History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedImperialism and Racism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Saints11 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 23-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saints11 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Imperialism and Racism
    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?
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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? Smile
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 12:28
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.


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.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 13:05
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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? Smile

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

Ie it is a disparaging term for the French, Italians, and other Continental populations which equates them with Africans. 



Edited by edgewaters - 09-Mar-2009 at 13:10
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.



Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?  Big smile ).
 
Rhodes was a nineteenth century man. 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Mar-2009 at 13:43
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:19
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.


I'd say he was both.
Possibly. One doesn't exclude the other.
But the case for Rhodes being nationalist is more easily demonstrated.
Quote
 Rhodes considered the Anglo-Saxons as a superior race, meaning he was racist without necessarily including all Whites in the dominant caste.
But 'Anglo-Saxon' isn't a race.
Quote
 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.
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.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:26
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

 
Cecil Rhodes was a ruthless racist " robber baron " imperialist.
 
Much of wealth obtained through European Imperialism based on racism.
 
 
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.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 16:39
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

 
Cecil Rhodes was a ruthless racist " robber baron " imperialist.
 
Much of wealth obtained through European Imperialism based on racism.
 
 


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.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 18:12

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But 'Anglo-Saxon' isn't a race.

Maybe not in reality, but it was to Rhodes. He specifically said, "race".

Quote My point is that what you say there is hypothetical, whereas his nationalism is well-evidenced.

Hitler's nationalism is pretty well-founded too. The only difference is that Rhodes was British, and therefore much more insular about it.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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)
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 20:45
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But 'Anglo-Saxon' isn't a race.

Maybe not in reality, but it was to Rhodes. He specifically said, "race".

Precisely, which is why I phrased it "Rhodes considered...".

Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 03:32
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

 
Cecil Rhodes was a ruthless racist " robber baron " imperialist.
 
Much of wealth obtained through European Imperialism based on racism.
 
 


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.
 

 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 11:42
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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


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.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.


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.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 12:10
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

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?


Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

In North Africa, the segregation of white Berbers-Arabs with their blacks slaves. Is this racism?


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.


Edited by Reginmund - 10-Mar-2009 at 12:13
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 13:23
Originally posted by Saints11 Saints11 wrote:

 
 
How racist were the British and French while in Africa
 
 
 
 
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.
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 11-Mar-2009 at 08:17
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.