Link between certain countries and racism. Watch

Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
It seems as if I'm the only one who's ever noticed this...but it would appear that many of the former entitites of the British Empire that were settled by white settlers turn out to be some of the most racist countries in the world. We all know about the racism in many parts of America, particuarly in the south, which was predominantly settled by Scottish and English settlers. South Africa was predominantly British, in addition to the Afrikaners, and of course spewed out apartheid. Australia too, appears to be quite a racist country. You could also say Israel, because even though it wasn't settled by whites, it was later settled by European Jews, who believed they had a God Given right to that land.

The link, is of course, colonialism was built on the idea that white Europeans are superior to the natives. When you build a nation on that mindset, its hardly surprising that its citizens believe their race is the greatest.

Canada also has a few racists, but its too a lesser degree than these other aforementioned countries. These countries turned out to be more racist than Britain herself.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
The link, is of course, colonialism was built on the idea that white Europeans are superior to the natives. When you build a nation on that mindset, its hardly surprising that its citizens believe their race is the greatest.
This makes no sense.

Can you provide studies and data on this?
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Ascend)
This makes no sense.

Can you provide studies and data on this?
If you think about it third world countries are the ones having wars over religion so I would rather live in Britain where we don't start wars over this than a third world country where they do. Obviously racism is a big part of any society but some are worse than others, at least we haven't faught over this kind of stuff for a good while
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by Ascend)
This makes no sense.

Can you provide studies and data on this?
No one else seems to have made the link.

I haven't looked up any data yet, but you can see a common pattern regarding race and the law. In the USA, the Jim Crow Laws. In South Africa, Apartheid. In Australia, the White Australia policy. In Israel - if you could compare - the Nationality Bill in Israel. Another take could be that India, whilst wasn't settled by whites, has a big problem with racism, which the British used to create division. We can see this through the recent nationality laws that Modi has introduced.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
What an absolute load of claptrap. This is nothing but a baseless set of false accusations, never mind, gross generalizations by a user whom i severely doubt has ever actually been to these countries.
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
During the 19th and 20th century which is largely the time period referred to there were the pogroms in the Russian Empire, and followed by the Nazis (who killed not just millions of Jews but also Roma gypsies, for example), and in China look at the ethnic cleansing of Tibet.
1
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Ferrograd)
No one else seems to have made the link.

I haven't looked up any data yet, but you can see a common pattern regarding race and the law. In the USA, the Jim Crow Laws. In South Africa, Apartheid. In Australia, the White Australia policy. In Israel - if you could compare - the Nationality Bill in Israel. Another take could be that India, whilst wasn't settled by whites, has a big problem with racism, which the British used to create division. We can see this through the recent nationality laws that Modi has introduced.
But why the focus on the British Empire when other empires and colonists would have had similar if not greater or at least longer impact?
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Ascend)
But why the focus on the British Empire when other empires and colonists would have had similar if not greater or at least longer impact?
Give me another example, please
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Give me another example, please
Chinese, Japanese, Arab/Islamic, Mongol, Turkish/Islamic, Russian...

These all had significant and long-lasting impacts on societies. What makes them different to British and other Western imperialists in your racism estimation?
Last edited by Ascend; 1 month ago
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Ascend)
Chinese, Japanese, Arab/Islamic, Mongol, Turkish/Islamic, Russian...

These all had significant and long-lasting impacts on societies. What makes them different to British and other Western imperialists in your racism estimation?
The Arab conquests happened thousands of years ago.

The Russian Empire saw no new countries emerge apart from those like Kazakhstan and others in central asia which since the fall of the USSR, have no signfiicant Russian population. They are now dominated by their natives.

The Mongol Empire, again happened thousands of years ago. It did not have an effect on the populations of other countries, otherwise Poland would be Mongol instead of slavic.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Ferrograd)
The Arab conquests happened thousands of years ago.

The Russian Empire saw no new countries emerge apart from those like Kazakhstan and others in central asia which since the fall of the USSR, have no signfiicant Russian population. They are now dominated by their natives.

The Mongol Empire, again happened thousands of years ago. It did not have an effect on the populations of other countries, otherwise Poland would be Mongol instead of slavic.
So, by your own logic, ex British colonies "have no significant [British] population" and "are now dominated by their natives". You've just undermined your own argument by absurdly reducing the effects of imperialism and colonialism to simple population change.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Ascend)
So, by your own logic, ex British colonies "have no significant [British] population" and "are now dominated by their natives". You've just undermined your own argument by absurdly reducing the effects of imperialism and colonialism to simple population change.
I was talking about the Russian empire. Russians did not settle in large numbers in their colonies ,with the exception of siberia. In the USSR, yes the population was dominated by russians in central asia until it fell and these countries became independent.

The British settlers however remained in South Africa, australia, usa etc after independence.

And it's the ideology of colonialism and the motivations of it that cause such racism. Yes, sure, some of it was economic, but large parts of it, were because Europeans were viewed to be a civillizing force compared to the barbaric natives.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (486)
59.41%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.26%
No- I want it (234)
28.61%
No- I don't want it (55)
6.72%

Watched Threads

View All