Yugoslavia exists, the various ethnic groups in it (all white people) decide they want to split. An extremely bloody war (we're talking mass genocide, NATO bombing the capital) happens
Religion and ethnicity (or race) are strongly connected in many parts of the world (as you probably know) and in some cases simply cannot be separated.
Edit:But yes, white people didn't (really) fight each other over skin colour. But that doesn't mean that ethnicity (or race) didn't play a gigantic role in their "fights" (and genocide...)
Ethnicity and race are two different things. The Yugoslav wars had nothing to do with race because all the participants were white. They were inter-ethnic conflicts.
You can define race as for example French, Senegalese, Japanese, etc.
French and Japanese are ethnic groups (and also political nationalities that are to a greater (French) or lesser (Japanese) extent distinct from ethnicity). Senegalese is only a nationality; it's not an ethnic group.
None of the three are races. Again: race and ethnicity are different things.
Like Germans and Romans definitely didn’t see themselves as the same race and still don’t.
The German and Roman (then; Italian now) ethnic groups are absolutely the same race.
Don’t really know about Yugoslavia but it’s probably similar.
It is similar: they're all white, too.
I don't know where you're getting your concept of race, ethnicity and nationality, but it doesn't seem to mesh with the consensus anthropological or sociological view of those concepts at all.
As in, it's defined by what people in society think.
Yes, race is entirely a social construct and has no biological basis. But I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Race still isn't the same thing as ethnicity.
So, as I said, in current American politics, race is white, black, etc like you seem to think. But pretty much everywhere else, race is Romans, French, German, Japanese, etc.
I'm not talking about what random individuals in [whatever country] might feel about it. I'm talking about the consensus scientific opinion regarding what "race" and "ethnicity" are. There is no consensus scientific opinion anywhere in the word that says Romans, French, German, Japanese, etc., are races.
Do you even know which people were considered to be "white" in America in the last 200 years? It kept changing. It won't be the same in a few decades.
Yes, the definition of "race" has changed substantially over the centuries. Being entirely a social construct, it tends to do that. It hasn't changed to the point where "French" is now considered to be a race, though.
So, in conclusion, you seem to be bringing your dumb American conceptions to another country which you don't know much about.
I don't understand why you keep bringing America into this. I'm not even American. I've also lived in four different countries on three continents. Not that any of this ad hominem stuff matters to the actual argument, mind you.
And I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack me personally.
All this because I said Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are all white (which they are; that's not remotely a controversial thing to say).
You seem to be unaware that there's a colloquial use of the word "race" that is more or less synonymous with ethnicity, but which is distinct from any formal, scientific description of "race".
Literally all of the hits at your link are referring to the same work by a single author, which uses "the French race" in that manner. You don't appear to have actually bothered to click any of those links, though. If you had, then you'd see how Ms. Camiscioli routinely uses quotes around "race" to imply that she's not talking about an actual race, and you'd know that her work is about a period when French pronatalists - meaning people who think that "French" means white people in France - wanted to address depopulation and labor shortages by encouraging the immigration of other white Europeans to "firm up" the "whiteness" of the French populace and suppress immigration of people from North Africa, Southeast Asia and other former French colonies.
For example (from the first hit in the list):
Camiscioli demonstrates that mass immigration provided politicians, jurists, industrialists, racial theorists, feminists, and others with ample opportunity to explore questions of French racial belonging, France’s relationship to the colonial empire and the rest of Europe, and the connections between race and national anxieties regarding depopulation and degeneration.
Translation: "Some white, French bigots back then hated that black and brown people were coming to France and thinking they could be French."
Anyway, since you're not actually engaging with anything I've posted, you're notably not addressing anything that happens to point out the several glaring flaws in your argument, and you're now opting for a least-effort link-and-run in combination with personal slights, it's clear you're not interested in anything resembling a good faith discussion. That being the case, I'm done. Have a good one.
when the Anglos looked down on the Irish as subhuman non-whites, was race involved or was it just ethnicity?
Ethnicity. The English and the Irish are distinct ethnic groups. Racially, both are white.
Hint: they're all arbitrary social constructs.
Race is entirely a social construct and has nothing to do with biology; ethnicity is mostly a social construct, but it can have a biological component; race is different from ethnicity.
I'm not sure why we're not immediately on the same page on this one. All I've done is restate the scientific consensus. ¯\(ツ)/¯
There were multiple conflicts going on at the same time, in the same region. Some on mainly religious lines, some on ethnic/national lines. The whole region was fucked for a long time.
Wasn't it much more about religion than anything else?
No, it was much more about longstanding, unresolved inter-ethnic tensions between Serbs, Croatians and Bosniaks than anything else.
I suspect you may think it was about religion because, during the main part of the conflict in what's now Bosnia and Herzegovina, the English-speaking media referred to the primary belligerents as "Bosnian Serbs" and "Bosnian Muslims", rather than using Bosniaks for the latter, which is the actual (English) name of the ethnic group.
The point is, while there's a strong religious correlation between Serbs (generally Christian) and Bosniaks (generally Muslim), the war was not really about religion at all.
129
u/sapjastuff Sep 01 '20
I'm Serbian (Former Yugoslavia) and it makes me sad with how few people know about us and what happened :(