Re: Ethnic Hegemony and World-System

Professor Wagar raised the question:
[quote:]
"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 .. . ."
[end quote]

Two comments:
(1) I would like to point out that the concept of "ethnic hegemony" is not
the same as
the concept of "racism". "Ethnic hegemony" describes  a power situation
(group A has hegemony/dominance/power over group B). "Racism" is either an
attitude or a behaviour of an individual or a group. (Close, but not the
same)

(2) What is the alternative to ethnic hegemony? I agree that just reversing
the hegemony situation - so that group B becomes the hegemon over A - does
not do away with ethnic hegemony, it merely changes the incumbents of the
hegemonial position.

Here are three historical examples from recent history which show what
actual ethno-cultural underdogs actually did to fight actual ethnic
hegemony:

(a) struggles of national liberation (violent or non-violent):
Of the 118 countries which I examined,
36 had "European-type majority" in 1995, 82 had  "Not European-type
majority".
Of the 82 with "Not European-type majority", 55 had been a "colony",
"protectorate", or "dependency" in 1935 (i.e. 60 years before 1995). These
55 gained national independence through bloody wars of national liberation
(like Algeria) or through less bloody kinds of national liberation.

(b) In South Africa the ethnic hegemony of the Boer and English
subpopulations was ended through revolutionary struggle, leading to a new
polity which promotes "non-racial democracy".

(c) In the city of Atlanta/USA, the Afro-American majority established a
"counter-hegemony", aided by national "affirmative action" policies. This
"counter-hegemony" involves control of the mayor's position and
having power over the city administration and developing a "sheltered"
job market for Afro-Americans. (Based on a study by Hewitt)

All of the above were within the context of global capitalism.

The examples above show that the Cassandras who argue that analysis of
ethnic hegemony, and action based on such analysis, will _necessarily_  lead
to fascism are out of synch with
history. There can be a variety of outcomes, some of which may be
"non-racial" and "democratic".

With greetings from Canada,
Gert


____________________
----- Original Message -----
From: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>
To: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:38 PM
Subject: 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?
> >
snip . . .>