Re:Not all the facts fit the anti-colonialist narrative
by Nasrudith on Monday August 10, 2020 @10:43AM
(#24109777)
The implication is ingroup vs outgroup as immutables. Aparthiad South Africa had some darkly hillariously arbitrary (no pun intended) definitions of black and white such that Japanese were white and Chinese were once black.
Roman identity also fits within the ingroup-outgroup frameworm but not quite immutable. It involved such odd priorities by modern standards like retiring a "gaulic stereotype" class of gladiators after the conquest of Gaul because they were Roman now, even if many were slaves it became "politically incorrect".
Re:Not all the facts fit the anti-colonialist narrative
by tptacek on Monday August 10, 2020 @03:07PM
(#24112850)
Not so much. This is one of those questions AskHistorians does a better job with than HN:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/758v1g/how_d...
Re:Not all the facts fit the anti-colonialist narrative
by zozbot234 on Monday August 10, 2020 @03:16PM
(#24112937)
The AskHistorians answers are quite consistent with what I pointed out above. Of course one can always find plenty of historical anecdotes to quibble about wrt. what exactly happened in specific times and places, but that's neither here nor there.
Historically, this is quite wrong. By the late 19th to early 20th c., "white" identity in the U.S. had essentially become a way of providing all European immigrants with one common, shared identity thus obviating prejudice towards some European nationalities especially wrt. Central Europe (hence Germans, but also Slavs). To a significant extent, this is comparable to how self-identification as "white" is understood today, as well. There's nothing in such self-identification that implies prejudice against people of color.