Anti-White Institutionalized Racism

[Agnapostate]

I hear much agitation from online white supremacists about the institutionalized racism endured by whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe as the allegedly anti-colonialist social revolutions there allegedly disenfranchise the European populations of those countries, prompting mass emigration. To what extent are these contentions valid or based in fact?

[fa2991]

None.

[Stand Your Ground]

I don't know if I would call it racism or not but my girlfriend is white, she works with all people from India, they own a hotel, the boss sits on his ass, his wife spends the hotel's money and my girlfriend has to pick up the slack that the boss's daughters don't do or feel like doing. They play on the work computers most of the time and half ass the rooms. And they still make 2 or 3 times what my girlfriend makes. Maybe not racist but biased at least, IMO.

[bricolage]

I don't know if I would call it racism or not but my girlfriend is white, she works with all people from India, they own a hotel, the boss sits on his ass, his wife spends the hotel's money and my girlfriend has to pick up the slack that the boss's daughters don't do or feel like doing. They play on the work computers most of the time and half ass the rooms. And they still make 2 or 3 times what my girlfriend makes. Maybe not racist but biased at least, IMO.
Thats just nepotism, its not racism.

[hatzel]

I do know from a few documentaries I've seen that the Afrikaners at least consider themselves somewhat at risk from discrimination. This is to say, physical as well as anything. Lots of them bear arms and so on, and they sure think that there is discrimination against them, now that they're the minority.

Don't know if this is necessarily true, but some of them sure think it is. We might be able to assume that these ideas don't just appear out of thin air, but I doubt it's institutionalised. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that some discrimination against the whites exists. I don't see why we would assume that there isn't a single non-white in the whole country who would hold some kind of anti-white sentiment, and we might say that it's almost understandable, as a 'revenge' thing, but institutionalised? I don't think I buy that, but the abolishment of institutionalised privileges could be construed by some as almost paramount to institutionalised racism, relatively speaking. In comparison to how it was. Might just take a little while, I think it's mainly the older generations who were used to the old system, whilst the younger people don't have the frame of comparison, so don't feel the change.

[Aesop]

:lol:Well to white nationalists the holocaust didn't happen, biologically races exist, so i would not really take what they say to have any substantial truth. In such countries like south africa it is not the minority white poplution that often finds it self at the end of poor schooling, long-term unemployment. In regards to mass migration that is a myth, although in south africa there was a small amount of emigration to australia for different reasons but it was not down to unbearable racism towards 'whites.

[bricolage]

Re: South Africa, ideas of white discrimination come from policies like 'Black Economic Empowerment', a form of positive discrimination and proposed land reform... as it happens BEE has been nothing but cronyism and the ANC has lagged even behind the World Bank on land reform, meaning most of it is still white owned. Additionally the country remains essentially as spatially segregated as it ever was, black South Africans may now have the right to move where they want, but it doesn't mean anything when you can't afford to do so. Like Krimskrans said I'm sure some black South Africans feel very negatively about white South Africans, why wouldn't they considering the history, that being said I don't buy into the whole reverse racism discourse nor do I think this is in anyway 'institutionalised'.

[hatzel]

Yes, I'd agree. I think if you're used to your dominance being institutionalised, the minute the institution changes, even if just to bring about complete equality, you'll consider the institution to be acting against you. That said, I believe I'm also right to suggest that the western half is still pretty much black-free (okay, I exaggerate, but that's surely Orange country), although it's sparsely populated. So we might say that the minority whites still effectively 'own' vast swathes of land, but I'm not sure how many of the non-whites would even want to live out in the sticks...

We might be able to consider this stuff natural. It will take at least a generation or two for relations to get anything like normal. I don't remember the end of slavery in the US magically creating complete equality between all people. In the same way, the end of enforced segregation doesn't automatically end voluntary segregation, or segregation stemming from other causes, such as land prices.

[bricolage]

So we might say that the minority whites still effectively 'own' vast swathes of land, but I'm not sure how many of the non-whites would even want to live out in the sticks...
When I mentioned spatial considerations I was thinking on more of a micro-urban scale, ie. Alexandra vs Sandton in Johannesburg.

[Obzervi]

The retaliation against the white ruling class was justified, considering they had oppressed for indigenous populations for so long. No sympathy in my book, they don't belong in Africa anyway. If anything the whites should be happy the blacks don't drive them into the sea for all the shit they've done.

[Agnapostate]

I'm wondering about the claims made by sources such as this page (http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2010/08/afrikaners-are-starving-pictures.html). I'd say that maybe in South Africa it's the sort of informal de facto disempowerment more than de jure institutionalized racial discrimination? But the mass media frequently claims that the Mugabe government of Zimbabwe orchestrates racially discriminatory policies against white farmers regardless of their socioeconomic status, justifying confiscatory actions with anti-colonial rhetoric. I know that both countries are characterized by massive white emigration rates.


The retaliation against the white ruling class was justified, considering they had oppressed for indigenous populations for so long. No sympathy in my book, they don't belong in Africa anyway. If anything the whites should be happy the blacks don't drive them into the sea for all the shit they've done.

How does this apply to whites with no complicity in the matter, born in these African countries into the present circumstances? They're being punished for an accident of birth that they had no choice or control over?

[Wanted Man]

I do know from a few documentaries I've seen that the Afrikaners at least consider themselves somewhat at risk from discrimination. This is to say, physical as well as anything. Lots of them bear arms and so on, and they sure think that there is discrimination against them, now that they're the minority.

Weren't they always the minority?

[hatzel]

Weren't they always the minority?

I meant the abstract minority. Minority, powerwise, rather than in terms of numbers :thumbup1: As if they used to be the majority, just with a much smaller population than the enforced minority or...something like that...I didn't want to say 'oppressed', or 'weak', because these are all a bit too loaded for me...

[Amphictyonis]

Thats just capitalism, its not racism.

fixed :)

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

While it's true that the "reverse discrimination" in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and ANC South Africa are white supremacist fictions, I would make the argument regarding the latter situation that the Afrikaners are colonized by the South African political state, and suffer from disproportionate political and economic discrimination in comparison to English-speaking whites. Very similar to the Scotch-Irish "hillbillies" of Appalachia.

[Queercommie Girl]

While it's true that the "reverse discrimination" in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and ANC South Africa are white supremacist fictions, I would make the argument regarding the latter situation that the Afrikaners are colonized by the South African political state, and suffer from disproportionate political and economic discrimination in comparison to English-speaking whites. Very similar to the Scotch-Irish "hillbillies" of Appalachia.

You mean the Dutch colonists in South Africa were colonised by the English?

It's true that one shouldn't put all white people into a single simplistic category in all contexts. Often colonialism exists as a complex sum of multiple layers of oppression.

Example: In many parts of south-east Asia: there is a three-tier system of colonialism, not a two-tier one. E.g. in Taiwan when it was under Dutch rule, you had the Taiwanese aboriginals at the very bottom, the later Han Chinese migrants in the middle, and the Dutch colonists at the top. Later when Taiwan was under Japanese domination, the top colonialist layer was replaced by Japanese imperialists. In many other parts of south-east Asia like Malaysia when it was under European colonialism, the ethnic Chinese migrants in the area often acted as a "middling layer" between the Europeans and the natives.

In a sense the Afrikaners were a "middling layer" between the English-speaking white colonists and the various native black tribes like the Zulu.

But then just as the biggest oppressors of men are usually other men, the biggest oppressors of white people are usually other white people, not coloured people. In this sense then "reverse racism" simply doesn't exist.

[gorillafuck]

I don't know if I would call it racism or not but my girlfriend is white, she works with all people from India, they own a hotel, the boss sits on his ass, his wife spends the hotel's money and my girlfriend has to pick up the slack that the boss's daughters don't do or feel like doing. They play on the work computers most of the time and half ass the rooms. And they still make 2 or 3 times what my girlfriend makes. Maybe not racist but biased at least, IMO.
That's because they're bourgeois, not because they're Indian. Jesus Christ that's so blindingly obvious.

[Stand Your Ground]

That's because they're bourgeois, not because they're Indian. Jesus Christ that's so blindingly obvious.
Never said it was because they are Indian, that would be fucked.

I was saying how the other employees that are Indian get treated better than the one who is white.

[Dimentio]

You mean the Dutch colonists in South Africa were colonised by the English?

It's true that one shouldn't put all white people into a single simplistic category in all contexts. Often colonialism exists as a complex sum of multiple layers of oppression.

Example: In many parts of south-east Asia: there is a three-tier system of colonialism, not a two-tier one. E.g. in Taiwan when it was under Dutch rule, you had the Taiwanese aboriginals at the very bottom, the later Han Chinese migrants in the middle, and the Dutch colonists at the top. Later when Taiwan was under Japanese domination, the top colonialist layer was replaced by Japanese imperialists. In many other parts of south-east Asia like Malaysia when it was under European colonialism, the ethnic Chinese migrants in the area often acted as a "middling layer" between the Europeans and the natives.

In a sense the Afrikaners were a "middling layer" between the English-speaking white colonists and the various native black tribes like the Zulu.

But then just as the biggest oppressors of men are usually other men, the biggest oppressors of white people are usually other white people, not coloured people. In this sense then "reverse racism" simply doesn't exist.

Another classical example of three layer oppression is Norman England. At the bottom, there were the Celts, then the Anglo-saxons, and the Norman aristocracy on the top.

[cska]

I wish South Africa did more to redistribute the wealth of the whites there. Unfortunately, between Mandela and the fall of the USSR, the ANC never got to do much.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/09/11/from-nepali-maoists-a-critique-of-negotiated-betrayal-in-south-africa/

[GreenCommunism]

about 1,800 farmers are dead out of 45 000, this is far too less to be a genocide, i think those farmers reproduce faster than they die.

there is about 4-5 million white in south africa, there is no anti-white genocide.

[Adi Shankara]

about 1,800 farmers are dead out of 45 000, this is far too less to be a genocide, i think those farmers reproduce faster than they die.

there is about 4-5 million white in south africa, there is no anti-white genocide.

What almost all of these statistics ignore is that the majority of crime victims in South Africa aren't white, but black. It just goes to show that the media once again is highlighting the deaths of whites over blacks, as if white skin is more valuable than black skin. the number of whites being murdered in south africa is actually proportionate to their numbers in the population.

http://writingrights.org/2010/01/12/race-class-violent-crime-in-south-africa-dispelling-the-huntley-thesis/

the highest murder rates in south Africa are still in the townships, which are usually between 90%-100% black or "coloured".

[GreenCommunism]

What almost all of these statistics ignore is that the majority of crime victims in South Africa aren't white, but black. It just goes to show that the media once again is highlighting the deaths of whites over blacks, as if white skin is more valuable than black skin. the number of whites being murdered in south africa is actually proportionate to their numbers in the population.

http://writingrights.org/2010/01/12/...untley-thesis/

the highest murder rates in south Africa are still in the townships, which are usually between 90%-100% black or "coloured".

good point, but the so called genocide is about the farmers, which i think are a majority white.

[Aesop]

What almost all of these statistics ignore is that the majority of crime victims in South Africa aren't white, but black. It just goes to show that the media once again is highlighting the deaths of whites over blacks, as if white skin is more valuable than black skin. the number of whites being murdered in south africa is actually proportionate to their numbers in the population.

http://writingrights.org/2010/01/12/race-class-violent-crime-in-south-africa-dispelling-the-huntley-thesis/

the highest murder rates in south Africa are still in the townships, which are usually between 90%-100% black or "coloured".

A bit of topic, but why did you put coloured in quotation marks?

[cska]

A bit of topic, but why did you put coloured in quotation marks?

Probably cause blacks are no more colored than whites. I mean, pretty much everyone in the world is actually quite close to grayscale. You get some brownness but that isn't too much actual color.

[hatzel]

And that saying that blacks and coloureds are distinct populations...well, clearly, even from a "if you're not white, you're coloured"-perspective, the blacks and Indians are just as coloured as the 'coloureds', so it's a bit of a stupid word :thumbup1:

[Aesop]

Probably cause blacks are no more colored than whites. I mean, pretty much everyone in the world is actually quite close to grayscale. You get some brownness but that isn't too much actual color.

?
I don't think the poster meant that, seeing as the term black is not in quotation marks

[Adi Shankara]

A bit of topic, but why did you put coloured in quotation marks?

Because in South Africa, it's a technical and legal term for someone who is of mixed race or is of Malaysian and black or Malaysian and white origin is "colored".

[LC89]

CSI/CSI Miami arrest black and Hispanics all the time as I recall.

[hatzel]

CSI/CSI Miami arrest black and Hispanics all the time as I recall.

...relevance? :confused:

[Aesop]

Because in South Africa, it's a technical and legal term for someone who is of mixed race or is of Malaysian and black or Malaysian and white origin is "colored".

I would have imagined that both the term 'Black' and 'White' are technical and legal terms in south africa, however you never put quotation marks around them. Just wondering why you only put it for coloured?

[iwwforever]

There is an article in the NY Times today (Í know, I know :blushing:) about how the blacks are not even getting minimum wage in South Africa.

South Africa is capitalist, therefore the poor, who in South Africa are black, are exploited and discriminated against.

Racism is a tool invented by the rich whites to make poor stupid whites side with the rich against their own interests.

[bricolage]

I would have imagined that both the term 'Black' and 'White' are technical and legal terms in south africa, however you never put quotation marks around them. Just wondering why you only put it for coloured?
If you called someone coloured anywhere round where I live chances are they might hit you. Outside South Africa black and white don't have the racist connotation that coloured does, thus there is a need to separate the South African technical/legal term from that of Western discourse in a way that is not necessary for black and white.

[Kiev Communard]

The only "Anti-White institutionalized racism" that ever existed was Nazi discrimination against the Slavs (who are obviously "whites") and their virtual enslavement on the occupied territory but this was, of course, perpetuated by the other "whites", not Africans or Asians.

[bricolage]

The only "Anti-White institutionalized racism" that ever existed was Nazi discrimination against the Slavs (who are obviously "whites") and their virtual enslavement on the occupied territory but this was, of course, perpetuated by the other "whites", not Africans or Asians.
However this was done on the basis of a shifting conception of what was 'white', white being a social category and not solely based on what your skin looks like. I doubt any Nazi thought of Slavs as 'white'.

[Kiev Communard]

I doubt any Nazi thought of Slavs as 'white'.

Actually Nazis did not believe in a sort of "all-white supremacy" that modern Neo-Nazis advocate, assigning different places in "racial hierarchy" even to Scandinavians and Dutch, not speaking of any other European ethnicities more removed from the Germans. Therefore, for Nazis, for instance, the Eastern Slav (Russian or Ukrainian) was just as "subhuman" as Arab or the Black.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually Nazis did not believe in a sort of "all-white supremacy" that modern Neo-Nazis advocate, assigning different places in "racial hierarchy" even to Scandinavians and Dutch, not speaking of any other European ethnicities more removed from the Germans. Therefore, for Nazis, for instance, the Eastern Slav (Russian or Ukrainian) was just as "subhuman" as Arab or the Black.

Actually the white Slavs were still considered to be higher than Asiatic peoples and Arabs, who in turn are considered to be higher than Blacks and Jews.

[Kiev Communard]

Actually the white Slavs were still considered to be higher than Asiatic peoples and Arabs, who in turn are considered to be higher than Blacks and Jews.

True, but Hitler was immense opportunist and, when he found it useful, actually deviated from his own "racial theory", as his characterization of Japanese as "Aryans of the East" and cooperation with Mufti of Jerusalem shows.

[bricolage]

Actually Nazis did not believe in a sort of "all-white supremacy" that modern Neo-Nazis advocate, assigning different places in "racial hierarchy" even to Scandinavians and Dutch, not speaking of any other European ethnicities more removed from the Germans. Therefore, for Nazis, for instance, the Eastern Slav (Russian or Ukrainian) was just as "subhuman" as Arab or the Black.
I agree but I imagine they still thought of Germans as 'white' in a way that they wouldn't have conceived Slavs.

[Queercommie Girl]

True, but Hitler was immense opportunist and, when he found it useful, actually deviated from his own "racial theory", as his characterization of Japanese as "Aryans of the East" and cooperation with Mufti of Jerusalem shows.

Hitler was a lunatic who didn't really have a consistent political line anyway. He actually praised the Chinese and Japanese in some of his writings and admitted that in the past East Asian civilisation was superior to European civilisation, despite labelling Chinese and Japanese as racially inferior "Asiatics".

[hatzel]

...ah...did Hitler really talk about whites? Surely he was carping on about Aryans and the Germanic peoples all the time. I wouldn't consider Hitler a white-supremacist, anway, instead a Germanic-supremacist.

[hatzel]

The only "Anti-White institutionalized racism" that ever existed was Nazi discrimination against the Slavs (who are obviously "whites") and their virtual enslavement on the occupied territory but this was, of course, perpetuated by the other "whites", not Africans or Asians.

Oh, actually...I know it's kind of scraping the historical barrel, but it might not be too controversial to claim that China had some level of anti-white institutionalised racism. Opium war era, when whites weren't allowed in most of the country. Might count, don't you think?

[cska]

Oh, actually...I know it's kind of scraping the historical barrel, but it might not be too controversial to claim that China had some level of anti-white institutionalised racism. Opium war era, when whites weren't allowed in most of the country. Might count, don't you think?

:laugh: That was anti-imperialism. Not racism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh, actually...I know it's kind of scraping the historical barrel, but it might not be too controversial to claim that China had some level of anti-white institutionalised racism. Opium war era, when whites weren't allowed in most of the country. Might count, don't you think?

Not really, any official "anti-white" policy only lasted for an extremely brief period of time because the corrupt feudal Qing court was only too happy to suck up to the Western imperialists. (In fact, often the Qing government allied itself with the Western imperialists against its own people, such as during the Taiping peasant rebellion)

Of course, "anti-white" feelings existed among the Chinese masses at the time, but it isn't really racism, just a natural response towards the oppression of Western imperialism and colonialism, no more than radical feminism is sexist towards males.

[hatzel]

I'm not sure if we can just dismiss all non-white discrimination of whites as anti-imperialism. That lovely, imperialist, Sino-centric regime in China would be far from the top of my list of non-discriminatory states, in fact. Irrespective, if some white nation said that the blacks were only allowed to live in one city or something, that would be institutionalised racism. So how can we let the Chinese by with limiting white merchants to Canton (am I right?), without any suggestion of that being discriminatory? By this logic, even if SA were to have official, legal discrimination against the white population, we'd just class it as anti-imperialism, rather than racism. Which I think is the wrong line to take, personally. Because then what's to say that some European nation can't put laws into place, saying the blacks can only live in certain regions, not as racism but as 'anti-crime measures', or setting up dedicated Muslim cities to 'prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalist ideas amongst the general populace'. Any nation with laws dictating specific areas where a given ethnic group are or aren't allowed to live, be it the Pale of Settlement, the Bantustans, or Canton, are putting fundamentally discriminatory actions into place. By this logic, some of China's actions in the name of anti-imperialism were racism, not surprising given the superior attitude of Chinese emperors (a habit which dies slowly), so could easily be classed as such for the purpose of this argument. Hence my suggestion that anti-white institutionalised racism has existed, and could exist again, unless we disregard and / or reclassify it as something else, which merely works on the assumption that whites are the 'superior', 'imperialist' race, which isn't always a fair assessment, strictly speaking...

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure if we can just dismiss all non-white discrimination of whites as anti-imperialism.


In the context of 19th century feudal China we can.



That lovely, imperialist, Sino-centric regime in China would be far from the top of my list of non-discriminatory states, in fact.
Well, frankly every single state that has ever existed in class society can never be completely non-discriminatory. Discrimination is an universal feature in every type of class society. But in the 19th century there was far more anti-Chinese racism on the part of the Europeans than anti-European racism on the part of the Chinese. Even in certain "special regions" within China itself, Chinese people were not allowed to enter.

The imperialism of the Manchu Qing dynasty was certainly not on the same level as European capitalist imperialism and colonialism. The Qing may have conquered Tibet, but in practice Tibet always had a large amount of autonomy, which was not the case for the colonised peoples of Africa, the Americas and elsewhere at all.



Irrespective, if some white nation said that the blacks were only allowed to live in one city or something, that would be institutionalised racism. So how can we let the Chinese by with limiting white merchants to Canton (am I right?), without any suggestion of that being discriminatory?
Restricting foreign capitalists isn't really discrimination at all, it was just a pre-cautionary measure against the domination of free capital. Marxists don't see this as bad because we don't believe in free trade.

There was never any "discriminatory code" that was actually based on skin colour in feudal China, not like say in European-controlled South Africa.



By this logic, even if SA were to have official, legal discrimination against the white population, we'd just class it as anti-imperialism, rather than racism.
The example here is not a good one at all. Suppose America actually starts invading South Africa militarily and economically, and then South Africa restricts the movement of American citizens on its soil, would that be anti-imperialism or racism? The Chinese policies during the Qing were more like this. There was no racist law against "white people" in general (a concept which didn't even exist in 19th century China), only against citizens of hostile and imperialist states that were invading China militarily and economically.



Which I think is the wrong line to take, personally. Because then what's to say that some European nation can't put laws into place, saying the blacks can only live in certain regions, not as racism but as 'anti-crime measures', or setting up dedicated Muslim cities to 'prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalist ideas amongst the general populace'.
Again you are just comparing apples and oranges. "Blacks" and "Muslims" aren't the same kind of thing, the former is a physical race, the latter is a religion. You can be of any physical race and still be a Muslim. Absolute freedom isn't a good idea. In a socialist state we will indeed restrict people's freedom to spread fundamentalist religious ideas, because religious fundamentalism is objectively harmful to society. It doesn't mean religion itself will be banned, only certain interpretations of it.

In the context of 19th century China, none of these would apply. The Qing government never restricted anyone based on their race or creed, only on the basis of citizenship since some countries were being hostile to China in the militaristic and economic senses.

If two countries are at war, whether a direct war or a "cold war", and they restrict the movement of the other country's citizens on their soil, then it's certainly not racism or discrimination against a particular religion in any kind of institutional sense at all.

Qing China was in a state of war or semi-war with most of the Western capitalist powers in the 19th century.



By this logic, some of China's actions in the name of anti-imperialism were racism, not surprising given the superior attitude of Chinese emperors (a habit which dies slowly), so could easily be classed as such for the purpose of this argument.
"Opinions" don't matter as much as facts. The fact is that China was relatively weak to the European powers, and therefore the European powers were relatively speaking the imperialists while China was the oppressed. Socialists believe in the unconditional protection of the weak. A weak person doing certain things and a strong person doing the same aren't the same kind of thing. We are biased towards the weak.

Also, you don't really have any kind of class consciousness it seems. The sense of superiority that Chinese feudal emperors and the feudal aristocracy had was primarily based on class, not race. As I said the people that the Chinese landlord class led by the emperor oppressed the most were not actually foreigners, but China's own poor peasant masses.



Hence my suggestion that anti-white institutionalised racism has existed, and could exist again, unless we disregard and / or reclassify it as something else,
It's not anti-white institutionalised racism, because it was not based on race (the concept of "white race" didn't exist in Qing China), but solely on nationality. In fact, there were a few white people who actually became Qing citizens and there was no institutional discrimination against them at all.

And China was certainly not the only state that had this kind of laws at all.



which merely works on the assumption that whites are the 'superior', 'imperialist' race, which isn't always a fair assessment, strictly speaking...It's not an assumption based on any abstract considerations of race, only an objective historical fact in that in recent centuries, Western capitalist states were the most powerful, most aggressive and most imperialist in the entire world. This has obviously not always been the case. Before the capitalist era began, Europe in the Middle Ages was actually a very backward place compared with Asia.

The fundamental problem lies not with race or culture, but with capitalism.

[Adi Shankara]

The only "Anti-White institutionalized racism" that ever existed was Nazi discrimination against the Slavs (who are obviously "whites") and their virtual enslavement on the occupied territory but this was, of course, perpetuated by the other "whites", not Africans or Asians.

...Most of the Ottoman Empire?

Also, while it's no where near as bad as anything on the mainland, I'd say there is institutionalized racism against white people (and black people) at the hands of those who are of Asian descent.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually the white Slavs were still considered to be higher than Asiatic peoples and Arabs, who in turn are considered to be higher than Blacks and Jews.

I wish you would stop pretending to know history. Many slavs were considered Asiatic by the Nazi party, hence the justification for their extermination.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wish you would stop pretending to know history. Many slavs were considered Asiatic by the Nazi party, hence the justification for their extermination.

I wish you would stop harassing me with your BS superiority complex attitude. Many slavs were considered to be "white", but of an inferior stock.

[L.A.P.]

I don't know if I would call it racism or not but my girlfriend is white, she works with all people from India, they own a hotel, the boss sits on his ass, his wife spends the hotel's money and my girlfriend has to pick up the slack that the boss's daughters don't do or feel like doing. They play on the work computers most of the time and half ass the rooms. And they still make 2 or 3 times what my girlfriend makes. Maybe not racist but biased at least, IMO.

I would call that capitalism.

[hatzel]

...I don't actually really care about imperial China, to be honest. What I'm suggesting is that if we came to the conclusion that we didn't want low-quality dangerous Chinese fireworks flooding the country, and we decided to counter it by blanket banning the Chinese (or anybody who even looks Chinese) from freely entering the country, be they merchant, missionary or traveller, we might rub people up the wrong way...all I'm saying...

I'll also point out that comparing Western and Chinese imperialism is pretty pointless. As far as I understand, China's whole Tianxia concept pretty much gave the Chinese emperors boundless control. At least the Europeans had an idea of their empire having borders, rather than naturally assuming that everything is theirs, and all other leaders are mere vassals. Wasn't this the whole problem with the Europeans going to China? That the Chinese naturally assumed that they, as vassals, would be subservient parts of the empire, but the Europeans had other ideas?

I don't pretend to be an expert of any of this, because I've never cared for such history, but as I know that non-white discrimination of whites happens, it's not difficult for me to assume that it's been institutionalised at some point. Perhaps in post-Greek India, perhaps in post-Roman Carthage, 19th century China, post-colonial Algeria, whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if something resembling institutionalised racism wouldn't have existed at all in these, amongst many other, examples. No white monopoly on racism, thank you very much...

[Queercommie Girl]

...I don't actually really care about imperial China, to be honest. What I'm suggesting is that if we came to the conclusion that we didn't want low-quality dangerous Chinese fireworks flooding the country, and we decided to counter it by blanket banning the Chinese (or anybody who even looks Chinese) from freely entering the country, be they merchant, missionary or traveller, we might rub people up the wrong way...all I'm saying...


That's fucking BS. Even if China enters into a literal war with Britain today it would only be Chinese citizens who would be affected, including Chinese citizens that happen to be racially white, not all ethnic Chinese people, and certainly not everyone who looks Chinese.

Economic and military conflicts are based on nationality, not race.



I'll also point out that comparing Western and Chinese imperialism is pretty pointless.
Then obviously you don't understand much Marxism. European imperialism was based on the capitalist mode of production. Chinese imperialism was not. The former is hence much more powerful as well as exploitative.



As far as I understand, China's whole Tianxia concept pretty much gave the Chinese emperors boundless control. At least the Europeans had an idea of their empire having borders, rather than naturally assuming that everything is theirs, and all other leaders are mere vassals. Wasn't this the whole problem with the Europeans going to China? That the Chinese naturally assumed that they, as vassals, would be subservient parts of the empire, but the Europeans had other ideas?
Your interpretation of the Tianxia idea is highly flawed. If what you said is true, then ancient China would never have had maps with borders, but there were maps of China with borders in ancient China.

The "whole problem" with the Europeans going to China was actually that the European capitalists were trying to exploit China as a country with foreign capital. You don't even know this and yet you claim to be a leftist? Quite shameful to be frank.



I don't pretend to be an expert of any of this, because I've never cared for such history, but as I know that non-white discrimination of whites happens, it's not difficult for me to assume that it's been institutionalised at some point. Perhaps in post-Greek India, perhaps in post-Roman Carthage, 19th century China, post-colonial Algeria, whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if something resembling institutionalised racism wouldn't have existed at all in these, amongst many other, examples. No white monopoly on racism, thank you very much...
It's funny because I don't even see why as a Jewish person yourself you would defend white Europeans in general so much. You might proudly consider yourself to be white European, but many white Europeans seem to have other ideas, from the Nazis under Hitler to the anti-Semitic reactionaries today. Need I remind you of the severe anti-Semiticism that existed during the Middle Ages in Europe? What a sharp contrast it was to how the Jewish migrants were received in ancient China when they arrived at the Song dynasty capital Kaifeng!

It goes back to my original point actually: when white people experience racism, in the majority of cases it was in the hands of other white people, not non-white people. E.g. white Jews at the hands of white Nazis; Irish people at the hands of the English; Slavs at the hands of the Germans...

[Kiev Communard]

...ah...did Hitler really talk about whites? Surely he was carping on about Aryans and the Germanic peoples all the time. I wouldn't consider Hitler a white-supremacist, anway, instead a Germanic-supremacist.

Yes, the idea of "united white race" was quite alien to the Nazis. The fact that they considered Slavs who are actually the closest to Germanic peoples among other Indo-Europeans "subhuman" and placed the Dutch, who were in Medieval times quite closely connected with other Germanic ethnic groups, below the "true" Germans testifies to the fact of them being "ethnocentrists" rather than "racialists" in the modern sense of this term.

[Kiev Communard]

In the context of 19th century China, none of these would apply. The Qing government never restricted anyone based on their race or creed, only on the basis of citizenship since some countries were being hostile to China in the militaristic and economic senses.





Actually the Qing was openly Manchu-centric, considering the Han Chinese, and even more so the so-called "Barbaric" peoples (i.e. the indigenous population of South China, Tibet, Xinkiang and Inner Mongolia), the "lesser people". And the "Sacred Edict" of Kangxi Emperor specifically targeted Muslim and Christian missionary activities. However, this obviously does not reply any sort of modern-type racism or nationalism, merely the sense of ethnic and religious superiority typical to the ruling classes of pre-capitalist class societies.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually the Qing was openly Manchu-centric, considering the Han Chinese, and even more so the so-called "Barbaric" peoples (i.e. the indigenous population of South China, Tibet, Xinkiang and Inner Mongolia), the "lesser people". And the "Sacred Edict" of Kangxi Emperor specifically targeted Muslim and Christian missionary activities. However, this obviously does not reply any sort of modern-type racism or nationalism, merely the sense of ethnic and religious superiority typical to the ruling classes of pre-capitalist class societies.

One of the main ethnic minorities in China, the Hui, were actually Muslim, so clearly Islam was a religion that was accepted in general in Qing China.

Kangxi emperor actually had a very good opinion of Catholicism initially, but his view of it changed when the Pope sent an order to the missionaries in China stating that Confucian rites are incompatible with the Christian religion. Kangxi then drove all the missionaries out of China in anger as a response.

Europeans were never institutionally discriminated as a race in Qing China though.

[hatzel]

That's fucking BS. Even if China enters into a literal war with Britain today it would only be Chinese citizens who would be affected, including Chinese citizens that happen to be racially white, not all ethnic Chinese people, and certainly not everyone who looks Chinese.

Economic and military conflicts are based on nationality, not race.

Of course not today. Because that would be offensive, and contrary to international law and all that shit. But think of the Swedish East India Company. I don't remember Sweden and China ever going to war, and the Swedish empire definitely never got out there. Were Swedes then able to operate freely in China, walk out of the city limits without being instantly beheaded? No. No they weren't.



Then obviously you don't understand much Marxism. European imperialism was based on the capitalist mode of production. Chinese imperialism was not. The former is hence much more powerful as well as exploitative.

Supposedly. Considering the topic in question involves the Chinese putting in their own economic monopoly, refusing to freely allow non-Chinese trade in Chinese territories, even at this time, it seems as though they've got a decent capitalist idea going on. Still, my statement remains. Can't compare the two, because they're totally different. They're powerful in entirely different ways, and exploitative in totally different ways.



If what you said is true, then ancient China would never have had maps with borders, but there were maps of China with borders in ancient China.

Maps of the Ottoman empire had borders between the provinces, and had lines to show the various vassal states in the Balkans, and those territories paying tribute. Were they not then part of the Ottoman empire? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Chinese opinion of these neighbouring states that they were technically considered vassals? From whom tribute could be expected to be paid at any time, as their authority was effectively down to the emperor himself? Not unlike the Holy Roman Empire, I guess, a bunch of effectively autonomous states, with the Holy Roman Emperor still claiming absolute authority over the region?


The "whole problem" with the Europeans going to China was actually that the European capitalists were trying to exploit China as a country with foreign capital.

In retrospect, yes. Well, not the whole problem, but part of it. But...take the expansion of Russia, which was economic, too. Were all those Siberia tribes fighting the Russians coming out because they didn't want to be exploited economically? I think not. And I would argue that the Chinese weren't there thinking 'oh no, I don't want to be exploited economically!', more 'I don't want those Europeans setting up their little colonies here and taking my land'. The economic concerns were nothing, as they had already been perfectly happily trading with Europeans for centuries, it was about territory, and the control of territory, the seas and so on, totally irrespective of economic concerns beyond the desire to maintain effective ports. In fact, allowing the European ships into the specified ports was for the intention of strengthening the Chinese economy by allowing European involvement. As long as they don't come taking land. And, as suggested, this was as much a Chinese economic concern as anything else, their actions were to defend their own trade networks.[/QUOTE]




You might proudly consider yourself to be white European

Nope! Definite minority identification going on over here :thumbup1:


It goes back to my original point actually: when white people experience racism, in the majority of cases it was in the hands of other white people, not non-white people. E.g. white Jews at the hands of white Nazis; Irish people at the hands of the English; Slavs at the hands of the Germans...

Casual anti-white discrimination at non-white hands is actually pretty common. Institutionalised, state-driven and so on, sure, far less common. Doesn't mean we can run around claiming it's never existed, though, just because most of us view the world through white or white-dominated eyes. Perhaps if we could look in at ourselves through the eyes of a Papuan tribesman or a Chinese farmer we'd have a somewhat different opinion of the whole thing...who knows?

[Reznov]

Never said it was because they are Indian, that would be fucked.

I was saying how the other employees that are Indian get treated better than the one who is white.

Well obviously it would be, or else everyone would say your racist here on this forum.

Now, if you were Indian and complained about White Americans behaving this way (Which any Bourgeoisie would do) then you would probably get some rep.

[Kiev Communard]

One of the main ethnic minorities in China, the Hui, were actually Muslim, so clearly Islam was a religion that was accepted in general in Qing China.

I beg your pardon but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt)


Obviously the Qing rule was universally hated not only by the Han (as Taiping Rebellion and the Nien Rebellion showed) but also by ethnic minority (most significantly Muslim), and the Qing regarded both Christianity and Islam with immense suspicion, as well as all non-traditional religious practice (such as those of White Lotus Society) in general. Though this is obviously off-topic :).

[progressive_lefty]

I've met a lot of South Africans that boast about Apartheid. It should come to no surprise that they find themselves in this situation. Colonisation is obviously a massive cause of the issues gripping the African continent.

Something that bothers me though, is seeing soo many white South Africans leaving their country and coming to places like Australia(my country) because they feel like they can no longer make the big bucks that they used too (under apartheid). And I've met stacks of South Africans and Zimbabweans that have backward views of black people. I met a white South African who described Africa as 'just one big hole'. To think of all the cheesy things you could say to girls about yourself, and you wouldn't even bother pulling the one out of the bag about how your soo sexy because your from Africa.. I know I would be guilty of saying something like that.

I think if we're going to talk about limiting immigration in Australia, I'd wish that stop South African and Zimbabwean white immigration, their backward beliefs can be simply described as annoying.

[Queercommie Girl]

I beg your pardon but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt)


Obviously the Qing rule was universally hated not only by the Han (as Taiping Rebellion and the Nien Rebellion showed) but also by ethnic minority (most significantly Muslim), and the Qing regarded both Christianity and Islam with immense suspicion, as well as all non-traditional religious practice (such as those of White Lotus Society) in general. Though this is obviously off-topic :).

What you said is factually true, but your mistake is in assuming that the Qing court being obviously against the Dungan revolt would imply that they are against Islam in general, that is certainly not the case at all. Just like the Qing ruling class being against the White Lotus Society isn't the same as it being against Buddhism in general.

In fact, during the Dungan wars, the Qing army allied with pro-Qing factions of local Muslim factions against the rebels, so it clearly wasn't "a war against Islam" in any general sense, only against those Muslims who defied the Qing court.

So to put Islam on the same level as Christianity in Qing China is clearly incorrect.

[Queercommie Girl]

Of course not today. Because that would be offensive, and contrary to international law and all that shit. But think of the Swedish East India Company. I don't remember Sweden and China ever going to war, and the Swedish empire definitely never got out there. Were Swedes then able to operate freely in China, walk out of the city limits without being instantly beheaded? No. No they weren't.


It was still a state of cold war. As far as the Qing court was concerned, all the European states were potentially hostile. And frankly the Qing dynasty's understanding of European geography isn't good at all, I think for many people all of Europe was essentially one nation or an association of nations, rather than separate powers.

Talking about this is all pointless. The fact of the matter is that during the Qing period there was no institutional racism against "white people" on the basis of physical race, since the concept of "white race" didn't even exist in Qing China. As I said, there were a few white people who became Qing citizens and there were no institutional racism against them at all. So whatever discriminatory policies that were present were solely based on nationality, not physical race. This is fundamentally different from the policies of the South African government later on, for instance.



Supposedly. Considering the topic in question involves the Chinese putting in their own economic monopoly, refusing to freely allow non-Chinese trade in Chinese territories, even at this time, it seems as though they've got a decent capitalist idea going on.
Capitalism isn't an idea, it's a socio-economic mode of production. Even feudal and slavery states could have protectionist policies, but objectively Qing China's economic base was on the whole definitely not capitalist.



Still, my statement remains. Can't compare the two, because they're totally different. They're powerful in entirely different ways, and exploitative in totally different ways.
Your statement is ridiculous. Unless you believe in post-modernism, there are objective and completely scientific ways to evaluate "national power" and the socio-economic basis of different kinds of imperialism, as Marxism states clearly. The fact that Western European imperialism was capitalist and more powerful while Qing imperialism was feudal and less powerful is an objective scientific fact that is not open to interpretation.



Maps of the Ottoman empire had borders between the provinces, and had lines to show the various vassal states in the Balkans, and those territories paying tribute. Were they not then part of the Ottoman empire? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Chinese opinion of these neighbouring states that they were technically considered vassals? From whom tribute could be expected to be paid at any time, as their authority was effectively down to the emperor himself? Not unlike the Holy Roman Empire, I guess, a bunch of effectively autonomous states, with the Holy Roman Emperor still claiming absolute authority over the region?
I don't know about the Ottoman empire, but in ancient China vassal states are technically not considered to be a part of the empire itself. Most of the Chinese vassal states during feudal China were "vassal states" in name only and the Chinese feudal government is well aware of this fact.

Also, it seems the idea of the Chinese emperor ruling "all-under-heaven" is something that only emerged in later dynasties. During the Han dynasty 2000 years ago for instance, China seemed to have engaged in more or less equal diplomatic relations with states in Central Asia, Parthian Persia and even the Roman empire.



In retrospect, yes. Well, not the whole problem, but part of it. But...take the expansion of Russia, which was economic, too. Were all those Siberia tribes fighting the Russians coming out because they didn't want to be exploited economically? I think not. And I would argue that the Chinese weren't there thinking 'oh no, I don't want to be exploited economically!', more 'I don't want those Europeans setting up their little colonies here and taking my land'. The economic concerns were nothing, as they had already been perfectly happily trading with Europeans for centuries, it was about territory, and the control of territory, the seas and so on, totally irrespective of economic concerns beyond the desire to maintain effective ports. In fact, allowing the European ships into the specified ports was for the intention of strengthening the Chinese economy by allowing European involvement. As long as they don't come taking land. And, as suggested, this was as much a Chinese economic concern as anything else, their actions were to defend their own trade networks.But comparing China with the nomadic tribes of Siberia is like comparing the Roman empire with the Germanic barbarians to their north. They are completely different.

For the Siberians perhaps territory was their only concern, but for the Chinese economic exploitation was actually primary. Apart from Russia, most European powers didn't actually annex that much land directly in China (apart from singular ports like Hong Kong), but silver still flowed from China into Europe due to the exploitative relationship that was set up by Western capitalism in China. So actually the European exploitation of Qing China was indeed primarily an economical one, not a directly territorial one. China had always remained nominally independent, it was never taken over like Africa, the Americas or India was.

There is a fundamental difference between relatively low-level merchantile trading in pre-capitalist times and capitalist economic expansion. The former wasn't exploitative, but the latter was. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's Marxism 101.



Nope! Definite minority identification going on over here :thumbup1:
So why always defend white Europeans who historically have engaged in racism against your Jewish people?



Casual anti-white discrimination at non-white hands is actually pretty common. Institutionalised, state-driven and so on, sure, far less common.
Still much less common than white racism against non-whites.



Doesn't mean we can run around claiming it's never existed, though, just because most of us view the world through white or white-dominated eyes. Perhaps if we could look in at ourselves through the eyes of a Papuan tribesman or a Chinese farmer we'd have a somewhat different opinion of the whole thing...who knows?We "look the world through white eyes" because European capitalism came to dominate the globe in the last few centuries. It's an objective thing, not a subjective one.

Frankly I don't see the point of your statement about "reverse racism" on whites, since clearly in the world today non-whites are generally speaking more oppressed as a result of their race than whites are, and even when white people experience racism, it is often in the hands of other white people, not "coloured" people.

[progressive_lefty]

I think in relation to South Africa, it's hard to imagine what it would be like to live there. This is the country with the highest murder rate in the world, and has a massive problem with crime and rape. So it's hard for me to really judge white South Africans + Zimbabweans. But I think there is an element of the Black community, which may be small, that has deep hatred for the economic system that White people brought to South Africa, and which is still in place to day. It's obviously impounded by the fact that the ANC has held Government since the end of apartheid, and has never been challenged by an African opposition party..

[Manic Impressive]

In South Africa many white people live in gated communities and it is their own right wing propaganda and scare mongering tactics that drive the fear for their safety. Way before apartheid ended they were afraid that if they ever did lose power they would be overwhelmed by the masses and that there was a possibility of genocide. This turned out to be a complete fallacy as 16 years later there has been no genocide no revenge attacks sanctioned by the post apartheid government. Which is really a testament to Mandela's resolve and principles. Not that they have no reason to fear for their safety as the society remains deeply unjust with a huge gap between rich and poor which is cause and effect for the drug crime, prostitution and worlds highest murder rates. That and the fact that many can afford to go study or move abroard where they can attend better universities or earn higher wages with a view to returning with some decent savings is the main reason for the immigration of white South Africans, I've never met a white South African who has told me they felt racially discriminated against.

Zimbabwe is a completely different matter and Mugabe is a very different leader than Mandela was. White farmers have been specifically targeted beaten and in some cases murdered. Some may feel this is some what justified as the land reforms have taken from the former ruling class and been distributed to the formerly oppressed. However, I personally think the re-appropriation of wealth and land has been brutal. Whites have also been discriminated against politically by being forced to renounce any dual citizenship they may have or leave the country. The re-distribution of the land has also been unfair to the Ndebele people in favour of the Shona of which Mugabe is one.

So yes the white population and the Ndebele population have been discriminated against in Zimbabwe. My personal opinion is that land reforms were needed but implemented brutally and corruptly and in South Africa the white population could have had it much worse if it had not been for Mandela and their concerns are mainly due to scare tactics of old. The whie farmers plight is often mentioned when the western media report on Mugabe however the mass murders of the Ndebele is rarely told.

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=55201

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-01-30-ndebele-carnage-mugabe-is-afraid-of-his-crimes