Posted: Fri 12 Jun 2009 12:53 Post subject: The ODR: A Gift from the English?
This is something I've been thinking about for a while and wonder how others would answer this question:
Does the tendency to divide people into "black" and "white" come from the English and their global colonization of non-Europeans? If so, does the U.S. also owe the consecration of the ODR to its strong English cultural roots?
It seems to me that wherever the English have colonized brown people, some sort of bifurcated racial classification scheme emerged, with the non-Europeans being referred to as "blacks" (Indians, Aborigines, Africans). I'm not saying there was no alternate structure, racial intermediates or recognition of mixed race individuals. I am saying that it seems quite common, even today, for the non-European brownskinned people to be lumped into a "black" category.
I'm in London now, and just the other day someone remarked that Leona Lewis (Afro-Euro singer) was the first black woman to win a major singing competition (the conversation was about breaking down racial barriers and how that process often differs in Europe from that in the U.S.). When I asked why he would call her "black" when she also clearly has European heritage, he acknowledged that she was considered mixed race by heritage but still commonly referred to as a black woman. Lest anyone think this person was an African American tourist or expatriate who subscribes to the ODR, he was a native Englishman who has lived here his entire life. In fact, the conversation led to a discussion of the ODR and he thought that the notion of a genetically European person being categorized as "Black" didn't make any sense, yet he thought it made sense to call Leona Lewis a black woman.
It seems to me that English culture developed a short-hand way to refer to non-European outsiders as "blacks" that did not make distinctions between degrees of mixture. Perhaps the practice simply arose because, while making official ethnic or racial distinctions was done on a case-by-case basis within the empire to maintain power, all of these people were a conquered, sub-human non-European "race."
Here's an analogy: In Spanish, a mixed-gender group is referred to using the male-gendered terms (ellos, nosotros) even if there are 99 women and only 1 man. I'd gather the reason is because it is important to acknowledge the presence of a man even in a majority female group and not to say that 99 women are "really men." Maybe, in the traditional English racial categorization schema, the same is essentially true of non-European heritage.
Does the tendency to divide people into "black" and "white" come from the English and their global colonization of non-Europeans? If so, does the U.S. also owe the consecration of the ODR to its strong English cultural roots?
Interesting question.
If we are talking about labeling the us-versus-them dichotomy as "white" and "black," then I would say "yes." The very terms "white" and "black" to denote "us" and "them," respectively, were coined by British colonists in the 1600s Chesapeake, following earlier similar usage in England to differentiate people from India and, to a lesser extent in Cromwell's time, to denote the Irish.
But if we are talking about the us-versus them dichotomy itself, no matter how it is labeled, then I would say "no."
Zealous Puerto Ricans refer to all non-Puerto Ricans as "gringos," regardless of the stranger's "race" (including A-As) or nationality. Russians, even Japanese, are "gringos" to them.
Zealous U.S. southerners refer to all non-southerners as "Yankees," again this label includes Russians, Germans, or Belgians.
Zealous African Americans refer to all non-AAs as "Whites," and the label includes Caribbean Hispanics, Mexican-Americans, Turks, Greeks, even East Indians (like Dinesh D'Souza, for instance).
If we are talking about labeling the us-versus-them dichotomy as "white" and "black," then I would say "yes." The very terms "white" and "black" to denote "us" and "them," respectively, were coined by British colonists in the 1600s Chesapeake, following earlier similar usage in England to differentiate people from India and, to a lesser extent in Cromwell's time, to denote the Irish.
But if we are talking about the us-versus them dichotomy itself, no matter how it is labeled, then I would say "no."
Just to clarify, I mean the B/W dichotomy specifically. An us vs. them dichotomy isn't unique to the English. It just strikes me that calling several outgroups "blacks" and Europeans (generally) "whites" is unique to the English.
Do other European cultures make specific references to this B/W dichotomy in their colonization, or is this tendency an English one?
Don't have access to this article, but it looks interesting.
Quote:
"Race and Ethnicity in the Old Norse World." Taking as its point of departure Tacitus's observation of the homogeneity of the Germanic tribes, this article probes his idea about the Northern peoples, examining the physical characteristics of ancient Norwegians and the mingling of Norwegians and Celts in Iceland during the period of settlement and beyond. Among the problems explored are self-perception, awareness of "the other," naming patterns, and cooperation between the two groups, including marital and reproductive strategies. Features of dark hair, dark skin, and dark eyes were found occasionally in Norway, but they became more common in Iceland as blond Norwegians mingled with darker Celts from the western islands in the North Atlantic. Since Norwegians brought few of their women to Iceland in the beginning, Celtic women were largely responsible for funneling Celtic genes into the Icelandic population either directly or indirectly. After considering also the mixture of dark and blond peoples in the Orkneys, the article in conclusion pursues the Icelandic colonization of Greenland and Vinland, where the Norse discontinued their forefathers' practice of mingling with people of different appearance.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 12 Jun 2009 19:31 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
If we are talking about labeling the us-versus-them dichotomy as "white" and "black," then I would say "yes." The very terms "white" and "black" to denote "us" and "them," respectively, were coined by British colonists in the 1600s Chesapeake, following earlier similar usage in England to differentiate people from India and, to a lesser extent in Cromwell's time, to denote the Irish.
But if we are talking about the us-versus them dichotomy itself, no matter how it is labeled, then I would say "no."
Just to clarify, I mean the B/W dichotomy specifically. An us vs. them dichotomy isn't unique to the English. It just strikes me that calling several outgroups "blacks" and Europeans (generally) "whites" is unique to the English.
Do other European cultures make specific references to this B/W dichotomy in their colonization, or is this tendency an English one?
The short answer is "yes".
In Russia, "white" means Slavic Orthodox, for the most part. Inside of Russia, fellow Eastern Slavs, such as Belorussians and Ukrainians are treated as Russian because many Russians don't actually consider them a separate ethnic group but a result of being separated politically due to the rise of Poland/Germany/Mongol-Turkic tribes, before that they the entire area was made up of various principalities (like Germany before unification).
Russians refer to other people in Europe as "European", including other Slavs like Poles. I don't know about Serbs or Bulgarians (who they seem to be close to...likely not as they are Orthodox). Russians, in my experience with them and reading never rarely refer to themselves as "European".
Everyone else, people from the Caucuses and Central Asia are called "cherny" or "blacks". Even Georgians.
This is funny because that would mean Stalin was a black man.
But they use the same dichotomy..."black/white". But black does not mean African, but "outsider" in a sense.
In my life I have spent a great deal of time in East Asia (and a little in Southeast Asia) far more than in Europe. I have never seen this in Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.
This "black/white" thing.
Chinese will call farmers "blacks" but only due to the fact that they are dark, this is a class thing, and it is not very common, just once in awhile, meaning "you work outside so you are tan", generally meaning you are from a rural area. This has nothing to do with "race" or ethnicity.
Usually Chinese in-group out group, when speaking in a derogatory way is to say the person is "Han" and say what region they are from and non-Han are often called some sort of "devil". black-devil, white-devil, Japanese-devil, Turk-devil, Korean-devil.
Japan has no such language to my knowledge, but they are and have been extremely ethnically homogeneous for almost 2,000 years, but for the aboriginal ainu, who were simply called "hairy barbarians" or just "barbarian". Ethnic Koreans in Japan are usually called "Chosan" which they find offensive (although Chinese call North Koreans the same word Chaoxian and no one cares about it).
I am not sure about South Asians like Indians, somehow I doubt it.
I would not be shocked if this is isolated to Western Eurasia. Is it common in the Middle East??
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Fri 12 Jun 2009 19:46; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Fri 12 Jun 2009 19:39 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
sagascend wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
If we are talking about labeling the us-versus-them dichotomy as "white" and "black," then I would say "yes." The very terms "white" and "black" to denote "us" and "them," respectively, were coined by British colonists in the 1600s Chesapeake, following earlier similar usage in England to differentiate people from India and, to a lesser extent in Cromwell's time, to denote the Irish.
But if we are talking about the us-versus them dichotomy itself, no matter how it is labeled, then I would say "no."
Just to clarify, I mean the B/W dichotomy specifically. An us vs. them dichotomy isn't unique to the English. It just strikes me that calling several outgroups "blacks" and Europeans (generally) "whites" is unique to the English.
Do other European cultures make specific references to this B/W dichotomy in their colonization, or is this tendency an English one?
The short answer is "yes".
In Russia, "white" means Slavic Orthodox, for the most part. Inside of Russia, fellow Eastern Slavs, such as Belorussians and Ukrainians are treated as Russian because many Russians don't actually consider them a separate ethnic group but a result of being separated politically due to the rise of Poland/Germany/Mongol-Turkic tribes, before that they the entire area was made up of various principalities (like Germany before unification).
Russians refer to other people in Europe as "European", including other Slavs like Poles. I don't know about Serbs or Bulgarians (who they seem to be close to...likely not as they are Orthodox). Russians, in my experience with them and reading never rarely refer to themselves as "European".
Everyone else, people from the Caucuses and Central Asia are called "cherny" or "blacks". Even Georgians.
This is funny because that would mean Stalin was a black man.
But they use the same dichotomy..."black/white". But black does not mean African, but "outsider" in a sense.
In my life I have spent a great deal of time in East Asia (and a little in Southeast Asia) far more than in Europe. I have never seen this in Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.
This "black/white" thing.
Chinese will call farmers "blacks" but only due to the fact that they are dark, this is a class thing, and it is not very common, just once in awhile, meaning "you work outside so you are tan", generally meaning you are from a rural area. This has nothing to do with "race" or ethnicity.
Usually Chinese in-group out group, when speaking in a derogatory way is to say the person is "Han" and say what region they are from and non-Han are often called some sort of "devil". black-devil, white-devil, Japanese-devil, Turk-devil, Korean-devil.
Japan has no such language to my knowledge, but they are and have been extremely ethnically homogeneous for almost 2,000 years, but for the aboriginal ainu, who were simply called "hairy barbarians" or just "barbarian".
I am not sure about South Asians like Indians, somehow I doubt it.
I would not be shocked if this is isolated to Western Eurasia.
I've read that Swedes and other Scandinavians refer to non Nordics - including Mediterraneans, as "blackheads". I've been trying to recall the exact term, something like "swartzkoller."
Joined: 29 Aug 2006 {Posts: 24 } Location: Germany
Posted: Sun 14 Jun 2009 19:44 Post subject:
In Germany, Catholics are referred to as "blacks" by Protestants, but I think this refers to the color of clerical robes. They also call people who have darker features (stereotypical Mediterranean or so) "Rassig", which is something akin to "goodlooking swarthy". It is a complement. They radmiringly efer to my daughter as having "Rassige" facial features, but being a blond at the same time - an unusual combination some say.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
