Race, culture and concepts of ethnicity

Post Reply New Topic

That might be a factor. In the case of less democratic societies there was a higher likelihood that a member of the old money/power class might have mixed ancestry reflecting the norms early on when few women of European descent made the journey.

For a number of reasons parts of the US had more women of European descent available and therefore had fewer mixed people, even when that society was attached to a more typical colonial society (like the US north and south) this laid the groundwork for ethnic background to dominate the concept of race, whereas in Latin America race and class identities tended to merge a bit more. Among things, this meant that poor whites had no reason to try to preserve their kids 'whiteness', rich 'whites' could be not entirely white and still count and that it would be much harder to establish 'white only' parts of society. Even in practice, white supremacists in Latin America are more likely to care about 'whitening' society than 'segregating'.

In a lot of colonial societies white men were expected to 'assimilate' their families into white society and when they chose not to they were ostracized and treated with the same racist contempt as their brothers-in-law.

After discussing the topic a lot, I realized something about myself: the very concept of race, while well-known, is largely absent in my culture. Slavs traditionally define one's ethnicity by their language, not ancestry - so a Russian is not a Pole despite indistinguishable genetics but if a child of any ancestry grows up in Poland and speaks Polish as their first language, they is Polish.
That may, by the way, explain another phenomenon - a difference on how people react to correcting their language between Polish and English fora. But that's another topic.

This tendency makes Slavic nations ready to assimilate any minority willing to assimilate - including e.g. Bulgars being Turkish by ancestry but Slavic by language and culture. In central Europe, people tend to be descendants of those who lived here for millenia mixed with all the waves of immigration that happened since ancient times.

It was a bit strange to me that, according to Wikipedia, only 3% of North America identify as multiracial - compared to, e.g. over 40% of Brazil citizens, another big country with a history of black slavery, where some regions have over 80% of mixed-race inhabitants.
For some reason, Africans and Europeans did mix in Brazil but not in the US.

One possible explanation I could think of: As Slavs tend to pay the most attention to one's language, the Spanish and Portuguese tend to pay more attention to one's religion than ancestry. That helped the infamous Spanish Inquisition emerge but it also resulted in ex-slaves and indigenous Americans becoming marriageable after accepting Catholicism.

That were my thougths on the topic... how do you see it?

You may be right about north Slavs but south Slavs or Yugo Slavs tend to be hung up on religion and don't exactly get along.There doesn't seem to be any love lost between Orthodoxy in Serbia and Montenegro vs. catholic Croats and the muslims in Bosnia and parts of Kosovo and Albania.They have 600 year history of burning each others houses down.

With the nation-building process in the mid-19th century, first Croatian–Serbian tension appeared. Serbian minister Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije (1844) claimed lands that were inhabited by Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Hungarians and Croats as part of a Greater Serbia.[5] Garašanin's plan also includes methods of spreading Serbian influence in the claimed lands.[5] He proposed ways to influence Croats, who Garašanin regarded as "Serbs of Catholic faith".[5] This plan considered surrounding peoples to be devoid of national consciousness.[5][6] Vuk Karadžić partly denied the existence of Croatians and Croatian language, counting them as "Catholic Serbs" except those who speak Chakavian dialect.

It's definitely fair to consider that racial concepts aren't consistent across cultures.

For what it's worth, you might want to look up the concepts of Anglo-Indian vs. Eurasian in Indian culture. Both have mixed heritage, but one is considered more 'westernized' than the other.

The All India Anglo-Indian Association, founded in 1926, has long represented the interests of the ethnic group; it holds that Anglo-Indians are unique in that they are Christians, speak English as their mother tongue, as well as have a historical link to both Europe and India.[5] Anglo-Indians tend to identify as people of India, rather than of a specific region of India such as the Punjab or Bengal.[5]

In some ways Poland's history might share more in common with other colonized states, with Prussians, Austro-Hungarians and Russians as the colonial powers. Poland and Ireland both benefited from Europe's colonial period (Ireland more than Poland), but both also suffered due to colonialism as well. To be fair, the Russian Empire was quite brutal even for ethnic Russians, but that said, one could still claim 'Russian privilege' existed within the Russian Empire. The benefits of being connected to an economy that was being stimulated by colonial theft might not have outweighed the costs of English or Russian domination (I'm not saying they did or that they didn't since two massive things probably can't cancel each other out even if they exist alongside each other), but both did exist.

As for indigenous peoples being sparse, that wasn't true when the very first contacts were made, but as a wave of disease spread out in front of the invaders it meant they often were encountering societies that were collapsing due to epidemics. Spanish sources especially regularly describe densely populated cities. There's evidence that the US south-east was far more densely populated than colonial sources ever documented.

Often our deaths as a result of these epidemics are treated as justification for stealing our homelands but since when did your neighbour not using his basement entitle you to move a dozen relatives into his house? How long do I need to possess your car before it becomes my car? They're little more than terrible excuses for terrible injustices.

From what I know, race is actually a social construct...

The Polish-Russian relationship in the 19th century was mostly hostile on cultural and (of course) political level but quite open on economical and career level, from what I understand. Two of my great-great-grandparents were mixed ancestry, Eastern Orthodox and identified as Polish... which, I guess, sheds some light on level of complication of things in real life.

I definitely won't use it as any kind of justification, just as a part of dynamics leading to colonial states ethnically dominated by the newcomers and then further development of culture in such a place.

I use the analogy:
You invite someone in to share your house.
They then barricade the entrance to their room,
And declare it to be "Chop", or "Chaz".

Australia is becoming more culturally fractured, these days.
As I mentioned earlier, migrants tended to have a desire to assimilate into the Australian culture, just after WWII, with their descendants embracing the Australian way of life.
I am one such example.

These days, many immigrants seem to have an attitude of entitlement, rather than accepting it is a "Privilege" in being part of Australian society.

I use the analogy:
You invite someone in to share your house.
They then barricade the entrance to their room,
And declare it to be "Chop", or "Chaz".

Immigration is not the problem here.
It is the immigration of an unhealthy attitude, that can come with immigration, which is the social destabilising factor.