Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you look into segregationist policies around the world, there are two things that appear over and over again.
One is that the countries that put in place some sort of segregation/apartheid tended to be ex-colonies of Britain (USA, South Africa, Rhodesia -now Zimbabwe-, etc). This is not to say that other places had no issues regarding this, just that it tended to be stricter and official in ex-British colonies. If English was the main language used in a place, it went without saying that things such as racial mixture were looked down upon (in some llaces they put laws making racial mixing illegal, imagine that!) and racial segregation tended to be stronger and stricter.
The other is how the USA comes up as a source of inspiration for many of these things, even if many Americans are not up to hearing about this. There is the case of Australia as mentioned before, its restrictions were modelled after similar ones already imposed in the USA. A long time ago, though I don't remember his name, I saw an interview made to some South African leader and he said that South Africa's apartheid was actually modelled after the USA's segregation, which already existed for many years before apartheid was imposed in South Africa. Of course, the USA began to dismantle segregation in the 1960's while South Africa's apartheid began to crumble in the 1980's, I think. The point is that the USA appears to be used as a model to copy and often times the USA was ahead of the curb so to speak. Apartheid arose after segregation was in place for many years in the USA. Apartheid fell after segregation had crumbled for many years in the USA.
At least I see a pattern here of monkey see, monkey do. Just that often the hand of the USA serving as a model of admiration and copy in other parts of the world seem to go into hiding when it sees fit. Apartheid in places like South Africa didn't appear out of thin air. Rhodesia's apartheid was copied from South Africa, but South Africa's apartheid was inspired by American segregation.
The question is, where did American segregation came from? Plus, why the countries that adopted similar policies tended to be ex-British colonies for the most part?
Just a theory. Maybe the difference in settlement patterns is the reason. Take the Spanish colonization of the Americas. If I recall correctly, most of the Spaniards who came to the new world were male. Wasn’t much success in getting women to come over. Therefore, these men had to take native and slave wives, thus allowing a strong mixed-race class to emerge, and ensuring a certain level of integration. Difficult for absolute segregationist policies to emerge in such an environment. The British were successful in getting entire families to make the move. As such so mixing was needed and they could maintain racial purity, economic exclusivity, and dominance. The passing of segregationist laws just cemented what had already been established as culture. A Just a theory.
Just a theory. Maybe the difference in settlement patterns is the reason. Take the Spanish colonization of the Americas. If I recall correctly, most of the Spaniards who came to the new world were male. Wasn’t much success in getting women to come over. Therefore, these men had to take native and slave wives, thus allowing a strong mixed-race class to emerge, and ensuring a certain level of integration. Difficult for absolute segregationist policies to emerge in such an environment. The British were successful in getting entire families to make the move. As such so mixing was needed and they could maintain racial purity, economic exclusivity, and dominance. The passing of segregationist laws just cemented what had already been established as culture. A Just a theory.
Actually in Latin America the traditional ruling class were whites. Wealthy white men would bring women from Europe to be their wives. Those on the next level were White people in those countries, then the next level would be mixed race people.
Cuba did attract large number of Spanish families during colonial period and it continued to attract European immigration right through out the 19th century.
When Cuba became communist, the American government allowed masses of Cubans to move to America. One of the reasons is they were white. Plus the Whites there controlled a lion share of Cuban wealth.
BTW the American government welcomed the Cuban refugees in the 1960s with open arms. Yet at the same time was against the Black Haitian immigrants trying to come to the USA.
IN Brazil in the 17th century there was a huge gold rush and hundred of thousand of Portugese people went there. IT is reported even the Portugese government did try to discourage so many Portugese people from moving to Brazil then because Portugal had a small population of 2 million people. I am sure the biggest movement of European people in the 16h century in Latin America was from Portugal.
Tradiionally both Latin America and North America has a preferece of bringing in Europeans.
Even today the USA has a preference of bringing in Ukrainian refugees compared to Afgan refugees. BTW there are even Ukrainian refugees that appear at the American MExican border and they are embraced by America, while brown skinned or black skinned people wanting to come in the USA can be turned away from the border and not allowed into the USA.
Even in Canada, the government there has allowed unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees to claim sanctury, but will not do the same to Afghan people. Yet in Canada there is a huge Ukranian community and they are a powerful lobby in Canada politics. Yet the Afghan lobby is weaker and there is not a huge Afghan community there too.
In UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Baharan attracts massive number of non white immigrants. IN UAE people from the Indian subcontinent are a majority there. They are wealthy countries and people from developing countries are attracted to moving to rich countries. It has always been the case.
It seems most countries do not allow other races and ethnic groups to move into their countries except those created by whites or that small little continent called Europe. Why is the entire world racist except white people who welcome everyone?
As others have already mentioned there are quite a few " nonwhite " countries , from Thailand to Mexico , that have a rather visible " white " expatriate population in some of their settlements .
Of course mass immigration of " white " people of all societal/age/gender categories to " nonwhite " countries is quite rare if non existent , but that is another issue entirely which may very well be beyond the scope of this thread , which is why I won't touch on it for now .
Just a theory. Maybe the difference in settlement patterns is the reason. Take the Spanish colonization of the Americas. If I recall correctly, most of the Spaniards who came to the new world were male. Wasn’t much success in getting women to come over. Therefore, these men had to take native and slave wives, thus allowing a strong mixed-race class to emerge, and ensuring a certain level of integration. Difficult for absolute segregationist policies to emerge in such an environment. The British were successful in getting entire families to make the move. As such so mixing was needed and they could maintain racial purity, economic exclusivity, and dominance. The passing of segregationist laws just cemented what had already been established as culture. A Just a theory.
I am not sure about that, Australia for one certainly had massive gender imbalance in its early years. Their was 150 males for every female among non natives in Australia in 1851, and the gap was much larger before then. Even in 1901 when Australia become a country, their was still 110 non native men to every women.
Naturally this leads to a lot of inbreeding with the native Aboriginal women.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 05-29-2022 at 10:11 PM..
Western Europe accepts immigrants but many are from former colonies. But the rest of Europe (former Soviet bloc states) refuses to accept almost any immigrants despite the fact that many of their inhabitants are immigrants to Western Europe, the USA and Canada.
Actually this isn't true because the number of foreigners living in Eastern members of the EU has very much risen in recent years , what with entire villages in the region sometimes being inhabited primarily by ( f.ex ) relocated German pensioners .
The number of " nonwhite " foreigners living in the Eastern part of the contemporary EU has also very much risen since the end of the Communist era , it's no accident after all that ( to use a good example ) the Czech Republic and Poland have rather significant Vietnamese immigrant communities , with virtually all other countries having a visible number of year round " nonwhite " residents in pretty much all of their larger settlements by now .
Really this misguided claim that often gets repeated these days probably stems from the political sparring match the V4 countries had with the EU during the 2015 migrant crisis , even though ( contrary to popular belief ) every single one of those countries actually accepted a limited number of migrants .
In short while East Central Europe is still indeed much more ethnically and racially homogeneous than it's Western neighbors , this whole image of it being a viciously xenophobic and/or racist place is quite exaggerated for purposes of political narrative IMHO .
Actually in Latin America the traditional ruling class were whites. Wealthy white men would bring women from Europe to be their wives. Those on the next level were White people in those countries, then the next level would be mixed race people.
Cuba did attract large number of Spanish families during colonial period and it continued to attract European immigration right through out the 19th century.
When Cuba became communist, the American government allowed masses of Cubans to move to America. One of the reasons is they were white. Plus the Whites there controlled a lion share of Cuban wealth.
BTW the American government welcomed the Cuban refugees in the 1960s with open arms. Yet at the same time was against the Black Haitian immigrants trying to come to the USA.
IN Brazil in the 17th century there was a huge gold rush and hundred of thousand of Portugese people went there. IT is reported even the Portugese government did try to discourage so many Portugese people from moving to Brazil then because Portugal had a small population of 2 million people. I am sure the biggest movement of European people in the 16h century in Latin America was from Portugal.
Tradiionally both Latin America and North America has a preferece of bringing in Europeans.
Even today the USA has a preference of bringing in Ukrainian refugees compared to Afgan refugees. BTW there are even Ukrainian refugees that appear at the American MExican border and they are embraced by America, while brown skinned or black skinned people wanting to come in the USA can be turned away from the border and not allowed into the USA.
Even in Canada, the government there has allowed unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees to claim sanctury, but will not do the same to Afghan people. Yet in Canada there is a huge Ukranian community and they are a powerful lobby in Canada politics. Yet the Afghan lobby is weaker and there is not a huge Afghan community there too.
In UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Baharan attracts massive number of non white immigrants. IN UAE people from the Indian subcontinent are a majority there. They are wealthy countries and people from developing countries are attracted to moving to rich countries. It has always been the case.
Ii would think from historical perspective that the middle east is the first the area you need to look at, even if it might not be associated with such these days.
The Middle east is where Europe Africa and Asia meet, its the traditional passing point between which all areas traded and was so for well over a thousand of years.
Their would have been loads of interracial breeding in that area for a long time before the European age of discovery commenced.
Ii would think from historical perspective that the middle east is the first the area you need to look at, even if it might not be associated with such these days.
The Middle east is where Europe Africa and Asia meet, its the traditional passing point between which all areas traded and was so for well over a thousand of years.
Their would have been loads of interracial breeding in that area for a long time before the European age of discovery commenced.
Even before the European age of discovery, during the Crusaders where the crusaders were men, there would be lots of interracial breeding. Plus prior to the Crusaders, the Lebanese Marrionate Church was separate from the Roman Catholic church, but since the Crusaders the Marrionate church became part of the Roman Catholic church.
Yet even well before the crusaders the Greeks over 2000 years ago settled in the Middle EAst and especially the Western part of the mIddle east, Greek culture and language was big. Even when Jesus was born in the that region, that region was still influenced by Greek culture. With that and with deep links to Europe, it made it easy for Christianity to enter Europe from Palestine.
The Middle East has had so much invasions, so it bring a huge diversity of peoples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
