Re: Ethnic Hegemony and World-System

        On the surface, this is a fairly stupid question.  It could not be
more obvious that persons of European descent, and chiefly northwestern
European descent, by virtue of their dominant position in the hegemonic
nations of Western Europe and North America and Australasia, enjoy a sort
of ethnic hegemony in the modern world-system.  They are joined only by a
handful of East Asian nations that have managed to emulate their 
technologies and business practices.

        But at the next level down, this is a fascinating question.
Since, in Nazi terms, Aryans and "honorary Aryans" rule the world, should
"progressive" people therefore unite to depose and crush these hegemons,
putting in their place people of color (except for Japanese, South
Koreans, Taiwanese, etc.)?  

        No.  That would be blatant racism.  But what is the alternative?
This brings me to the next level down, where I am bound to be attacked and
damned by almost everybody on our list.  I venture to assert that Western
Europe sired not only capitalism, the early modern slave-trade, and
Western imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism, but also the values
to which most of us adhere:  human rights, civil liberties, secularism,
democracy, socialism, and the belief in reason and empirical science that
has given us the natural and social sciences.  Did Western Europe sire all
this because of its racial superiority?  Absolutely not.  It happened to
be, in the 17th to 20th centuries, in a position to advance the human
agenda, paradoxically at the same time that it was in a position to commit
all the usual atrocities and injustices of previous hegemonic peoples.
Some of the same advantages that gave it the opportunity to wreak evil,
gave it the opportunity to do some world-historical good.

        So I would argue that ethnic hegemony need not be an unmixed
evil.  And to the extent that the cultures of Europe and its descendants
were anticipated by other cultures who also promoted notions of human
rights, civil liberties, secularism, democracy, socialism, and the belief
in reason and empirical science, their labors were all the more enriched.
There is nothing in modern European culture that Asians, Africans, and
Native Americans could not have foreshadowed or helped to further.  But as
a historian, I stoutly maintain that the various movements of 
enlightenment in the 17th to 20th Centuries in Europe and in 
European-based countries did advance the human agenda and do belong to all
peoples everywhere.  Every continent takes its turn in advancing that
agenda.  The stupendous achievements (and equally stupendous failings) of
Africa, Asia, and the Americas are acknowledged.  We are all one species.
Being categorically ashamed of Europe is yet another example of racism in
its most self-defeating guise.

        Warren


On Tues, 22 Mar 2001, g kohler wrote:

> Ethnic Hegemony and World-System
> 
> "Ethnic hegemony", as I understand it [those who know this better, please 
>correct], is the hegemony of an ethno-cultural group over other ethno-cultural 
>groups. The question may then be posed: Is there an ethnic hegemony in the 
>contemporary world-system?
> 
> This questions requires two answers - (a) can such a group be identified? (b) 
>does such a group have hegemony?
> 
> The most likely candidate for being an "ethnic hegemon" in the present 
>world-system is "Western people" (Europeans and their descendants in other 
>parts of the world). [The short-hand expression "whites" is not precise 
>enough.] [ Note that (global) "ethnic hegemon" refers to a group of people, 
>rather than to a country like USA-hegemon.]
> 
> 
> A. Group Description
> From the CIA Factbook 2000 I collected data on ethnic composition of 118 
>countries and used them to code each of the 118 countries as a country with 
>either a "European-type majority" or "No European-type majority". [Some 
>countries can be coded either way, but most countries are relatively clear in 
>this respect. In the following, Arab countries are coded as "No European-type 
>majority". Some Latin American countries have very large Mestizo or Creole 
>populations, who are here classified as "Not European-type", but the other 
>alternative is also justifiable.] As a result, my 118 countries include 82 
>countries with "No European-type majority" and 36 with "European-type 
>majority". 
> 
> 
> B. Is the "European-type majority" group of countries a "global ethnic 
>hegemon"?
> Probably, yes. Reasons:
> (1) What world-system scholars describe as the "core" of the world system is 
>mostly populated by countries with European-type majorities. (The 
>organizations OECD and NATO are mostly organizations of countries with 
>European-type majority.)
> (2) The "five [sc. global] monopolies" of the "West" described Samir Amin are 
>monopoly positions of the group of countries with a European-type majority.
> (3) Global income is highly concentrated in this group, as follows:
> 
> (3A) average GDP per capita (in PPP values, 1995):
> $5,085 for group "Not European-type majority" (82 countries, population = 3.9 
>billion)
> $13,787 for group "European-type majority" (36 countries, population = 1.2 
>billion)
> 
> (3B) percent of "Not European-type" population per country income class (PPP 
>values of GDP per capita, 1995):
> (a) GDP/cap = $ 0 to 4,999 ---- population=3.5 billion ---- 93% "Not 
>European-type"
> (b) GDP/cap = $ 5,000  to 14,999 ---- pop= 0.7 billion ---- 58% "Not 
>European-type"
> (c) GDP/cap = $ 15,000 to 30,000 --- pop= 0.8 billion ---- 18% "Not 
>European-type"
> 
> (4) How the concept of "global ethnic hegemony" relates to the concept of 
>"global capitalism" is an interesting theoretical question. Some historical 
>empires and historical world-systems had "ethnic hegemony" without capitalism 
>(e.g., the Roman Empire).
> 
> With greetings from Canada,
> Gernot Kohler
> Email: gkohler@accglobal.net
> 
>