. All of these things are definitely dependent on where you live and who you live around.
This is a really interesting thing. Anecdotally I’ve seen the same thing around me. Recent immigrants from Kenya and other countries that I know personally pretty much look down on the American “black” attitudes (I’m sure that’s somehow racist because I’m not woke enough, but I don’t know if a better way to phrase my thought ). Or at least the stereotypical attitudes. But at the same time they show some superficial support on basis of principle.
But N = 1 and all that.
This whole post is really well thought out. Honestly I don’t know who understands the ramifications of slavery in all its horror. Smarter people than me who’ve studied the subject and history I am sure.
To your point about the maid - I honestly don’t think there is a way around the complicated nature of it. Man servants and maid servants have a long history for both good and ill, with treatment varying across countries and cultures and neighborhoods and families. I don’t think there’s a neat answer.
I’m going to guess that’s incorrect. I can’t accept that a team’s fans are racist because they consider themselves superior to fans of a rival’s. I don’t even think the concept of race had been developed during Musa’s time. Of course, there’s no reason not to call anything you please “racist.” Lord knows you’d have plenty of company if you did.
Interesting. I think the concept has been around a lot longer, only termed “peoples” or other words instead of “race”.
What do you think about the conflict between the Hutu and the Tutsis from the perspective of race? I think even if it is technically incorrect the idea of racism was heavily involved in the conflict, even though they are extremely related. Psychology is funky.
From my understanding, it was racial and class based. The racial divisions were a creation of the Belgians, but they were taken seriously by the Hutus.
I’m not comfortable calling anything “racism” that isn’t race-based. They were the same race. People always have and will group together for whatever reasons. Groups discriminate against other groups because it’s safer to do so.
Really? Wasn’t Mexico and most of Central and South America, as well as parts of the Caribbean settled by the Spanish? Regardless, Mexican culture comes from Mexico so I don’t see what your point is.
I don’t know what all of the above is supposed to mean. I’m simply asking what is white culture and since you avoided answering I can only assume you don’t know.
Arguably not according to themselves though, which I believe should be an important factor in this. Did they believe they were acting against a different race, I think they did.
I’m open to anyone correcting this point if they know more
There are different concepts of what race means. Today, we pretty much think in terms of skin color but in the past you had the ancient Romans referring to the Germanic race, for example. Getting back to black Africans, we should remember the genocide in Rwanda. Clearly, you had two groups who saw themselves as distinct peoples (we can call it racial, tribal, ethnic, etc.) and I would say it’s perfectly fine to say the genocide was a racist act in spite of the two peoples in question having the same skin color.
Taking that further, there is only one race: human. It isn’t about scientific fact but human perception. If two peoples who we would say are the same race don’t view themselves that way, then it is race based.
How did the English feel about the Irish? The Germans about the Polish? Most people don’t know the etymology of the word race and how it used in other countries (eg. razza, in Italy). Also, the UN has stated that ethnic groups can be considered races so conflicts between ethnic groups can be labelled racist.
I think I agree, but did they view themselves as different races? Not as different peoples, but as different races? I don’t like assigning “racism” to everything that is negative and discriminatory.
That they were Papists, primarily. The racial animus came after the wars of religion. Viewing it as a larger conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism would be a more useful way to understand it.
With regard to the Germans and Polish, which period? In the Second World War, it was unarguably racial, but before that it was much more standard imperialism, which is why Brest-Litovsk aimed to have a Poland that was a dependent state of Germany and Austria.
I totally understand this outlook. It’s correct and I happen to agree (for the most part). The point I was trying to draw earlier is that a perceived racial difference can drive as much conflict as a real one, and hence in some form is racism. I think that it is important to pay attention to the psychology as well as the technical.
This is important when assessing motives, and I think it is even more important when looking at eras of history that predate our modern scientific understanding of genetics. There are many examples through history (both modern and older) where the scientific reality did not match what people believed about reality - race is an example, another newer one in the historical context would be phrenology. We look at these things with modern understanding but that does not change the motives or perception of people at that time. Most racial “divisions” are a creation of one particular group rather than scientific reality, but that has never stopped them from being used to instigate conflict or oppression.
I’m not sure I am articulating well, but hopefully you understand where I’m coming from.
In Boston, when the Irish were immigrating in large numbers, you could see in the newspapers cartoons of the Irish drawn as though they were apes. You would see side by side comparisons to blacks.
). Or at least the stereotypical attitudes. But at the same time they show some superficial support on basis of principle.