Race and Nations

[Starman]

The world is probably more mixed than it ever was. I saw lots of Chinese people in Ghana, Africans in Italy, and then there's the "melting pot" that is America. But I have a hard time of separating race from nations. To me, the Chinese guy born in Ghana isn't Ghanaian, the African guy born in Italy isn't Italian. On and on.

Is this an outdated world view? If so when did it change?

 

[Yehuda]

Idk about it being more mixed than it ever was. I think the miscegenation that occurred back in the days is understated.

 

[JahFocus CS]

It is a globalized world and states are nothing more than areas that a ruling class drew lines around on a map to assert exclusive dominion over.

 

[Starman]

It is a globalized world and states are nothing more than areas that a ruling class drew lines around on a map to assert exclusive dominion over.

See I don't buy this. The Chinese have a history thousands of years old. All of that culture, traceable bloodlines, means nothing because anyone born there is Chinese now?

Just doesn't feel right.

 

[JahFocus CS]

See I don't buy this. The Chinese have a history thousands of years old. All of that culture, traceable bloodlines, means nothing because anyone born there is Chinese now?

Just doesn't feel right.

There are dozens of ethnic groups in China, all with different and complex histories. They aren't a monolith, and sone of them were forcibly included into the territory of the Chinese state.

A Chinese worker has more in common with an Italian worker than either does with a member of the ruling class in either China or Italy.

Now in terms of culture and rootedness in the land, I somewhat agree with you. But I only focus on that in cases of settler colonialism. That's not what immigration is (a Ghanaian in China, a North African in Italy, etc). Too easy for that rhetoric to slip into xenophobia, racism, and other nasty forms of discrimination/oppression that divide people.

 

[Starman]

There are dozens of ethnic groups in China, all with different and complex histories. They aren't a monolith, and sone of them were forcibly included into the territory of the Chinese state.

A Chinese worker has more in common with an Italian worker than either does with a member of the ruling class in either China or Italy.

Now in terms of culture and rootedness in the land, I somewhat agree with you. But I only focus on that in cases of settler colonialism. That's not what immigration is (a Ghanaian in China, a North African in Italy, etc). Too easy for that rhetoric to slip into xenophobia, racism, and other nasty forms of discrimination/oppression that divide people.

Get out, commie!

 

[JahFocus CS]

Get out, commie!

Make me get out, cappie

 

[Starman]

Make me get out, cappie

Weren't the masses supposed to realize class was>>>race and nationality after WWI?

Workers of the world unite!

Face it, race matters. And it's inextricably linked to nationality.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Weren't the masses supposed to realize class was>>>race and nationality after WWI?

Workers of the world unite!

Face it, race matters. And it's inextricably linked to nationality.

Weren't Black people supposed to realize Black unity>>>>>>>division after the 60s/70s?

Pan-Africanists of the world unite!

Face it, Black people can't unite.





See how easy it is to say something incredibly fukking ignorant with no understanding of history or consideration of the balance of social forces at a given juncture?

 

[Starman]

Weren't Black people supposed to realize Black unity>>>>>>>division after the 60s/70s?

Pan-Africanists of the world unite!

Face it, Black people can't unite.





See how easy it is to say something incredibly fukking ignorant with no understanding of history or consideration of the balance of social forces at a given juncture?

Way to not answer the question. But to answer yours,no, I don't think Blacks were expected to enter the 80's with some kind of grand unification. Why would we?
I did learn that some communist leaders expected the world wars to have the effect I explained in my earlier post though. Maybe it'll just take one more world war ( ). But you're the resident communist. Explain.

To your other post, do you really identify with janitors and low wage earners world wide more than you identify with the many wealthier members of your race? People have been called c00ns for less. But I wouldn't put that on you, breh.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

See I don't buy this. The Chinese have a history thousands of years old. All of that culture, traceable bloodlines, means nothing because anyone born there is Chinese now?

Just doesn't feel right.

Weren't the masses supposed to realize class was>>>race and nationality after WWI?

Workers of the world unite!

Face it, race matters. And it's inextricably linked to nationality.

What "bloodlines" link your average west Chinese dude to one of those Cantonese dudes to one of those Tibetan dudes to one of those east Chinese Muslim dudes to one of those basically Mongolian dudes?

China's borders have nothing to do with race whatsoever.

Same goes for Russia, India, the Philippines, South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, the USA...we could go on.

Even freaking England. Have you ever read your English history? The "anglo-saxons" running that joint aren't even from there, they were pagan barbarians that came from the German region in the 6th century. And those anglo-saxons are not even the same people as the ones whose culture runs, say, Cornwell or Wales or Scotland, who are mostly Celtic people who came from some unknown place in central Europe a thousand years earlier. And neither of those groups are the ones who were originally in England before that. Not to mention that even AFTER those groups came, it was actually the Romans, the Vikings, or the Normans who were running that joint for centuries each. And the pagan barbarians eventually got their Christian religion from missionaries sent by Ireland and Rome.

Going back in history, the huge empires in places like Egypt, Greece, India, China, Rome, etc. had all sorts of racial and cultural mixing. Not to mention more recent ones like the Muslim Caliphs, the Turkish rulers, etc. The modern "nation" is a recent phenomenom, and claiming that nation must be tied to ethnicity is even more recent than that.

 

[Starman]

What "bloodlines" link your average west Chinese dude to one of those Cantonese dudes to one of those Tibetan dudes to one of those east Chinese Muslim dudes to one of those basically Mongolian dudes?

China's borders have nothing to do with race whatsoever.

Same goes for Russia, India, the Philippines, South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, the USA...we could go on.

Even freaking England. Have you ever read your English history? The "anglo-saxons" running that joint aren't even from there, they were pagan barbarians that came from the German region in the 6th century. And those anglo-saxons are not even the same people as the ones whose culture runs, say, Cornwell or Wales or Scotland, who are mostly Celtic people who came from some unknown place in central Europe a thousand years earlier. And neither of those groups are the ones who were originally in England before that. Not to mention that even AFTER those groups came, it was actually the Romans, the Vikings, or the Normans who were running that joint for centuries each. And the pagan barbarians eventually got their Christian religion from missionaries sent by Ireland and Rome.

Going back in history, the huge empires in places like Egypt, Greece, India, China, Rome, etc. had all sorts of racial and cultural mixing. Not to mention more recent ones like the Muslim Caliphs, the Turkish rulers, etc. The modern "nation" is a recent phenomenom, and claiming that nation must be tied to ethnicity is even more recent than that.

Thanks for the reply.

Do you see no connection between race and nationhood, however new? And how new would you say this idea is?

 

[mbewane]

What "bloodlines" link your average west Chinese dude to one of those Cantonese dudes to one of those Tibetan dudes to one of those east Chinese Muslim dudes to one of those basically Mongolian dudes?

China's borders have nothing to do with race whatsoever.

Same goes for Russia, India, the Philippines, South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, the USA...we could go on.

Even freaking England. Have you ever read your English history? The "anglo-saxons" running that joint aren't even from there, they were pagan barbarians that came from the German region in the 6th century. And those anglo-saxons are not even the same people as the ones whose culture runs, say, Cornwell or Wales or Scotland, who are mostly Celtic people who came from some unknown place in central Europe a thousand years earlier. And neither of those groups are the ones who were originally in England before that. Not to mention that even AFTER those groups came, it was actually the Romans, the Vikings, or the Normans who were running that joint for centuries each. And the pagan barbarians eventually got their Christian religion from missionaries sent by Ireland and Rome.

Going back in history, the huge empires in places like Egypt, Greece, India, China, Rome, etc. had all sorts of racial and cultural mixing. Not to mention more recent ones like the Muslim Caliphs, the Turkish rulers, etc. The modern "nation" is a recent phenomenom, and claiming that nation must be tied to ethnicity is even more recent than that.

Exactly. It looks like OP is referring is the nation-state in the European sense, which is an invention of the late 19th century only. In this understanding, nation=group with same language, ethnicity, "values", and state is indeed the political entity in which said nation (=group) lives.

So it means that all of this isn't even 2 centuries old, but it has indeed shaped the minds to such an extent that we think it's the only way to go. But if you take any Euro nation-state, they all have very different "nations" in them. France for example has Basques, Bretons, Occitans etc...you don't hear about them now because they were culturally crushed by the central government in Paris, precisely to establish the "nation-state". The mistake you make, no offense, is that you use the US frame of "race" so you see all French people are white, so they're the same "nation". Nope, it's a construct. And that's not even talking about Euro countries with real separatist movements, such as Belgium, Spain, Italy. And obviously, the fact that the nation-state and the new-foound patriotism (and its ugly-cousin nationalism) is one of the main reasons for WW1.

So even on the continent that invented the concept of nation-state (Europe), that concept is shaky at best and is under serious discussion at all levels. If you go back in history all the major empires were an insane mix of various ethnicities, languages, etc. It's the so-called "rationalism" that led people to believe that simplifying things (one nation one language one ethnicity) would be better. Problem is, people move, languages travel, cultures change. So instead of finding ways of living together (as in olden days), you're looking for ways to move towards that elusive "unicity", which means putting up borders (hence the invention of ID and passports in that same area) and finding ways to define who's in and who's out. With all the xenopoby and racism that ensues.

Actually if you look around the world very few countries are "nation" unified. None on continental Western, Central, Eastern Europe or the Balkans, that's for sure. Not even GB. MAYBE Norway and them, Greenland, Iceland. I doubt any Asian country is (even Japan has aborigenal type populations in the north that have damn near been eradicated), African countries def not, Middle-East neither, America (the continent) obviously not.

So this idea of a nation-state in the sense of a homogeneous group (or race) = a country hardly exists anywhere.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Too much history and critical thinking in this thread now

 

[Red Shield]

Exactly. It looks like OP is referring is the nation-state in the European sense, which is an invention of the late 19th century only. In this understanding, nation=group with same language, ethnicity, "values", and state is indeed the political entity in which said nation (=group) lives.

So it means that all of this isn't even 2 centuries old, but it has indeed shaped the minds to such an extent that we think it's the only way to go. But if you take any Euro nation-state, they all have very different "nations" in them. France for example has Basques, Bretons, Occitans etc...you don't hear about them now because they were culturally crushed by the central government in Paris, precisely to establish the "nation-state". The mistake you make, no offense, is that you use the US frame of "race" so you see all French people are white, so they're the same "nation". Nope, it's a construct. And that's not even talking about Euro countries with real separatist movements, such as Belgium, Spain, Italy. And obviously, the fact that the nation-state and the new-foound patriotism (and its ugly-cousin nationalism) is one of the main reasons for WW1.

So even on the continent that invented the concept of nation-state (Europe), that concept is shaky at best and is under serious discussion at all levels. If you go back in history all the major empires were an insane mix of various ethnicities, languages, etc. It's the so-called "rationalism" that led people to believe that simplifying things (one nation one language one ethnicity) would be better. Problem is, people move, languages travel, cultures change. So instead of finding ways of living together (as in olden days), you're looking for ways to move towards that elusive "unicity", which means putting up borders (hence the invention of ID and passports in that same area) and finding ways to define who's in and who's out. With all the xenopoby and racism that ensues.

Actually if you look around the world very few countries are "nation" unified. None on continental Western, Central, Eastern Europe or the Balkans, that's for sure. Not even GB. MAYBE Norway and them, Greenland, Iceland. I doubt any Asian country is (even Japan has aborigenal type populations in the north that have damn near been eradicated), African countries def not, Middle-East neither, America (the continent) obviously not.

So this idea of a nation-state in the sense of a homogeneous group (or race) = a country hardly exists anywhere.

damn good post