Race and Status - Split from Small Countries in the EU

905 wrote:

I'm going on the basis that these conflicts are easily created. Surely they should be easily disspelled too? Otherwise there would be a build-up of conflict and hate in the world which would destroy us all.

You guessed it, I'm struggling to think of a single example. Eh, the Yugoslav identity worked well enough. Catholics in Scotland were once reviled, this is no longer the case. Nazi Germany reared its ugly head and old conflicts were forgotten, or at least de-prioritised. Maybe that's what we have in the EU: a de-prioritising of old hatreds. I imagine they would be difficult to re-prioritise.

Anti-semitism? Hmm, no, still with us several thousand years later. Colour prejudice? Same. How long have the English and French disliked each other? 500 years? Racism generally? We have evidence pretty much as far back as we have written sources, and a quick dip in p.ie demonstrates the magnificent continuity of xenophobia.

The detestation of Catholics in the UK has certainly decreased, but Cherie Blair's Catholicism was still worthy of much comment, even though Catholics are no longer considered to be agents of a foreign power.

Nor has the EU made all that much impact yet, even in 50 years. As someone pointed out, if it had been up to the "ordinary people" of France and Germany, rather than their "elites", the EU project would never have even been conceived, and by and large, when it is up to the "ordinary people", xenophobia and mistrust are still easily whipped up.

I don’t think racism goes back as far as you think; most authorities source it in renaissance Europe. Xenophobia is part of being human, every group defines itself by Others. But that’s different from active hostility. I can’t see the French and the British starting a war based on their dislikes.



I remember reading about conflict in Northern Ireland and what set them off in the late sixties. The idea that the two communities just naturally hate each other and occasionally fight looked pretty weak next to other factors. Ingrained hostility is a factor but it’s not what usually sets off violence.

905 wrote:

I don’t think racism goes back as far as you think; most authorities source it in renaissance Europe. Xenophobia is part of being human, every group defines itself by Others. But that’s different from active hostility. I can’t see the French and the British starting a war based on their dislikes.

I suspect that depends on what one means by racism - one could as easily claim that racism really begins in the nineteenth century by giving racism a pseudo-scientific footing (as per this article). People certainly have expressed active hostility to others based on what they considered as 'race', or 'people'. I'd call that racism - others might classify it as xenophobia, but the difference strikes me as academic.

Nor am I suggesting that, say, the French and the English would start a war based on dislike! Frankly, it's more important when they're being allies - the misunderstandings and fallings-out that marred Anglo-French cooperation in the two world wars are a good demonstration of the problem - and which, of course, are more relevant to the EU.

905 wrote:

I remember reading about conflict in Northern Ireland and what set them off in the late sixties. The idea that the two communities just naturally hate each other and occasionally fight looked pretty weak next to other factors. Ingrained hostility is a factor but it’s not what usually sets off violence.

On the other hand, what of the Peep O'Day boys and the Defenders?

Strictly speaking, racism is when you identify someone based on their physical attributes. People didn't believe that Africans were physically inferior to Europeans, whatever about cultural superiority.

The peep o'day boys and the defenders are no more likely to start another conflict than the black and tans or the Manchester matyrs are between us and the Brits.

905 wrote:

Strictly speaking, racism is when you identify someone based on their physical attributes. People didn't believe that Africans were physically inferior to Europeans, whatever about cultural superiority.

No, but then they didn't believe horses or oxen were, either - but they undoubtedly believed that Africans were inferior intellectually, spiritually, morally, and in every other way but physically.

905 wrote:

The peep o'day boys and the defenders are no more likely to start another conflict than the black and tans or the Manchester martyrs are between us and the Brits.

No, but the Orange Order, and its almost continuous conflicts with the various Catholic secret societies from the 1700's on, rather suggest that the two communities did not suddenly take up hating each other in the 1960's.

Tut tut ibis 'undoubtably'? Back that up please. They fought alongside the Ethiopians during the Crusades, don't you know.

And I hope you're not suggesting the Orange order is responsible for stoking up the troubles? Like the IRA they have been around for donkey years (where does that expression come from?) but their influence has undoubtably fluctuated wildly in that time.

905 wrote:

Tut tut ibis 'undoubtably'? Back that up please. They fought alongside the Ethiopians during the Crusades, don't you know.

Indeed, no, I don't know that. They went looking for the Christian kingdom of Prester John, though, which is generally identified with Ethiopia by modern scholars.

As to undoubtedly, there is a wealth of evidence from the slave trade. If you mean earlier than that, you are largely correct, but then you need a reasonable amount of contact with people to hate them properly - most countries hate their neighbours.

905 wrote:

And I hope you're not suggesting the Orange order is responsible for stoking up the troubles? Like the IRA they have been around for donkey years (where does that expression come from?) but their influence has undoubtably fluctuated wildly in that time.

Undoubtedly - but their continual existence as a sectarian organisation gives the lie to the idea that there was peace and harmony between the two communities in the North before the Troubles.

well I am talking about earlier than the slave trade, which is one of the reasons people began thinking that way. The continued existence of the Orange Order only shows that there was a strong sense of identity among the Protestants, that didn't neccessarily mean violence.

905 wrote:

well I am talking about earlier than the slave trade, which is one of the reasons people began thinking that way. The continued existence of the Orange Order only shows that there was a strong sense of identity among the Protestants, that didn't neccessarily mean violence.

Er....history of the Orange Order.

Oh I give up. Right, mankind will go on adding to its hate and forgetting none till, one day, the whole world succumbs to violence and bloodshed.

Hatred is usually born out of insecurity and a perception of threat. IMO when considering humanity it is better to start at a point where we are timid, self centred and insecure creatures rather than noble beasts with high ideals. We prefer to blame rather than accept responsibility.

It is usually more difficult to build trust than it is to divide.

The elite in Europe need to lead and show clear purpose. The EU is an outstanding political achievement and although it has faults can anyone imagine what Europe would be like now if it did not exist?

The problems with democratic distortion and lack of transparency in Europe are generally created by the Nation States.

905 wrote:

well I am talking about earlier than the slave trade, which is one of the reasons people began thinking that way. The continued existence of the Orange Order only shows that there was a strong sense of identity among the Protestants, that didn't neccessarily mean violence.

I very much agree with your view of racism as (if I understand you right) a post hoc justification for hostile action or relationship (I would say normally economically fuelled) against an outside party. It is difficult to envisage slavery without racism to justify it. Colonialism also requires racism as an ideological superstructure underneath which economic exploitation is the base. The Punch cartoons showing the Irish as simian and mindlessly violent are a close-to-home image of how the powerful view the people over which they have, or want to have, power.





In terms of this thread's topic, i would ask myself if the EU has overcome, or is in the process of overcoming these power relationships? I certainly think in the minds of people on the ground it has, to a certain extent, although people still define each other by nationality very strongly. When someone is killed, this is very evident, like the two Polish men in Dublin or the two French men in London this week - they are constantly defined by the nationality rather than, say by their trade or profession.

Did you find any resonance in the post-Referendum accusations from outside Ireland of the Irish vote having been an ignorant, stupid and uninformed vote? At risk of being a Joel (is it because I'm green?), I have to admit that I did.

905 wrote:

Oh I give up. Right, mankind will go on adding to its hate and forgetting none till, one day, the whole world succumbs to violence and bloodshed.

Well, I don't think that at all, particularly since racism, xenophobia, and 'bloody' nationalism (in all senses) have clearly been stronger in Europe at other periods in history. The problem clearly isn't entirely intractable, but I would certainly regard it as a very persistent and difficult one.

Organised xenophobia has never really been promoted in Ireland to the same extent as in the warring powers - even at its strongest, anti-English sentiment here would never have been as strong as, say anti-German feeling during WW2 was in the UK (or Russia!), so I think the Irish may underestimate it as a force.

Nor do I think that left to itself, prejudice simply clears up like a mild rash. Overcoming prejudice has always taken hard work and social leadership, whether that prejudice is nationalistic, racial, sexual, or social.

Squire wrote:

Hatred is usually born out of insecurity and a perception of threat. IMO when considering humanity it is better to start at a point where we are timid, self centred and insecure creatures rather than noble beasts with high ideals. We prefer to blame rather than accept responsibility.

It is usually more difficult to build trust than it is to divide.

The elite in Europe need to lead and show clear purpose. The EU is an outstanding political achievement and although it has faults can anyone imagine what Europe would be like now if it did not exist?

The problems with democratic distortion and lack of transparency in Europe are generally created by the Nation States.

I'd agree with all of that. Again, I think if you're a bit older, and grew up with a Europe of borders, you tend to see the EU as a much more positive achievement, and as much more of an achievement. I forgive a lot of its imperfections, because it is very much better than a Europe of competing nation-states for everyone - and so much better for Ireland particularly that it really doesn't bear thinking about.

cactus flower wrote:

It is difficult to envisage slavery without racism to justify it. Colonialism also requires racism as an ideological superstructure underneath which economic exploitation is the base.

The Greeks had slavery and imperialism, both without racism. Of course, their slaves weren't citizens.

I remember hearing about a programme on slavery some time ago about 'black' Swahili slave-traders selling slaves to work on islands in the Indian Ocean (I think ). An American black academic interviewed the grandaughter of a famous slave-trader and basically asked her how she could justify selling off her own people. Well, she didn't think he was black (being wealthy, American and English-speaking), and she certainly didn't think of herself as black (she thought of herself as a Muslim Arab). It was the central Africans she regarded as sub-human. Racism often has nothing to do with skin colour it seems.

We're gone way off topic. Ehh, so we're all agreed? The EU is good for small countries because large slavic countries (e.g. Poland) provide much needed slave labour.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

It is difficult to envisage slavery without racism to justify it. Colonialism also requires racism as an ideological superstructure underneath which economic exploitation is the base.

The Greeks had slavery and imperialism, both without racism. Of course, their slaves weren't citizens.

I remember hearing about a programme on slavery some time ago about 'black' Swahili slave-traders selling slaves to work on islands in the Indian Ocean (I think ). An American black academic interviewed the grandaughter of a famous slave-trader and basically asked her how she could justify selling off her own people. Well, she didn't think he was black (being wealthy, American and English-speaking), and she certainly didn't think of herself as black (she thought of herself as a Muslim Arab). It was the central Africans she regarded as sub-human. Racism often has nothing to do with skin colour it seems.

I did a development MSc in Edinburgh where the class was very broadly international. I remember one of the Kenyans (tall, handsome) telling me not to listen to one of the Nigerians (shorter and darker) because he was just a "dirty little nigger".

I was assured by a couple of the very politically correct English on the course that this was "colourism", not racism - which amused me, because it contains the hidden assumption that all Africans are the same race...

905 wrote:

We're gone way off topic. Ehh, so we're all agreed? The EU is good for small countries because large slavic countries (e.g. Poland) provide much needed slave labour.

Indubitably.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

It is difficult to envisage slavery without racism to justify it. Colonialism also requires racism as an ideological superstructure underneath which economic exploitation is the base.

The Greeks had slavery and imperialism, both without racism. Of course, their slaves weren't citizens.

I remember hearing about a programme on slavery some time ago about 'black' Swahili slave-traders selling slaves to work on islands in the Indian Ocean (I think ). An American black academic interviewed the grandaughter of a famous slave-trader and basically asked her how she could justify selling off her own people. Well, she didn't think he was black (being wealthy, American and English-speaking), and she certainly didn't think of herself as black (she thought of herself as a Muslim Arab). It was the central Africans she regarded as sub-human. Racism often has nothing to do with skin colour it seems.

We're gone way off topic. Ehh, so we're all agreed? The EU is good for small countries because large slavic countries (e.g. Poland) provide much needed slave labour.

I don't know too much about the Greeks attitudes to slaves - slaves then were mainly prisoners of war (or their children) weren't they?

Regarding slaves as subhuman, or less human than the slave owners, is exactly what I was talking about. Emancipation movements were based on the recognition that slaves were equal human beings "with souls". Irish youths were captured and sold into slavery in the West Indies by Cromwell: their descendants are still there living in very poor conditions. Colour is not really anything to do with why racism or slavery comes about I don't think, it is for economic reasons. I think what you say is a very interesting illustration of how power and class provide prestige irrespective of race and colour.

Anyone want me to split the thread?

cactus flower wrote:

Anyone want me to split the thread?

I'd go for that.

ibis wrote:

I did a development MSc in Edinburgh where the class was very broadly international. I remember one of the Kenyans (tall, handsome) telling me not to listen to one of the Nigerians (shorter and darker) because he was just a "dirty little nigger".

I was assured by a couple of the very politically correct English on the course that this was "colourism", not racism - which amused me, because it contains the hidden assumption that all Africans are the same race...

Colourism is a big deal in some parts of the world. The fairer a person's skin the better they are. I can't see how its different from racism.

In Latin America there were (and are) terribly complex grading systems, thanks to the intermingling of Whites, Indians and Blacks. They had terms for all sorts of combinations: half Indian, one-quater white and one-quater Black would have its own term and would have been considered quite different from half white, quater black, quater Indian. Then you added in non-racial things like one's class or occupation.

The real fun starts when this system faces the North American system, where the smallest hint of Black ancestry lumps you with every other Black person. Some of these mixed-blood types can be very contemtuous of people of lesser blood than they. Many Latin Americans - and you Kenyan friend too I think - have quite a shock when they get to America and find themselves treated the same as real Black people.

905 wrote:

ibis wrote:

I did a development MSc in Edinburgh where the class was very broadly international. I remember one of the Kenyans (tall, handsome) telling me not to listen to one of the Nigerians (shorter and darker) because he was just a "dirty little nigger".

I was assured by a couple of the very politically correct English on the course that this was "colourism", not racism - which amused me, because it contains the hidden assumption that all Africans are the same race...

Colourism is a big deal in some parts of the world. The fairer a person's skin the better they are. I can't see how its different from racism.

Yes - I never really got that myself. Any assumption that colourism is different from racism automatically suggests that race has validity as a discriminant.

I find the term 'reverse racism' equally odd. Visiting the old slave forts on the Ghanaian coast, you get quite a lot of attitude from black US roots tourists as well as some of the guys in town - but I'm not quite sure why it's "reverse". Perhaps I have it mixed up with 'positive discrimination', which I could consider reverse racism.

905 wrote:

In Latin America there were (and are) terribly complex grading systems, thanks to the intermingling of Whites, Indians and Blacks. They had terms for all sorts of combinations: half Indian, one-quater white and one-quater Black would have its own term and would have been considered quite different from half white, quater black, quater Indian. Then you added in non-racial things like one's class or occupation.

I can strongly recommend "Empires of the Atlantic World (Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830)".

905 wrote:

The real fun starts when this system faces the North American system, where the smallest hint of Black ancestry lumps you with every other Black person. Some of these mixed-blood types can be very contemptuous of people of lesser blood than they. Many Latin Americans - and you Kenyan friend too I think - have quite a shock when they get to America and find themselves treated the same as real Black people.

Well, the Kenyans in question were 'real Black people' - assuming that term to mean people with 100% black African ancestry. We did have a fellow of mostly African ancestry from Guyana (going purely on skin tone), and he considered himself a distinct cut above any of the other black students...well, to be fair, he considered himself a distinct cut above everyone, so perhaps that's not meaningful.

What's reverse racism? Explain it as best you can.

905 wrote:

What's reverse racism? Explain it as best you can.

Black people calling white people 'cracker' or 'whitey' - well, any minority calling the majority names.

I would have thought reverse racism is kind of like positive discrimination, ie favouring those of another race over one's own in an effort to either make amends for past discrimination or to avoid any perception of racism.

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:

ibis wrote:

I did a development MSc in Edinburgh where the class was very broadly international. I remember one of the Kenyans (tall, handsome) telling me not to listen to one of the Nigerians (shorter and darker) because he was just a "dirty little nigger".

I was assured by a couple of the very politically correct English on the course that this was "colourism", not racism - which amused me, because it contains the hidden assumption that all Africans are the same race...

Colourism is a big deal in some parts of the world. The fairer a person's skin the better they are. I can't see how its different from racism.

Yes - I never really got that myself. Any assumption that colourism is different from racism automatically suggests that race has validity as a discriminant

That's surely not true - it would just mean they were different forms of discrimination. However I have never heard the term "colourism". Definitions of race are fraught and mainly unscientific, but they are still not in the main tied solely to skin colour, many of them relate more to territory or culture. Discrimination on the basis of colour of skin would I presume always be a form of racism, but it is only one of many things that racism attaches itself to. You can get racism between Poles and Irish people, or Irish people and English people, that is not in any way colour based.

There is a lot discussion in the US about degrees of darkness in skin colour - mixed race people can be name called as yellow, dark skinned girls overlooked by black men in favour of lighter and so on. In general, the skin colour of the more powerful social group may in some contexts grant higher status. The caste system in India is another example. There have always been feeble attempts to back these forms of discrimination up with science but to no effect. In a divided society, cultural and ethnic differences are a handy thing to use as an excuse for division and inequality, if people don't want to look any further. The British were always particularly good at using one ethnic group to keep another, larger group down in the interests of the Empire.

ibis wrote:

I find the term 'reverse racism' equally odd. Visiting the old slave forts on the Ghanaian coast, you get quite a lot of attitude from black US roots tourists as well as some of the guys in town - but I'm not quite sure why it's "reverse". Perhaps I have it mixed up with 'positive discrimination', which I could consider reverse racism.

This is all terribly confusing. So reverse racism is minorities abusing majorities? That should e considered racism, pure and simple. In the West being Black is like being gay, it is a 'marked' identity. In the West white people don't think of themselves as white anymore than straight people think of tyhermselves as straight. I suppoes in Ghana the reverse is true, being white is a marked identtiy. Think of colonial officers and all that guff about how a white person should act among the natives.

Can you tell me more about this roots tourism in Africa? The documentary I alluded to earlier started with the Black academic arriving in Guinea somewhere and hailing the Africans as fellow brethern. But they thought of him as white, because of his education, wealth and English. This documentary could have been quite old.

Positive discrimination I always thought of myself as discriminating on the basis of one's inherent merits, as opposed to discriminating against someone on account of their religion or colour. An example is Catholic schools discriminating in favour of Catholic pupils.