US man killed by endangered tribe in india

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

Depends how long ago you start looking. 100s, 1000s or 100,000s of years ago?

Well Europe didn't really explore many places beyond the Mediterranean before a certain time, so that narrows it somewhat.

rick_chasey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolon ... c_concepts < if ya really wanna know.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

OK mate. Think that if you want but that just isn't the case. Plenty of reading I can point you towards if you are interested - I suspect not.

Plenty of people have dedicated their entire career to that, so I'm sure they'd love to hear that it's a shaky claim.

I'm always interested to read stuff. Send me some references and I'll put them on my Christmas list. But yes, I dispute that using language alongside other tactics to 'other' another people in order to justify conquest and domination of that people, is solely a characteristic of European imperialism from the 15th century onwards.

pinno

Slowbike wrote:

Good for them - I hope he bbq'd well ....

With plenty of curry powder to kill off any remaining germs.

craigus89

Attitudes are of course something that are developed through thought and communication, both of which use language. The jump seems pretty far in this case though, Rick. There is a difference between calling a group of people 'rats' or 'dirty' and using terms like 'tribe' that may well be antiquated or have their meanings stemming from unpleasantness, but they certainly don't carry the same weight with the majority of people.

I don't know what purpose it serves picking people up on it, and it seems to fuel the common disdain for political correctness when it is 'overused'.

rick_chasey

Said’s Orientalism is the absolute game changer - first two chapters particularly and Spivak’s can the Sabaltern speak? Is the other.

The origins of racism in the West tries to establish if indeed racial ideas existed before the 18th Century, and the conclusion broadly is they start to surface but in the second half of the 18th, before becoming the full blown racism as we know it by the middle of the 19th. There’s a lot for the centuries before but it’s all just a precursor really.

It looks at the ancient stuff too, an entire volume for Ancient Greece for example.

However, racism and “racial” ideas are fundamentally modern.

^^ I’m working on the assumption you don’t get colonialism as I’m referring to without racism of course.

shirley_basso

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Depends how long ago you start looking. 100s, 1000s or 100,000s of years ago?

Well Europe didn't really explore many places beyond the Mediterranean before a certain time, so that narrows it somewhat.

But fear of 'the other' has existed since the dawn of what could be considered humanity and Europeans didn't invent language and conquest.

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Depends how long ago you start looking. 100s, 1000s or 100,000s of years ago?

Well Europe didn't really explore many places beyond the Mediterranean before a certain time, so that narrows it somewhat.

But fear of 'the other' has existed since the dawn of what could be considered humanity and Europeans didn't invent language and conquest.

Sure, but colonialism is very much a modern concept. The idea that there is a racial difference which requires societies to succumb to a mother society elsewhere in the world - that ain't old.

And phrases like 'tribe' etc, are all words that helped frame that particular type of colonialism...

pblakeney

Meh. Humans are tribal. Always have been, always will be.
Make it as polite as you want with some shiny polish but humans will revert when pushed.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but colonialism is very much a modern concept. The idea that there is a racial difference which requires societies to succumb to a mother society elsewhere in the world - that ain't old.

Colonisation was simply about commodities, power and trade in more recent history. It was a matter of competing. We were in long running wars with France and with a proficient navy, used other pastures to further our own ends (and line pockets).

The Jesuit massacre's were also about power, resources and trade with a (un)healthy dose of Catholicism chucked in.

You cannot keep re writing History because it does not fit your moral standing.

Indigenous West African tribes kidnapped people to sell to the slave traders and were even contracted to procure slaves. The Saudi's et al are still procuring 'maids' from Africa to work for $50 per month and for every 1 slave that went to the US in the 1800's, 3 went to the middle east*.

How does that fit in with your us bad, them persecuted/oppressed tinted glasses?

*That's a conservative estimate.

craigus89

Rick Chasey wrote:

Said’s Orientalism is the absolute game changer - first two chapters particularly and Spivak’s can the Sabaltern speak? Is the other.

The origins of racism in the West tries to establish if indeed racial ideas existed before the 18th Century, and the conclusion broadly is they start to surface but in the second half of the 18th, before becoming the full blown racism as we know it by the middle of the 19th. There’s a lot for the centuries before but it’s all just a precursor really.

It looks at the ancient stuff too, an entire volume for Ancient Greece for example.

However, racism and “racial” ideas are fundamentally modern.

^^ I’m working on the assumption you don’t get colonialism as I’m referring to without racism of course.

That seems to go contrary to everything I've ever learned about history. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about, I can think of plenty of examples, especially some biblical ones.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Depends how long ago you start looking. 100s, 1000s or 100,000s of years ago?

Well Europe didn't really explore many places beyond the Mediterranean before a certain time, so that narrows it somewhat.

But fear of 'the other' has existed since the dawn of what could be considered humanity and Europeans didn't invent language and conquest.

Sure, but colonialism is very much a modern concept. The idea that there is a racial difference which requires societies to succumb to a mother society elsewhere in the world - that ain't old.

And phrases like 'tribe' etc, are all words that helped frame that particular type of colonialism...

The word pre-dates it's use in that context, though, and having been bent to one new meaning it can be bent to another.

Your description of colonialism doesn't sound all that different from the Roman empire. The classical writers have various disparaging descriptions of those they considered worthy only of conquest and civilisation, albeit without some of the pseudo scientific backup of the late 19th century. I dare say a lot of 17th-19th century imperialists with a classical education saw Rome as a model to be replicated.

rick_chasey

Ethno-centricism and proto-racism can indeed be found in a lot of ancient texts, but the idea of racism as some hereditary inferiority are more modern and only really took hold in late 18th.

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, but colonialism is very much a modern concept. The idea that there is a racial difference which requires societies to succumb to a mother society elsewhere in the world - that ain't old.

Colonisation was simply about commodities, power and trade in more recent history. It was a matter of competing. We were in long running wars with France and with a proficient navy, used other pastures to further our own ends (and line pockets).

The Jesuit massacre's were also about power, resources and trade with a (un)healthy dose of Catholicism chucked in.

You cannot keep re writing History because it does not fit your moral standing.

Indigenous West African tribes kidnapped people to sell to the slave traders and were even contracted to procure slaves. The Saudi's et al are still procuring 'maids' from Africa to work for $50 per month and for every 1 slave that went to the US in the 1800's, 3 went to the middle east*.

How does that fit in with your us bad, them persecuted/persecuted tinted glasses?

*That's a conservative estimate.

Mate you always confuse me. What point of mine are you arguing?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Depends how long ago you start looking. 100s, 1000s or 100,000s of years ago?

Well Europe didn't really explore many places beyond the Mediterranean before a certain time, so that narrows it somewhat.

But fear of 'the other' has existed since the dawn of what could be considered humanity and Europeans didn't invent language and conquest.

Sure, but colonialism is very much a modern concept. The idea that there is a racial difference which requires societies to succumb to a mother society elsewhere in the world - that ain't old.

And phrases like 'tribe' etc, are all words that helped frame that particular type of colonialism...

The word pre-dates it's use in that context, though, and having been bent to one new meaning it can be bent to another.

Your description of colonialism doesn't sound all that different from the Roman empire. The classical writers have various disparaging descriptions of those they considered worthy only of conquest and civilisation, albeit without some of the pseudo scientific backup of the late 19th century. I dare say a lot of 17th-19th century imperialists with a classical education saw Rome as a model to be replicated.

Sure, I don’t disagree, except for the word usage - it still carries the modern colonial meaning.

I think we need to make a distinction here between modern colonialism and the rest - they’re quite different and one impacts the current world in a way the other doesn’t.

pblakeney

Modern colonialism impacts the Modern world more than ancient colonialism. Who’d have thunk it?

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Modern colonialism impacts the Morden world more than ancient colonialism. Who’d have thunk it?

Well yes quite.

robert88

re the word 'Barbarian'. It was just a way of saying 'people who talked funny' i.e. the baa-baas!

Anyway I understand there things called tribal tourists who attempt to reach areas like this but for touristic reasons. Crudely they want to gawp at a spectacle very different from what they are used to.

Victorian gentry used to go slumming for that frisson of excitement when you visit somewhere dangerous and gruesomely fascinating. It just has to be so far removed from your own environment as to be 'special'.

craigus89

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ethno-centricism and proto-racism can indeed be found in a lot of ancient texts, but the idea of racism as some hereditary inferiority are more modern and only really took hold in late 18th.

From a quick googling it seems that the term proto-racism is quite narrowly used and is to do with the actions being based on prejudice and not being 'systematic'. I'm not sure that that figures with a lot of the history I know about?

tangled_metal

Ever learn ancient Greek RC? I suggest you learn it and learn to read Greek classics in the language it was written in. I was unfortunate to go to a school that taught Latin and ancient Greek (rare indeed) from the age of 11. It also involved learning a bit of the culture / civilization.

If you read the original text and understand the civilization then you'll know racism and using degrading language to make your enemies seem less than human is actually in their language and culture.

The origins of barbarian for example is iirc what a Greek city state thought their foreign enemies sounded like. I believe the original barbarians sounded like sheep to this city state hence the origins of that word. I believe it could be on Thucydides but I could be wrong there.

Insulting the "others" to allow acceptance of aggression against other peoples is an old thing

rick_chasey

Craigus89 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ethno-centricism and proto-racism can indeed be found in a lot of ancient texts, but the idea of racism as some hereditary inferiority are more modern and only really took hold in late 18th.

From a quick googling it seems that the term proto-racism is quite narrowly used and is to do with the actions being based on prejudice and not being 'systematic'. I'm not sure that that figures with a lot of the history I know about?

Yeah.

I think everyone is right in that othering has occurred more or less forever. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

I think what needs to not be forgotten is racism and modern colonialism are very much existentially syncretic, and that together they create a wholy unique experience for both coloniser and colonised, and we are living in a post-colonial world, in amongst the consequences of that entire episode. Instances like this island and how people discuss and report it offer a view into some of the ways that episode has shaped the way we understand things.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Modern colonialism impacts the Morden world more than ancient colonialism. Who’d have thunk it?

Well yes quite.

In academic circles it's now referred to as southeast Wimbledon.

Badoomtish.

robert88

The origins of barbarian for example is iirc what a Greek city state thought their foreign enemies sounded like. I believe the original barbarians sounded like sheep to this city state hence the origins of that word. I believe it could be on Thucydides but I could be wrong there.

Actually it wasn't Thucydides it was me, a couple of posts before yours.

Ben6899

The lads with the arrows aren't going to read this thread anyway. Call them what you like.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

Ever learn ancient Greek RC? I suggest you learn it and learn to read Greek classics in the language it was written in. I was unfortunate to go to a school that taught Latin and ancient Greek (rare indeed) from the age of 11. It also involved learning a bit of the culture / civilization.

If you read the original text and understand the civilization then you'll know racism and using degrading language to make your enemies seem less than human is actually in their language and culture.

The origins of barbarian for example is iirc what a Greek city state thought their foreign enemies sounded like. I believe the original barbarians sounded like sheep to this city state hence the origins of that word. I believe it could be on Thucydides but I could be wrong there.

Insulting the "others" to allow acceptance of aggression against other peoples is an old thing

It’s my understanding that examples like this were precisely why terms like ethnocetrocism and proto-racism were concocted. Ethnocentricism was a way to describe a view - that one’s group is the centre of everything and all others are referenced to - that would refer to instances that did not include the prevailing idea of using evolution as a framework which put Europeans at the cutting edge of human development.

Hence the distinction.

(I read Latin GCSE for what it’s worth)

hopkinb

Ben6899 wrote:

The lads with the arrows aren't going to read this thread anyway. Call them what you like.

I'm going to call the big fella "Keith".

It's all got a bit academic in here. There's hardly been any name-calling either. Most unlike B-R.

pblakeney

hopkinb wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

The lads with the arrows aren't going to read this thread anyway. Call them what you like.

I'm going to call the big fella "Keith".

It's all got a bit academic in here. There's hardly been any name-calling either. Most unlike B-R.

But, but, but, you just assumed gender.
People will be upset.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Ever learn ancient Greek RC? I suggest you learn it and learn to read Greek classics in the language it was written in. I was unfortunate to go to a school that taught Latin and ancient Greek (rare indeed) from the age of 11. It also involved learning a bit of the culture / civilization.

If you read the original text and understand the civilization then you'll know racism and using degrading language to make your enemies seem less than human is actually in their language and culture.

The origins of barbarian for example is iirc what a Greek city state thought their foreign enemies sounded like. I believe the original barbarians sounded like sheep to this city state hence the origins of that word. I believe it could be on Thucydides but I could be wrong there.

Insulting the "others" to allow acceptance of aggression against other peoples is an old thing

It’s my understanding that examples like this were precisely why terms like ethnocetrocism and proto-racism were concocted. Ethnocentricism was a way to describe a view - that one’s group is the centre of everything and all others are referenced to - that would refer to instances that did not include the prevailing idea of using evolution as a framework which put Europeans at the cutting edge of human development.

Hence the distinction.

(I read Latin GCSE for what it’s worth)

The idea of evolution emerged rather late in the day for it to be the origin of modern racism, but I would agree that once published it didn't take long for the ideas to be 'put to work'. Up until the Origin of Species, the prevailing idea was that different species were created in the beginning by God.

robert88

hopkinb wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

The lads with the arrows aren't going to read this thread anyway. Call them what you like.

I'm going to call the big fella "Keith".

It's all got a bit academic in here. There's hardly been any name-calling either. Most unlike B-R.

Well really we are all singing off the same hymn sheet.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Said’s Orientalism is the absolute game changer - first two chapters particularly and Spivak’s can the Sabaltern speak? Is the other.

The origins of racism in the West tries to establish if indeed racial ideas existed before the 18th Century, and the conclusion broadly is they start to surface but in the second half of the 18th, before becoming the full blown racism as we know it by the middle of the 19th. There’s a lot for the centuries before but it’s all just a precursor really.

It looks at the ancient stuff too, an entire volume for Ancient Greece for example.

However, racism and “racial” ideas are fundamentally modern.

^^ I’m working on the assumption you don’t get colonialism as I’m referring to without racism of course.

And of course none of this would be in any way connected to people working backwards to try and prove a firmly held conviction that white Europeans are uniquely evil and racist - in fact, that racism by definition is something that only white people do?
Would it?