In a 2018 census, 43.1% of Brasilians identified themselves as “branca”, 46.5% as “parda”, and only 9.3% as “preta”, belying the claim that Brasilians think of themselves as a predominantly Black country. Though, there has been an increase in the number of people who identify themselves as non-White, and you could say that a majority of the population might consider themselves “negras” depending on how you interpret the responses to the survey, e.g. by adding up the pardas, pretas, morenas, etc but not everyone would necessarily agree that makes sense.
In most colonized African countries, the backlash against whites was because of the oppressive nature of their governance and their exploitation of the population for financial gain. Idi Amin threw the British out of Uganda, along with most of the Indian population. But then he turned on his own people and slaughtered them by the hundreds. When I lived there, it was relatively peaceful in most areas, and while we got some harsh looks when out walking, there was no physical threat. But as mentioned, if the minority white population is still far more affluent than the local folks, it’s difficult for them to be discriminated against in any meaningful way. You may be mistrusted and disliked, but that’s different.
It was pretty much the same when I lived in Mali. White people were basically walking dollar signs and in a financial bracket impossibly far above the ordinary Malian.
In a different setting, I spent about five months or so in St. Thomas, VI. Blacks are in the majority there and there is a significant white minority that is working class. It seemed to me that there was a kind of “separate but equal” mentality there, but there were parts of the island where it was ill-advised to visit if you were white.
The 1619 Project makes the point that in the early years of slavery and indentured servitude in the American colonies, the laws were changed - children of white people were not born slaves even if the parent was a slave; later, whites could not be slaves. Similarly, the children of black women were automatically slaves. it used to be the status followed that of the father, but the law was specifically changed for only black people. (Presumably because the father often was not black, and often the standard family arrangements like marriage were not honoured for blacks) Sally Hemmings, for example, was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, from a (slave) mother who was half-white. Yet, by law despite being 3/4 white she inherited slave status.
Brazil has a rather more nuanced view of race and the mixing of races than, say, the U.S. Not better, just different.
I’m uncomfortable with the idea that because racists use some aspect of history to advance their spurious arguments, we must deny or downplay that aspect.
Irish people were enslaved over the centuries. Some by their fellow Irish, some by Vikings, some by Barbary pirates, and some by the English and shipped to the Caribbean. To acknowledge this is not to detract in any way from the sufferings of the 10 million Africans who were later shipped to the Caribbean, nor is it to say that their circumstances on arrival were identical. It’s not a competition. It is perfectly possible to recognise that Irish were enslaved, and also to support reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans.
You’ve got it backwards. History doesn’t get played down, it gets played up. The history that doesn’t get played up is the stuff you never learn about and is thus consistent with all but an infinitesimally small fraction of human experiences. The experiences of—really, the very existence of—99.9999999%+ of all people who have ever existed has amounted to nothing in the historical record, never mind been taught as actual history in a classroom or made it into a documentary.
So when someone “plays up” the experiences of oppressed Hibernian peoples, I have to wonder why. In this thread, there is every indication of good faith: it is something directly relevant to the OP. But that doesn’t explain why the documentary exists, and I continue to question why someone would feel compelled to play up the experiences of Irish descendants on a Caribbean island. I especially question why such experiences are so frequently—outside this thread of course—brought up so frequently in the context of race relations in the United States, of which Barbados is not a part.
Irish people were enslaved over the centuries. Some by their fellow Irish, some by Vikings, some by Barbary pirates, and some by the English and shipped to the Caribbean. To acknowledge this is not to detract in any way from the sufferings of the 10 million Africans who were later shipped to the Caribbean, nor is it to say that their circumstances on arrival were identical. It’s not a competition. It is perfectly possible to recognise that Irish were enslaved, and also to support reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans.
Sure. And for what it’s worth, the portions of the video I skimmed through (because, again, I don’t have 51 minutes to spare for something like this) would seem to support, rather than undermine, the need for reparations or the like as it makes a pretty good case that poverty is heritable. That’s not hereditary, mind, but heritable. As in it is a trait that can be inherited. Like the opposite of inheriting a vast family fortune, it’s like inheriting their poverty instead. The deficit of property. The absence of generational wealth.
And yet when I see the Irish experience in “the Americas” mentioned in the context of slavery… it more often than not it seems to be in the context of “These white slaves made it out of poverty just fine, so what’s wrong with all these black people who can’t do the same?” Often followed by something like “lol” or a stupid smilie to signify the commenter is “just joking” (and the joke is that racism is supposed to be funny, I guess).
Anyway, apologies for the rant. I appreciate there is nuance to this—and this is a thread for nuance—but part of having a nuanced discussion to my mind is the extent to which “nuance” may be the smokescreen by which bad actors promote white supremacist ideologies with enough of a fig leaf for plausible deniability.
The important point was that slavery was dying out in Europe. basically, the church (and so, the protestant churches also) took the position that Christians should not be enslaved. The Irish were distinct enough to the British that they felt less compunction about enslaving or indenturing them, but in general the full-on slavery was disappearing to be replaced by indentured servitude. (Although, human greed has been known to excuse some pretty inconsistent positions).
What made African slavery so much worse was the whole justification that they were heathens, so therefore they were conveniently not covered by the church doctrines. Slavers were doing them a favour by taking them to a place where they could learn to be Christians. that of course brought up the obvious problem - if they were now Christians, how could someone justify still enslaving them? That brought about the next step, where their enslavement was justified by saying they were a lesser race - less intelligent, more childlike and so unable to survive on their own, more backward, more incapable of learning and coping. Naturally, depriving them of education and the ability to prove they could survive as freedmen simply made it impossible to refute these claims.
But to get back to the OP’s question - a reciprocal “put down” of the white race in a majority black country never has happened, because obviously - black lands were most subjugated by whites in the colonial era, whites were never enslaved in large numbers by blacks, and the traditional racist logic of the New World was not necessary - the old world slavery we see in non-white lands like Ottoman Turkey and the Middle East did not define us vs. them enslavement as based on racial inferiority. Anyone any race or colour could be a free person or slave depending on their life circumstances. (Much like int the Roman times, the Greek tutor for a rich Roman’s children could be a slave. Learned scholar and slave were not exclusionary categories.)
White farmers in South Africa are having their land seized. Sometimes without compensation.
It already happened in Zimbabwe with disastrous damage to the economy.
From 2020
Cite for this happening. Not the proposed law, but actual farm seizure, without compensation.
Not that I care about those farmers, you understand - restoration of stolen property is not discrimination against thieves.
The OP asked for examples of discrimination against Whites in black majority countries. South Africa is currently an example. It’s been a very difficult and dangerous situation for decades. They were on the verge of civil war for a long time.
I’m not making any comment about who is right or wrong. Or the long history of White rule in that country. I know it’s incredibly complex and I wouldn’t even consider taking a position. It would require months of reading to even begin to understand the history and politics of SA.
I do know the power base shifted with the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. The ANC has won elections since 1994 and is firmly in charge.
Land Reform is taking place. It’s a part of the ANC’s rural development program. A law was passed in 2014. It was challenged in court and new laws are being drafted.
A detailed analysis of SA Land restitution policy is beyond the scope of the OP’s question. I’m only providing an example of discrimination against whites. Being required to give up or sell land inherited from your great-great-great grandfather would be a form of discrimination.
One criticism I recall of the Zimbabwe land “reform” was that it was less about handing land back to the displaced original inhabitants, and more about giving a plum to the corrupt crew surrounding Mugabe. Large industrial agriculture concerns were subdivided into much smaller farms, the new occupants - if they chose to actually use the land - did not have the experience, training, or money to maintain mechanical farm equipment, so agricultural production plummeted.
No, all you’ve given as an example is a proposed law. No examples of actual farm seizures in South Africa.
No, it fucking wasn’t complex in the slightest.
You’ve provided examples of jack.
And no, being made to give up stolen property is not discrimination.
And much of the land in question was stolen in living memory, not “great-great-great grandfather” times.
You should be aware, but in case you do not, the apartheid government stripped both land ownership and citizenship from its black population (in addition to enacting laws limiting their freedom of movement/speech/participation in public sectors/etc.).
One result of this is that today there exists a massive wealth disparity between landowning whites and landless black South Africans. There’s people who remember having been evicted from their homes and lands and turned into refugees/nomads. They do not want their children to inherit the burdens of this crime too.
South Africa, being a responsible democratic state, needs to address this wealth and land ownership disparity, how do you believe they should do it? Remember, ignoring it and saying “oh well, what’s done is done, tough it out” Is simply not an option. Black South Africans simply cannot be politically or economically marginalized like that anymore. What do you propose is a solution?
What they’re planning with government buy outs may be a good solution. Buy the land and return it to the native people.
I would have concerns about the need to force property owners to sell. Property rights should be protected. That includes anyone that owns property. Forcefully taking land is wrong regardless of race or ethnicity.
I know here in the US a lot of farmers go broke and have to sell. The land and equipment is available for purchase. Legislation could allow a government agency to purchase it. It could be sold to impoverished people at a very low cost. So far that hasn’t been purposed in the US.
What if the land owners do not want to sell profitable land (duh). They would like to profit from it as much and for as long as possible. What should the state do? How can the state solve this issue without forcing the owners to sell? (eg. appropriating it)
Forcefully taking land is wrong regardless of race or ethnicity.
I think you really don’t fully comprehend the failures of the Apartheid. This problem is ultimately the result of their actions. They thought they could simply remove all ownership (and future claims to ownership) from the Black population to the White population.
How do you think the current democratic South African government should answer this without land seizures?
Note that the law ap has cited very specifically targets unused land i.e. possibly productive land that the current owners are holding onto just because they can. And that taking without compensation is a last recourse.
South Africa may be a special case where the government needs to act.
It’s still a form of discrimination. Policies are made against a specific group. Maybe it’s justified to correct a previous injustice.
I don’t live in SA and don’t know the history. I have read there was a lot of oppression by the colonial immigrants. The rights of the natives were shamefully violated.
Then maybe not discuss it at all. You have outdone yourself.
I know hating on South Africa is popular among a certain segment of the western right-wing. But why are the criticisms always so … grand and unrealistic.
I honestly would love to know their proposed solution to land rights/disparity in South Africa. Its a big problem; however they never have a magic bullet. It’s always “I care not for government solution; nor do I recognize any problem even. Leave things as is”
Dude. Ignoring the problem simply won’t fly. You’d be removed from power the next day.
Nothing discriminatory about justice.
ETA forgot which thread I was in there for a hot minute