Have European/Near Eastern people ever faced oppression, persecution or genocide in history?

[walmart]

Literally says the French recognized the pre-existing racial identities of the region.

Regardless of the reasoning behind it 1. They existed as white people 2. Other white people accepted their identity and refered to them as such.

Within the confines of a Saharan structure, It doesn't say anything about Europeans themselves recognizing Tuareg as white. If someone says they are a dragon and I play along, doesn't I mean actually view them as a dragon. also this doesn't disprove my original statement regarding Modern western norms of race.

You're shifting goalposts because the question of OP and the statements I have made was not reasoning of whiteness because the very conversation of white, black, brown, etc... is always a subject of power and consideration

Lets just calls it quits than

 

[Revachah]

Within the confines of a Saharan structure, It doesn't say anything about Europeans themselves recognizing Tuareg as white. If someone says they are a dragon and I play along, doesn't I mean actually view them as a dragon. also this doesn't disprove my original statement regarding Modern western norms of race.


Lets just calls it quits than

No, you're repeatedly shifting goalposts. The French colonial forces supported the racialized hiearchies of Tuareg and Bidan.

They did not however recognize the white identities of Peul, Arma and other groups that also referred to themselves as White.

When is the 1950's not considered modern, why to are you arguing 2000's+ on a pre-1900 sub-board?

You can continually ignore papers and links meant by and for Western readers by Western writers describing North African people as white. However your take has not basis in the historical archives.

Put your head in the sand, it just shows you're more interested in saying "I'm right " without any backing at all on the contrary.

Go on Political chat if you want to talk about race now, I ground my opinions in historical fact and am speaking within the context of the topic at hand.

 

[Višeslav]

Oh hey, this definition includes Jewish people. Fancy that.

Even if you don't count Jews as white, about as many Slavs were killed (7 million Russians and Poles with smaller numbers of Serbs, Slovaks, Czechs, and others (smaller numbers due to their small population, and because Croatia, which killed the most non-Russian-or-polish Slavs was not as interested in keeping records as Nazi Germany)) in the holocaust, and Slavs are undeniably white. Of course, while the numbers were similar, the percentages were very different, since there were many more Slavs in Europe (and in the world, since it is a broader group), than there were Jews.

But yes, even without the Jews, certain "types" of white people were targeted in the holocaust.

Wow. this is depressing. guess that's what I get for responding to a thread about genocide.

 

[walmart]

No, you're repeatedly shifting goalposts.

You've shifted it to a discussion of the status of Tuareg in colonial era west Africa

When is the 1950's not considered modern

Present day whatever.

why to are you arguing 2000's+ on a pre-1900 sub-board?

Because that metric we've been using

You can continually ignore papers and links meant by and for Western readers by Western writers describing North African people as white. However your take has not basis in the historical archives.

You provided one single link that discusses it within the context of French support of pre-existing Saharan notions of race for the benefit of ruling French state. Nothing in the source you provided says the French themselves viewed the Tuareg as white rather they supported the idea for the sake of divide and conquer. Not to mention I fail to see the relevance of any of this in context of present day discussion of western norms of race.

 

[Tirion]

Hungary lost half of its population to the Mongol invasion and the same thing happened to the Kievan Rus ...and both probably still came out of it better than Persia. Mongols also intentionally spread the Black Death later to some poor Genovese traders at least once (catapulting diseased corpses during a siege).

Then we have warfare with extreme losses among "white" people like the 30 years war. IIRC nothing that caused 90%+ population loss like the natives of America suffered, but then again that was epidemics, both mostly unintentional and inevitable at that age.

 

[trajen777]

Disclaimer: This is a highly contentious and subjective question involving race, ethnicity and other related topics. Do not post current politics, flamebait or generally offensive content, otherwise the moderators will lock the thread. Keep the discussion civil as possible. This thread is for educational and writing purposes only.

Reading world histories, I've read about events and stories involving non-white people being oppressed by white people. Periods like the Atlantic Slave Trade, colonization of the Americas, the nadir of American race relations and other events in history are examples. Most examples involve oppression, enslavement, persecution, genocide and prejudice by white people acting as the oppressors.

What about the white people? The main purpose of the thread is to find and collect examples of white people facing oppression, persecution, enslavement, genocide and prejudice in history. To prevent debates about the definition of 'whiteness', the main definition of white means anybody from Europe and the Near East or with ancestry originating from Europe and the Near East.

What events that is an example of white people facing oppression, persecution, enslavement, genocide or prejudice in history?

Muslim slave trade taking Russians and steppe people as warrior slaves , or ottoman jannasries. Raids by the n African nations vs Italy in 1400 to 1600. Barbary pirates. Mongols vs Russians. Turkish with Greeks. Native americans vs settlers.

 

[Worffan101]

In the sociological sense of whiteness? By definition, no group in a position to be sociologically white can be oppressed.

That said, plenty of people from all the artificial "racial" groups have been oppressed and oppressors. Irish, Balts, south Slavs, Catalans, Basques, all European peoples (most of them Indo-European speakers) who were oppressed.

Technically speaking you could say that the Palestinians are racially white too, given that they're descended from those rural 1st century Judeans who weren't kicked out of the region by the Romans, and pretty much everybody except for neo-Nazis considers the descendants of those who were kicked out racially white.

 

[Revachah]

You've shifted it to a discussion of the status of Tuareg in colonial era west Africa

I gave an example because you yourself ignored the possibility of whitwnwss being mutually recognized between european and non-european groups

Irrelevant when talking about the notion from a modern western viewpoint. The Zulus could consider themselves white doesn't make them white in the eyes of West.

First goal post shift

Present day whatever

Second goal post shift

The question was about historical instances

Because that metric we've been using

No the question was open ended and not completely rooted in solely European/Eurocentric contexts.

Third goal post shift.

You provided one single link that discusses it within the context of French support of pre-existing Saharan notions of race for the benefit of ruling French state. Nothing in the source you provided says the French themselves viewed the Tuareg as white rather they supported the idea for the sake of divide and conquer. Not to mention I fail to see the relevance of any of this in context of present day discussion of western norms of race

I provided more than one single link. I stated you could look up *any* historical write up on interethnic and interracial relations in the Sahara during the time of French colonialism and find clear documentation by Europeans for other Europeans discussing Touareg noble castes and from my link, the quoted segment and the literal reference to official documents by the French talking about white touareg communities *all of which you can Google* because I am specific you are choosing to ignore it with not a single backed counter statement showing that it did not happen.

You're saying whiteness was conferred to them for ulterior motives but guess what? Whiteness exists for ulterior motives at it's very basis historically, it was inferred through the reigning power dynamics of the land but you are again fourth time shifting goalposts with no basis or real argument other than you saying "They aren't white now".

In the Americas from Canada to Argentina there isn't a single census where North Africans and Middle Eastern people who aren't clearly of black african are counted differently from Europeans and it is only in the post 9/11 era that this racialization occured.

To this day throughout the Americas from Haiti, Brazil, Costa Rica and across the ocean into Nigeria, to the Iraqi, Iranian, Turksh Lebanese, Syrian and Armenian immigrants to South Africa they were all given white status.

You are not the sole definer of what is and isn't white. That is not how history works, back your statements up or just look silly flip flopping around.

 

[RGB]

People keep bringing up Barbary Slave trade, Ottomans and Arabs not recognizing North Africans and Middle Eastern peoples have recorded hundreds of times their own white identity.

No dice. Arab categories for themselves and their European slaves are easily distinguishable.

Europeans werentw necessarily targeted because they were white. They were targeted because they were Christian.

Wrong again. Being any kind of non-Muslim other than Christian made no difference. And slaves weren't marketed as "Christian" either but by colour or regional provenance.

Rather it's asking about people being targeted due to their whiteness.

And the answer is a clear yes to anyone with a shred of honesty and historical education.

Because with if the kinds of excuses thrown around here were applied to any other racial group whatsoever it would become impossible to argue that anyone was ever oppressed genocided or enslaved for their racial category. There are always other if often overlapping factors behind any categorization. Raising those to primacy in some cases and downplaying them in others is nothing but hypocrisy.

 

[Revachah]

No dice. Arab categories for themselves and their European slaves are easily distinguishable.

Arab as a cuktural identity did not and does not define racial identity. Recognition of non-arabs in this case as slaves has little to do with being white or not but rather an alignment with Arabic culture, language and religion be that Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

Wrong again. Being any kind of non-Muslim other than Christian made no difference. And slaves weren't marketed as "Christian" either but by colour or regional provenance

.
Color was a defining marker due to the presence of black slaves, the differentiating was due yes to color and color bias as well as by region and the views of said region that is distinct from race. The reason white slaves were at all more sought after was due to anti-blackness and an alignment and acknowledgement of similar racial identities.

And the answer is a clear yes to anyone with a shred of honesty and historical education.

Because with if the kinds of excuses thrown around here were applied to any other racial group whatsoever it would become impossible to argue that anyone was ever oppressed genocided or enslaved for their racial category. There are always other if often overlapping factors behind any categorization. Raising those to primacy in some cases and downplaying them in others is nothing but hypocrisy.

Find me societal wide instances in which whiteness was a defining marker of their very essence and thus worthy of enslavement.

The moriscos were Europeans ethnically and white racially who adopted Arab identity is that not the case?

Did they not fully absorb into fellow Muslim communities that also were in their own ways white and Arab in identity?

Falling back to what? A little more than a half century's worth of shifting racialization is silly especially when it's often times being used as some revisionism of European victimhood.

The actors on both sides of the Barbary coast were genetically, culturally and historically rooted within similar veins. Both sides of the Mediterranean maintained ideas of race that both sides recognized in the other despite the hatred due first and foremost with religion.

But religion does not make or break race.

 

[Caravels of Portugal]

To everyone debating about the concept of 'whiteness' in this thread including @Revachah, @Noscoper and others. Do not derail the thread with heated debates about the definition of 'whiteness'.

Disclaimer: This is a highly contentious and subjective question involving race, ethnicity and other related topics. Do not post current politics, flamebait or generally offensive content, otherwise the moderators will lock the thread. Keep the discussion civil as possible

If you want to debate about race and the definition of 'whiteness', take it to the Private Messages or Chat instead of arguing in this thread. This thread is about the discussion of people from Europe/Near East or ancestry ultimately from Europe/Near East facing forms of discrimination and oppression in history. I don't want this thread to be overwhelmed with heated arguments. I would rather get the Mods to lock this thread and I'll make a new one with more clarification instead if the posters try to debate again.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Wikipedia puts the paper strength of the Janissary corps by year at
1400: <1,000
1484: 7,841
1523: 7,164
1530: 8,407
1547: 12,131
1574: 13,599
1582: 16,905
1592: 23,232
1609: 37,627
1654: 51,047
1666/67: 47,233
1687/88: 62,826
1699: 67,729
1710/11: 43,562

I don't think it's unreasonably to put the number of people from the balkans who were enslaved by the Ottomans in the hundreds of thousands.

Possibly. It's worth noting that Arab and Turk Muslim families sometimes deliberately pretended to be Christian so they could get their children into the Janissary corps. They wanted to benefit from the possibility of promotion, patronage and high position it opened up. So one cannot conclusively assume all Janissaries were Balkan Christians. The Cairo Janisarries for instance were recruited almost exclusively from the empire's Arabic-speaking population. This is not to diminish that there certainly were large numbers taken in the Devshirme system, just pointing out that the numbers listed in that column cannot automatically be assumed to be Balkan Christians.

 

[James Ricker]

Let's not forget about the Mongols.

 

[The Professor]

To everyone debating about the concept of 'whiteness' in this thread including @Revachah, @Noscoper and others. Do not derail the thread with heated debates about the definition of 'whiteness'.


If you want to debate about race and the definition of 'whiteness', take it to the Private Messages or Chat instead of arguing in this thread. This thread is about the discussion of people from Europe/Near East or ancestry ultimately from Europe/Near East facing forms of discrimination and oppression in history. I don't want this thread to be overwhelmed with heated arguments. I would rather get the Mods to lock this thread and I'll make a new one with more clarification instead if the posters try to debate again.

Perhaps you should replace "white" in your title and OP with "European/NearEastern"?
Otherwise you will almost certainly get a discussion on what "white" means because it varies so.
If your question is:
"Have people from Europe/Near East (or ancestry ultimately from Europe/Near East) faced forms of discrimination and oppression in history?"
Then the answer is yes. By those who saw such people as lesser than themselves. And by each other because such people aren't a single homogeneous bloc.
Take your pick of examples because no one group has clean hands on this.

 

[Caravels of Portugal]

I've changed the title immediately.

 

[walmart]

. I stated you could look up *any* historical write up on interethnic and interracial relations in the Sahara during the time of French colonialism and find clear documentation by Europeans for other Europeans discussing Touareg noble castes and from my link,

Telling me to look up something is not evidence

In the Americas from Canada to Argentina there isn't a single census where North Africans and Middle Eastern people who aren't clearly of black african are counted differently from Europeans

Latin America has a different notions of Race than West Europe and Canada and United states not to mentions links

They are not counted in the British or Canadian census
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...ations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/guides/006/98-500-x2016006-eng.cfm

Inclusion in the US census is and has been contested with it being lead by middle Easterners
https://thearabweekly.com/how-significant-rejection-mena-category-2020-us-census
https://www.aaiusa.org/2020census

http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/census/2020/Fact-Sheet-MENA-HTC.pdf

http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/82/82_1_Tehranian.pdf

Recommended to added in page 23
https://www2.census.gov/programs-su...s-reports/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.pdf

it is only in the post 9/11 era that this racialization occured.

So you do agree with the idea that Middle Easters and North African are not counted as white in Modern Western society

You are not the sole definer of what is and isn't white. That is not how history works, back your statements up or just look silly flip flopping around.

With your insinuation and previous insult. I see no reason to continue

 

[Kerney]

Can we just lock this thread please?

 

[Amateur]

Ladies and gentlemen, race is an arbitrary concept with NO basis in science. One may define races and their differences any way they wish, and people have done so for centuries.

The amount of genetic material involved with coding for skin color and other racial characteristics is fairly small, and the actual genes involved are not generally associated with functional characteristics such as intelligence or strength. If the human genome were coded into an encyclopedia set, the coding for racial characteristics, scattered throughout, would total perhaps a page or two out of the 20 volume set.

More genetic material is used to code for the digestion of lactose. Humans are a relatively genetically "shallow" species, with genetic differences being quite small, but the ignorance of people knows no limits so people make stuff up.

Our oldest "racial" designation was derived from the three sons of Noah. Semites are supposedly the children of Shem, and so on. By this designation, using modern terms, we divide the World into Semites (Jews and non-African Arabs), Africans (including Egypt and Palestine), and "Whites". Note that peoples of East Asia, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and the New World are neglected in this classification system. Under this system, "White" includes Persians, Hindi's, and Armenians.

But, since classifying races is akin to debating the color of the invisible unicorn, feel free to make up any classification system you wish. It is all BS anyway.

 

[NiGHTS]

Snip

I mean this is a bit dramatic isn't it? I mean for one thing the discussions of who's white and who isn't is considered an anomaly of the thread and is not the purpose of it, so the thread shouldn't be punished for what's essentially the fault of derailers. Second off, while I still don't get the purpose of discussing or pointing out when Europeans/Near Easterners have faced(title) I don't think it's really something that's bad in itself. It's not like anyone's using this to say "see white people have suffered too, so POC should stop complaining" which was my initial fear in this thread, but that hasn't happened ,so that show's me that the nature of this discussion isn't intended to be a subtle poke at that. So, yeah, I think this is a bit of an overreaction

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Cagots yet.

Reading that, I'm surprised they didn't just move somewhere else and set up as non-Cagots. After all, since they were apparently physically and culturally identical to their non-Cagot neighbours, it's unlikely their deception would be found out.