-Removed-[eyeroll] Geeeeeez. {/eyeroll]
This is why this has rarely been discussed before now.
What a baby.
Oh, sorry, I misspelled 'bigot'.
I berated you mainly because you always choose to berate me, even though you know practically nothing about me. You're always calling me a liar, not because I lie, but because you don't, and probably never will, understand me, so calling me a liar is, literally, all you got.
Like Danny Glover said, in Lethal Weapon, "I'm getting too old for this s***", well, I just don't have time for this s***. Truly, your opinion of me is like "dust in the wind".
@kmax87 saidThe racism non-white people are affected by most is that directed to them.
Is there a corollary to that? Are brown/non white people who grow up in predominantly brown/non white cultures also almost inevitably influenced by that racism?
Or do you claim that racism only exists within white culture?
The racism white people are affected by most is that they direct to others.
@suzianne saidWhile that may be true, I was trying to point out that racism seems to be a feature of most human interaction and is found to varying degrees between most ethnic/cultural groups. To focus solely on white racism as being the most debilitating form of it ignores a long history of intra white racism where whites of different nationalities have excluded other whites considered to be inferior to whichever white group is most empowered. Likewise intra black racism can be just as pernicious. Its not just about whitey keeping the man of colour down.
The racism non-white people are affected by most is that directed to them.
The racism white people are affected by most is that they direct to others.
Nowadays in a multicultural nation like Australia where legislation exists to punish those who practice racist policies in employment or delivery of service, there still remains the privilege of money/class call it what you will, where those who have extraordinary wealth, also find ways to protect that wealth and influence by creating exclusive zones for themselves that discriminate against those who are not as they are. Its not racism and its not white against black, but in terms of keeping the working class man down, they practice in effect a system just as effective as apartheid in racially divided South Africa.
The post that was quoted here has been removedRacism in Africa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Africa
There are tons of examples listed.
By the way, for the centuries that the Atlantic slave trade occurred, who did the initial enslaving and gathering to the Coast of West Africa so that the slaves could be boarded in shackles onto the slave trading ships?
The post that was quoted here has been removedYes the article is Racism in Africa not Racism by Africa you nonce, but interestingly the one example you picked to point the finger at, the Germans, or the Dutch with the South Africans or the British with Rhodesia were in a small minority to most of the countries listed.
In the Congo, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Libya, Mauritania, and the Sudan, what do we have? What happened in the Niger is of interest because it was an important part of the Trans Saharan Slave route. The Kanem-Bornu Empire lasted from the 8th century to 1900. And who controlled that Empire. Followers of Islam. And for most of that 1,100 years they traded in slaves amongst other things.
And slavery, I'm sure you could agree, involves some form of racism. I mean you are not likely to treat a slave as an equal, are you? Yet once again slavery is shown to be an exploitation of the weak by the powerful. How do you think the European explorers and traders cottoned onto the idea? Before the 16th Century, slaves were predominantly herded and transported across the Sahara to destinations in the Mediterranean world. At the top of this trade were Muslims.
By a quirk of fate, the Europeans, not wanting to travel East overland to get spices and trade in exotic goods, got on boats and discovered new ways to these exotic locations. Along the way they also discovered the New World. As they colonized and looked for slave labour to tame their new acquisitions and as luck would have it, an existing sub Saharan slave trade came into view and slaves were sold and traded in a new direction.
Did it matter to a slave who was doing the enslaving? Or where they were being traded too? Or the colour of the skin of their owner?
While much of the bi-racial white/black antagonism in Africa is relatively recent (past 200 years or so) the racist attitudes that persist to this day between lighter skinned Muslims and darker skinned Muslims and black Africans in Africa are part of a history that goes back more than a thousand years.
But racism is just a white vs black construct? Right!
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedI only mentioned slavery as a proxy for racism. European invasion, conquest, enslavement was more destructive than existing practices of slavery in Africa, to be sure!
Most of that was due to the Atlantic passage. A small boat with limited crew to ensure zero possibility of mutiny involved the most hideous practices of shackling human beings so that they could not move. The statistics are shocking. Around 10-15% of slaves died in the middle passage crossing. That's around 2 million people. Did the brutalizing passage across the Atlantic set the tone for the way slavery was practiced in the America's. Most probably.
But in the end, if you prefer being a slave in Africa, no matter how better the conditions were, a slave was always a slave, and if you rose up the pecking order as a slave, the rug could always be pulled from under you and you would be returned to your station most unceremoniously.
And if you posit by inference that racism under African slavery practices was therefore less intense, then maybe you are right, but racism amongst non-white groups was still a part of it and it was pernicious enough for the practice of slavery to continue for over a millennium.