| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Western views of Africans and African descendants
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedWestern views of Africans and African descendants

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 00:25
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:



Precisely my point. Neither is an African. Being Black or descended from Africans does not make one an African. It merely makes one Black or African-American. Africans are born and raised in Africa, and thereby receive a total African culturalization process.


I  never said he was purely African or even connected with the African culture,but he is viewed by a lot of Americans as black.

You also said Obama does not share the Black Experience which is incorrect, because he has married into a black family,has associated him self with black human rights groups,and has bascally stuck around the black community.SO to say he is not "African American" or "Black American" just arbitrary to the political risks he's participated in.




Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Hell, De Klerk is more African than either Gates or Obama. Just ask his fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Also in re: "Obama is probably even more black than Hailey Berry ,Mariah Carrey, Salli Richardson."
He well may be, but he's no less an American. And that's what mattered to those who voted for him.

Carcharodon. In re:  "It is as such things do not exist. We seldom see reports from universities, research centers or similar."


Yes he American but he's African American period,he's African American period ,


Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


The worst example is Liberia: a country created by freed Afro-American slaves. When the free slaves arrived in Liberia, they enslaved the natives; and when one native ethnicity managed to overthrow these rulers, they in turn "enslaved" the other ethnicities. Basically, whoever was ruling enslaved the others...., and so on.


The Americo-Liberians did not enslave the inhabitants of Liberia. One reason being because Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 ,the freed American slaves arrived in Liberia in 1816. The problem was that the freed American SLaves faced alot of hostility from native Africans.

There was already a Freetown set up in nearby Siere Leone which was established by freed  African slaves relinquished  by the Britain. They were mostly descendants of slaves who were promised freedom for fighting in the American revolutions,Maroons from
the Americas or Carribean ,and some from black residents of London who sought to establish territory in Sierre Leone as well. By 1864 50,000 freed slaves alone settled in Sierre Leone not to mention previous descendants of these slaves also were present  in the population. The British used Freetown ,Sherbro,and Loko as outpost for Anti-Slavery and other interest. The British usually got permission from chiefs of these villages who were called Temno and Mani. In fact the freed slaves bought land from these tribal chiefs. However some tribal chiefs still participated in tribalist conflicts which promoted prisoners of war to be sold into slavery. This also brought to British attention to cool down the tensions between these tribal rivalries. One of these tribes were a collective called the Fula who started their expansion from Gambia and Senegal.

The freed American slaves loyal to the British in Sierre Leone were Loyalist to Britain and while the freed slaves from United States arrived they were already tensions in the air. The US established the American Colonization Society. The Constitution of Liberia was written up by James Monroe and Andrew Jackson.Many slaveholders even supported the new colony because the slaves were at one point outnumbered whites in the south,and feared a rebellion,so they figured the ones who smart enough to think of freedom should think of the idea in Africa,and not in the US South.

There were alot of black American Black Colonial Societies such as the Maryland Colonial Society which wasn't part of Liberia until some years later. They all fought to get support of the tribes but wouldn't so the Americo-Liberians sought to accept freed American emigrees from not just the US but all over the Carribean. The freed slaves were to be governed by  80white settlers but in the first 5 years the majority of them died.

However the Americo -Liberians finally gained control of their country and were later even reconized by France and England but not by the US however until later on. The first president Joseph J Roberts of Liberia even received weapon supillies from France and England.The received alot of imports from Britain and got alot of loans from the British Banks The Creoles or Krios of Liberia married in with the aboriginals but sought to modernize the country in which some of the Tribes were against. They also sought to expand their influence and extended citizenship to some tribes but then excluded and implemented a caste system. This was ironic because the Americo-Liberians faced the same discrimination in Liberia. Liberia became dragged down from debt,and the work labor in Liberia seemed to resemble that of slavery.To add to the confusion Liberia sought to repay the debts with England by taking loans from the US



Edited by AksumVanguard - 08 Aug 2009 at 07:19
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 00:58
Originally posted by Prince of Zeila Prince of Zeila wrote:

Africans are the ones who are responsible for their countries failures or triumphs. Malawi ignored western designs on it's agricultural industry and because of that is now producing surplus.


This is what I've been telling them. With China buying land African countries to establish manufacturing sites an factory facilities,people in Africa think they have an Godsend coming from East Asia. African countries think they  there scot free.Nope, This will probably compound the problems  due to another entity prying into your countries affairs and grasping up all of your local and major businesses. Do for self.The country's populace  should depend on their on reliance to develop their own economic gain.

Originally posted by Prince of Zeila Prince of Zeila wrote:


 Zimbabwe ejected a large community of skilled farmers based on their skincolor without having anything alternative (to those skilled workers) in place and now they suffering because of that rash decision.
 
This is not totally true. The expulsion of British landowners in Zimamabawe was due of 3 main reasons.

For one the British Land Owners had always used African laborer whether they were on a tractor or a using their cutlass,the government of Zimbabwe attempted to buy these lands in order to satisfy the demanding landowners.  The British landowners wanted almost double the net worth in Land value,and received funding help from the British and the United States it still wasn't able to satisfy their lust.

The governmemt  acquired 40% of the land ,but was not successful in obatining all land property. Out of desperation and partly the yielding of other major political events, Zimbabawe implemeted the Land Acciqusition Act in 1992.

2)Another reason is that Mugabe suspected the white British landowners supported Morgan Tsivingari of the MDC a rebel group.

3) ANother reason is that the lands he intended to subsidize where being funded from loans. These loans were being financed from funding that came from  the IMF and World Bank. In the 1990s the IMF freezed the funding due to Mugabe partaking in the overthrow of Mobuto Sese Seko.

I speak on the issue in Zimbabwe in this thread.

http://www.allempires.net/forum/imf-world-bank-group-builders-or-destroyers_topic124200_page2.html



     


Edited by AksumVanguard - 13 Aug 2009 at 05:12
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 02:37
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Here you go again, you're claiming that there're more discrimination towards Africans because most people instinctively find them ugly....... this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've come across for a long time.
...
 
First, you say what I highlight above, not me.
Second, I simply state humans reject the different in a instinctive manner. The more different a group looks from another, the more difficult is to integrate them. Just see how the pigmeys are treated in Congo just because they are shorter than the rest.
If you don't want to accept it, fine. It is just my oppinion. I only stated something that I have observed in humans; not an ideology that I deffend at all.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 04:14
Aksum, the quote you attribute to me on Liberia is not mine. Second, anyone who is an apologist for the Mugabe regime, and his seizure of land to distribute to his cronies, the same man who has taken what was one of Africa's few success stories, and transformed it into a disaster, is not worthy of serous consideration. Tot Ziens, broer.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 06:26




Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

 Second, anyone who is an apologist for the Mugabe regime, and his seizure of land to distribute to his cronies, the same man who has taken what was one of Africa's few success stories, and transformed it into a disaster, is not worthy of serous consideration. Tot Ziens, broer.
What apology, for what regime. I am not defending Mugabe on any terms. I am clearly telling the dark truth and there was not any innocent involvement between security council UN countries in the Congo Civil War neither the  in Land Reform Acts of Zimbabawe.

People like to paint things black and white,and they are many things that observers overlook and don't take serious elements in account.Your saying that Ian Smith and his regime  did not cause a distaste among the the citizens of Rhoedesia. Of course the UDI (an ILLEGTIMATE GOVERNMENT) faced barriers by the UN and other NGO but they were not severe as the frozen funding given by the IMF to  Zimbabwe.I'm just stating facts, and you cannot disagree that underlying tension was present when the ZANU and ZAPU came into power. Ian Smith expected the monster Mugabe to kill him.

Of course "Ian Smith" was wrong Mugabe pardoned him. Mugabe was not a gentleman of course but he expected Smith to at least convince the landowners to relinquish their stanglehold on real estate ownership.The British Landowners withhelding back  the selling of their lands does makes their hands dirty especially when most landowners were former UDI supporters.

Where do I support Mugabe giving the land to his constituents of the ZANU-PF. He is just as criminal as Ian Smith. And what success story in Zimbabwe,it has always been a stuggling country besides its high graduate rate. Thats the only thing to be proud of.

Who are you to say what is to be considered serious?By the way ,just a reminder you do know the forum rules are English.

I really don't care for the sneaky remark but at least have enough pride to  plainly express yourself.

As are only three words of your paragraph that are non-english I don't think you have problem using the Language.

The amount of bias on this forum website is amazing!

Edited by AksumVanguard - 08 Aug 2009 at 19:44
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 10:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 However, the main cause of discrimination against Blacks is pure and simple the physical aspect. It is not ignorance or anything like that what causes that reaction. Is simply the archaic and ancestral warring attitude of the ancient tribes that attacked the strangers as a matter of survival. Today the "different" aren't attacked but many time simply ignored.
That behavoir is displayed in animals of different species. I believe that's the cause Blacks are discriminated in many groups is because they look different from locals.
Actually, Asians and Whites could also be discriminated in Africa because the same reason.
 
 
I think the reasons are more historical and economical than some primeval rejection becuse Africans look different. A long history of slavery, colonialism and economical and political marginalisation of Africans has created negative attitudes among Europeans and Americans, attitudes that also have spread, trough different channels, to other peoples who themselves have no history in common with Africa or Africans.
 
One can notice that in ancient literature from long time before European slave trade in Africa or colonialism, Africans were not rejected in the same way as later.
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 13:54
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...I think the reasons are more historical and economical than some primeval rejection becuse Africans look different. 
...
One can notice that in ancient literature from long time before European slave trade in Africa or colonialism, Africans were not rejected in the same way as later.
 
You think exactly what the Politically Correct Credo preaches over and over.
The facts tell otherwise. When Black and White cubans move to Miami, each one follow theirs respective route to live where people is more similar to them. Why?
In Latin America, at least, we have notice this effect since long ago.
Yes, you can increase respect, tollerancy, etc., but people will always preffer its clan and the ones that look more similar to them, and reject the others. Hypocresy won't change that. It is human nature.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 16:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
You think exactly what the Politically Correct Credo preaches over and over.
The facts tell otherwise. When Black and White cubans move to Miami, each one follow theirs respective route to live where people is more similar to them. Why?
In Latin America, at least, we have notice this effect since long ago.
Yes, you can increase respect, tollerancy, etc., but people will always preffer its clan and the ones that look more similar to them, and reject the others. Hypocresy won't change that. It is human nature.
 
Not so much political correctness as taking into consideration a historic past that has created different prejudice. And that people do not mix with each other so much can also have historical, economical and similar causes, it do not have to be some biological instinct. People can have affiliations to their own group because of social and cultural and similar reasons.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 01:53
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...Not so much political correctness as taking into consideration a historic past that has created different prejudice. And that people do not mix with each other so much can also have historical, economical and similar causes, it do not have to be some biological instinct. People can have affiliations to their own group because of social and cultural and similar reasons.
 
At least in Latin America, it is obvious that locals have some prefference from some foreigners and "strangers" instead of others. It has nothing to do with social or historical prejudice, or the origin. For instance, Chinese and other East Asians were treated as semi-slaved worked up to the beginning of the 20th century, but they never suffered much discrimination because of looks, and by now most are already assimilated. On the other hands, there still several groups of Afro-Caribbean (Jamaicans, Haitians, etc.) in Central America and the Caribbean South America that remain isolated from the mainstrean. 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 08:43

China were never overtaken by colonialists in the same way as Africa was. And the history of chinese semi-slave labour is also much shorter than the history of African slaves. So the resentment of Africans are deeply rooted in the history of both Europe and the Americas. Europe and the Americas has not such a long history of recentment concerning the Chinese. If one goes back to the 18th century for example there were written several essays in Europe about the

superiority of the Chinese culture, philosophy and the Chinese way of governing. 

 

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 16:55
What I say is simple. With respect to racism, people don't discriminate based on history but in looks. They don't say -Look, this guy/girl seem to be descendent of the fierous Norse, from the troops of Gengis Khan or from the bloody Romans so let's discrimate-.
 
No, it doesn't happen that way. Nope. It is not a rational though, but only a mechanical, subconcient reaction to the presence of different people, who are perceived as a menace to the survival of the kind; from the biological point of view. Racial discrimination is based on looks, only. Otherwise is not racial but ethnic discrimination, which also exist. For instance, if Germans discrimate Poles, or viceversa, there it is very hard to talk about "racial" discrimination because people looks the same. What you have there is ethnic discrimination, and in that topic you may have the reason.
 
That's why racial discrimination is variable. It is stronger the more different people looks from the locals. Besides, racial discrimination is not a "white" business only. It exist in East Asia, in the Muslim countries and in India, too. More surpriselly, it also exist in Africa. Pigmies are considered subhumans there, and you have seen the Rwanda war, and the attacks that many times have happened to White people in places like Haiti and South Africa. In Latin America racism from the "mixed" to the "others" exist as well.
 
In short, the sociological theories of some historical "learning" of racism is balooney. The problem for a study of racism is simply people is hypocrital. They may detest people of different looks but will never confess it because that is "incorrect". So, they may even marry the "different" and eding hating the children Confused. The syndrome of the "wrong grandmother" is something we known in Latin America no matter the label is mine. When your friends come, hide your grandmom so they don't discover the wrong origin ShockedShocked
 
Anyways, this topics is very interesting. Maybe we could open a thread elsewhere to discuss it.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 09 Aug 2009 at 17:07
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 17:22

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What I say is simple. With respect to racism, people don't discriminate based on history but in looks. They don't say -Look, this guy/girl seem to be descendent of the fierous Norse, from the troops of Gengis Khan or from the bloody Romans so let's discrimate-.

 

 

No, it doesn't happen that way. Nope. It is not a rational though, but only a mechanical, subconcient reaction to the present of different people, who are perceived as a menace to the survival of the kind; from the biological point of view. Racial discrimination is based on looks, only.

 

Well, looks is involved but also the way we view different looks seems to be learned. That is shown in the famous experiments where black children in the US were given black and white dolls and were asked to connect some different attributes with these dolls. Because of cultural conditioning the black children often connected the black dolls with negative traits. And still they had black parents and lived among blacks their whole life. For them black was normal and the white was the others, still they preferred the white dolls.

Doll experiments

The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie Clark's master's degree thesis. They published three major papers between 1939 and 1940 on children's self perception related to race. Their studies found contrasts among children attending segregated schools in Washington, DC versus those in integrated schools in New York. They found that Black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black; that, asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin, they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate; and that the children gave the color "white" attributes such as good and pretty, but "black" was qualified as bad and ugly. They viewed the results as evidence that the children had internalized racism caused by being discriminated against and stigmatized by segregation.

 
In 2006 filmmaker Kiri Davis recreated the doll study and documented it in a film entitled A Girl Like Me. Despite the many changes in some parts of society, she found the same results as did the Drs. Clark in their study of the late 1930s and early 1940s.

 
 
 

 

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 09 Aug 2009 at 17:23
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 20 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 17:36
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

China were never overtaken by colonialists in the same way as Africa was. And the history of chinese semi-slave labour is also much shorter than the history of African slaves. So the resentment of Africans are deeply rooted in the history of both Europe and the Americas. Europe and the Americas has not such a long history of recentment concerning the Chinese. If one goes back to the 18th century for example there were written several essays in Europe about the

superiority of the Chinese culture, philosophy and the Chinese way of governing. 

 
I completely agree with you.
Discrimination of works in the way that people associate certain traits with a group; and whenever they see people belonging to this group, they automatically associate them with these traits.
 
Where do these traits come from? From recent history and from their perceived behaviour in society.
 
Whenever the word "black africans" is mentioned, people automatically think of the poverty and tribalism of Africa and the recent slavery; so these associations were directly made without thinking.
For most European people, the traits that they associate with East Asians, Middle Easterners, American natives, Jews, Berbers are all different based on the reputation that they have.
 
As a fact, while man has been conscious of the different skin colour and facial fractions for milenniums, it was only in the recent centuries, precisely after the slave trade, did skin colour because associated with "superiority" or "inferiority" status.
 
The Ancient Egyptians, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and most of the Central Asian Empires encompassed peoples of diverse looks, eye shapes, and skin tones, yet not a SINGLE one of them have ever tried to divide and classify its population according to "looks". Tribal affiliation and legal status (citizenship) was a much more common way to discribe one's identity.
 
This meant that back then the association of skin colour with "superiority-inferiority" did not exist.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 17:54
Of course you agree, because that's what the PC credo teach. The sociologist believe racism is a form of conditionated reflex that is learn, so changing education racism will end.
 
Balooney. Racism persist even after centuries of education by humanistic thinkers. That's something we know in the Americas very well. You can increase tollerancy and reduce violence by education, but racism persist anyways.
 
Ancient Egyptians and the Roman empire didn't know Bantues, but as much Ethiopians.
Discrimination against poors exist, but is not precisely poverty what moves racists to hate certain groups more than others.
 
Looks differences exist and people notice them.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 18:39
Perhaps we are losing sight of the past in order to revel in the remants of the 19th century. After all, even in contemporary society, the perception of beauty has become even more perverted as a consequence of "desired attributes" set by the MSM. Unfortunately, "racism" has many faces, and in view of the recent Cambridge imbroglio, Professor Gates provided a vivid example of a Black variant.
 
Is "racism" inculcated? Or is it a natural reaction of preference for sameness? Millions of trees have given their all for "studies" that are little more than exercises in scientism; however, all forget that fear is a natural instinct that only education and experience can overcome.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 19:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Of course you agree, because that's what the PC credo teach. The sociologist believe racism is a form of conditionated reflex that is learn, so changing education racism will end.
 
Balooney. Racism persist even after centuries of education by humanistic thinkers. That's something we know in the Americas very well. You can increase tollerancy and reduce violence by education, but racism persist anyways.
 
Ancient Egyptians and the Roman empire didn't know Bantues, but as much Ethiopians.
Discrimination against poors exist, but is not precisely poverty what moves racists to hate certain groups more than others.
 
Looks differences exist and people notice them.
 
Well, historically the perceptions of race has of course not been the same. If one look into antiquity one does not find the same recentment as in literature from the times of slavery or colonialism.
 
As examples one can take writings from authors like Herodotos or from Diodoros who gives positive descriptions of the Ethiopians (where they mostly mean the Nubians in todays Sudan and southern Egypt).
 
So attitudes against foreign peoples (regardless colour of the skin) varies a lot depending on history, social circumstances and economic circumstances.
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 19:21
It also depends on the size of the population. If Greeks so an Ethiopian once in a while, perhaps they were objects of curiosity. However, if half the population of Ethiopia moved to Ancient Greece at once, I bet the "perception" would have changed.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 19:39
But than it is more social, political and econmic issues that will be the problems. I think if half the population of Persia or of Egypt or of some other nearby country suddenly moved there there would also be some recentment.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 19:55
Back in 1976 through 1979, the Menil Foundation of Houston sponsored the publication of a most interesting compilation in three volumes: L'Image du Noir dans l'art occidental (Gallimard edition of 1991 is still available although each volume commands a hefty price but still cheaper than the $150+ for each volume of the Ist edition). One thing a review of these exquisite tomes would reveal is a hefty caution with regard to social commentary premised on art. The populations of the Mediterranean World were not such rubes as to view the Black as either an exotic nor a rare happenstance. During Roman times, art even has pygmies as a more than occasional thematic. Even that old stand-by "slavery as the cause for racist inferiority mania" comes into question, given the fact that Black servitude is even a representational theme within Egyptian art during the New Kingdom. Hence, if we are to continue this discussion a distinction must necessarily be made between Racism and Prejudice. There is a difference you know....
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 20:07
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Back in 1976 through 1979, the Menil Foundation of Houston sponsored the publication of a most interesting compilation in three volumes: L'Image du Noir dans l'art occidental (Gallimard edition of 1991 is still available although each volume commands a hefty price but still cheaper than the $150+ for each volume of the Ist edition). One thing a review of these exquisite tomes would reveal is a hefty caution with regard to social commentary premised on art. The populations of the Mediterranean World were not such rubes as to view the Black as either an exotic nor a rare happenstance. During Roman times, art even has pygmies as a more than occasional thematic. Even that old stand-by "slavery as the cause for racist inferiority mania" comes into question, given the fact that Black servitude is even a representational theme within Egyptian art during the New Kingdom. Hence, if we are to continue this discussion a distinction must necessarily be made between Racism and Prejudice. There is a difference you know....
 
The servitude of blacks in the New Kingdom was not neccecarily a servitude because of blackness. One can also see it as a symbol for the servitude and submission of the age old rival in the south, Nubia. In their writings Egyptians do not seem to be especially fixated with the Nubians color but more of them as a political adversary.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2009 at 21:16
Reread what I wrote Carch...nowhere do I instance "servitude because of blackness", but such an association is also difficult to maintain except within the context of an Anglo-American orbit and the polemics of the early 19th century. The stripping away of humanity and the assertion of humans as "property" is a peculiarly Anglo-Calvinist ethic. Prejudice is one thing and Racism quite another, and in terms of the latter we had better dot the i's and cross our t's.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 956
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 02:20
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The stripping away of humanity and the assertion of humans as "property" is a peculiarly Anglo-Calvinist ethic. 
That has been going since long before Calvin and long before "anglos" developed as a distinct ethnic identity.  In the case of the African Slave trade, dominant African kingdoms (equal partners of the Anglo Calvinists) had absolutely no problem with the concept of humans as property.  
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Prejudice is one thing and Racism quite another, and in terms of the latter we had better dot the i's and cross our t's.
The Anglo Europeans did not invent racism.  The Imperial Chinese, for example, defined themselves as a seperate "race" from other Asians. The Chinese "race" then develops true civilization. All otger races are barbaric.  Though some other "races" (Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans) may imitate some aspects of Chinese culture, they were not "racially" Chinese and could not be considered as truly civilized.
 
The only difference between the  Imperial Chinese and Anglo Europeans was that the Europeans developed the technology and ambition to export their rascist views on a global scale. The Chinese kept it closer to home. The racism, however, was the same.  


Edited by Cryptic - 10 Aug 2009 at 02:30
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 10:35
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

The Imperial Chinese, for example, defined themselves as a seperate "race" from other Asians. The Chinese "race" then develops true civilization. All otger races are barbaric.  Though some other "races" (Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans) may imitate some aspects of Chinese culture, they were not "racially" Chinese and could not be considered as truly civilized.
 
The only difference between the  Imperial Chinese and Anglo Europeans was that the Europeans developed the technology and ambition to export their rascist views on a global scale. The Chinese kept it closer to home. The racism, however, was the same.  
 
The imperial chinese were of course ethnocentric but their view of race (based on looks) became never so systematized and (pseudo) scientific as here in the west. All chinese people do not look the same and China is partly an amalgam of people of different looks and also ethnicities.
 
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 956
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 16:35
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
The imperial chinese were of course ethnocentric 
And so were the British. For much of their history, the British, like the Chinese defined "race" as an ehtnicity and the associated culture. The further one was removed from both, the more inferior the person was.
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

(Scientific Rascism) never so systematized and (pseudo) scientific as here in the west.
 
That is simply because Chinese culture did not develop the scientific method. Scientific rascism only exists in those cultures that developed the scientific method. It was then mis used to "prove" long standing claims of ethnic / cultural supereority. 
 
The Japanese, however, did develop that scientific method. Just like European "scientists", Japanese "scientists" readily proved that they were a superior race. Had the Chinese developed the scientific method, Chinese scientists would have "discovered" that the Chinese were a distinct and supereor race. Ironically, the Chinese were so confident of their ethnic / cultural supereority that they rejected much of the western scientific method as barbaric.
  
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

All chinese people do not look the same and China is partly an amalgam of people of different looks and also ethnicities. 
  
That accurate observation whould not have made a difference. Chinese racial "scientists" would have simply re created the facts, re defined race etc. like the Germans did and then scientifically "proved" their racial supereority in the same way the Japanese still do.


Edited by Cryptic - 10 Aug 2009 at 16:39
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 17:01
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

 
That is simply because Chinese culture did not develop the scientific method. Scientific rascism only exists in those cultures that developed the scientific method. It was then mis used to "prove" long standing claims of ethnic / cultural supereority. 
  
 
Well, China may not have developed the western kind of scientific method, still they were very much interested in science and observations (and categorizing) of nature, culture and similar. But still they do not dwelve in the kind of race fixated writings as one finds in the west.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

  The Japanese, however, did develop that scientific method. Just like European "scientists", Japanese "scientists" readily proved that they were a superior race. 
 
Do not forget that Japan became rather influenced by west in their science and technology. They also adopted some of wests colonial and racial ideas.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

 Had the Chinese developed the scientific method, Chinese scientists would have "discovered" that the Chinese were a distinct and supereor race. Ironically, the Chinese were so confident of their ethnic / cultural supereority that they rejected much of the western scientific method as barbaric.
 
That accurate observation whould not have made a difference. Chinese racial "scientists" would have simply re created the facts, re defined race etc. like the Germans did and then scientifically "proved" their racial supereority in the same way the Japanese still do.
 
It is rather difficult to know what they would have done if things had looked different. One can only speculate.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 17:19
The Chinese have long held an ethnic superiority complex. Their idea of China as the 'Middle Kingdom' as the centre of the world, and the evident presence of their culture as above that of others, has long been evident. The only difference between the Chinese on the one hand and the Europeans and Japanese on the other is the ability to project their power beyond their own sovereign territory.

Only when a nation of people is examined in the manner in which it treats its own minorities, and only when a nation of people is examined in the manner it treats those outside its borders which it extends its powers over, can its racist tendencies be truly understood.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 17:43
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The Chinese have long held an ethnic superiority complex. Their idea of China as the 'Middle Kingdom' as the centre of the world, and the evident presence of their culture as above that of others, has long been evident. The only difference between the Chinese on the one hand and the Europeans and Japanese on the other is the ability to project their power beyond their own sovereign territory.
 
The difference were maybe that the Chinese did not develop such intricate racial hierarchies based on percieved biological differencies as people did in the west. But they were for sure ethnocentric, thinking that their own culture were superior.
 
There were periods when the Chinese, if they had had the right ideology and ambition, indeed would have had the possibility to project their power beyond their own territory.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 956
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 20:24
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Well, China may not have developed the western kind of scientific method, still they were very much interested in science and observations (and categorizing) of nature, culture and similar. But still they do not dwelve in the kind of race fixated writings as one finds in the west.
That is because the Chinese missed the Darwin revolution. Darwin's concepts on evolution then gave some Europeans and Japanese the idea that superior races could exist and evolve.   The only twist was that the Europeans claimed that they had evolved into a superior race. The Japanese claimed that the rest of humanity had devolved leaving the unchanging Japanese as the superior race.
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Do not forget that Japan became rather influenced by west in their science and technology. They also adopted some of wests colonial and racial ideas.
 
  
Like the Chinese, the Japanese had the idea of ethno / cultural supereority long before any contact with colonial Europeans. "Proving" their racial supereority scientifially was a natural step. Once they had the scientific method, they did not need Europeans to develop "scientific" rascism.
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

It is rather difficult to know what they would have done if things had looked different. One can only speculate.
  
I agree, it is speculation. But the receipe is pretty clear and is the same for Asians and Europeans. .
A. Start with long developed concept of ethno cultural supereority
B   Add Darwinism and scientific method
C. Shake "A" and "B" together and presto, local scientists "discover" and "prove" that their race is superior. 
 
Just substitute "Chinese" for Anglo European, "Germanic" or Japanese.


Edited by Cryptic - 10 Aug 2009 at 20:34
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 04:20
All cultures within history have held the "belief" of centrality! Such is not a novelty, nor the classification of the "other" as barbarian. However, in discussing Racism we need to understand its association with Scientism and its penchant to believe the methodology of Science can be applied to all forms of study. One can understand the "superiority complex" of the Chinese within the simple terms of human behavior as to prejudice (preference for the familiar and immediate). In contrast, what is simply a projection of human behaviour--i.e. prejudice--was rationalized into Racism and given an institutionalized scientific veneer within the European context and fit quite nicely into political philosophy. As for modern day China, we have to keep in mind that it is still espousing the credo of the ultimate Apostle of Scientism, Karl Marx.Evil Smile
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 08:14
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

That is because the Chinese missed the Darwin revolution. Darwin's concepts on evolution then gave some Europeans and Japanese the idea that superior races could exist and evolve.   The only twist was that the Europeans claimed that they had evolved into a superior race. The Japanese claimed that the rest of humanity had devolved leaving the unchanging Japanese as the superior race.  
  
 
Well, the concepts of race existed in the west also before Darwin eventhough it was after his time that racial biology developed into a (pseudo) science. Good old Linne for example also categorized humans into different races.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Like the Chinese, the Japanese had the idea of ethno / cultural supereority long before any contact with colonial Europeans. "Proving" their racial supereority scientifially was a natural step. Once they had the scientific method, they did not need Europeans to develop "scientific" rascism.  
  
 
Well, the idea of ethno / cultural superiority is has been common in many cultures in many periods of time.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

I agree, it is speculation. But the receipe is pretty clear and is the same for Asians and Europeans. .
A. Start with long developed concept of ethno cultural supereority
B   Add Darwinism and scientific method
C. Shake "A" and "B" together and presto, local scientists "discover" and "prove" that their race is superior. 
 
Just substitute "Chinese" for Anglo European, "Germanic" or Japanese.
 
Not impossible, but we do not know, since most cultures develop their own version of looking at others.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  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 0.109 seconds.