Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Bolivia's election, the right wing there is completely insane and Luis Arce is by far the best possible president Bolivia could have right now, but as a Latinamerican (from Colombia) and as someone who has studied the colonial history of the region it seems completely insane to me to call it an apartheid state between whites and indigenous people?
Whites in Bolivia are a tiny minority made up of the post colonial criollo elite that went on to become the ruling political oligarchy. Maybe he's mixing up the mestizo two thirds of the country with indigenous? and therefore he thought the remaining third was white and not the actually indigenous people?
I really don't know what happened there but that was so confusing, plus I have no idea what the talk about black slavery has to do with Bolivia in specific, I thought it might be more relevant to bring up the Mita and Encomienda systems and the enslavement of the indigenous people during the early colonial period.
Edit: I decided to look up more sources on the ethnography of Bolivia and there's a lot of variation on the percentages of Mestizo and Indigenous, which makes sense as most of the time being one or the other can be more dependent on personal identity than anything else, still the idea that "whites" are anything but a tiny political elite is ridiculous to me.
Has anyone taken Sociol 2FF3 with Vic Satzewich. Is it an easy course? Are the midterm and final MC or essays?
I know I won't actually have a bachelors degree, but I'm more interested in learning than paying for a degree just to prove that I knew something.
It always makes me feel weird when they say that to me. It’s like they’re trying a black woman as an experiment or something. How should I respond when they say that? Should I give them my cookie? Thoughts?
According to my grandfather(Irish-American) the canal workers were Italian and Irish. Since the Italians and Irish were feuding at the time, my grandfather claims the Irish would hire black workers to upset the Italian workers. Although I've realized that sometimes the point of my grandfather's stories is to make the Iridh seem grandiose, so I was wondering if this timeline made sense.
I thought this class seemed interesting. Has anyone taken this class before? What is it like?
(Genuinely curious and not to spread hate)
Basically there is a post shared in Malay language in Facebook on how Hoa people are viewed in Vietnam. Just want to find out whether or not it’s real or just false information.
Here is the translated post in English :-
(Malay here refers to the Malay ethnic group in Malaysia, not all Malaysians)
- LESSONS FROM VIETNAM FOR MALAYS *
- Apart from Malaysia, other countries in Southeast Asia also have a high population of Chinese immigrants.
(Note from OP :- Chinese immigrants here refers to Chinese immigrants that have migrated to SEA decades to centuries ago)
-
Among them is Vietnam, which has a large Hoa Chinese population and they are considered an elite, wealthy group.
-
Hoa people is hated by the native people of Vietnam because of the manipulation and oppression by Hoa people against the native people of Vietnam.
-
Among the oppression of the Hoa people against the Vietnamese natives are:
4a. Almost the entire Vietnamese economy is controlled by the Hoa people, and they are determined to manipulate the market to bring down businesses owned native Vietnamese.
4b. These Hoa people consider themselves ‘nobles’ and insult the Vietnamese natives. This caused the Hoa people to have their own schools and communities so as not to mix with the native Vietnamese.
4c. These Hoa people would not trade with Vietnamese natives if they did not know Chinese.
4d. Hoa people dominate the black market and drugs. They are empowered and immune from the law because of their wealth.
4e. During the recovery period after the Vietnam war, the Hoa people had raised the price of rice many times over to profit from the misery of other Vietnamese people. This caused many Vietnamese to flee.
-
Until now, the ruling Hoa people in Vietnam caused the Vietnamese natives to be forced to live out from their own land.
-
These Vietnamese natives fought desperately to liberate the country but ended up being slaves on their own land as the economy was controlled by the Hoa people.
-
*The Malay people *need to learn from this history, *so that our grandchildren do not crawl on the earth alone.
I was listening to a podcast the other day discussing how the Yugoslav basketball team fell apart while the country disintegrated. Apparently friends on the team stop talking based on ethnic/national allegiances. Another podcast suggested that when the war kicked off neighbours sandbagged their houses and swiftly fired off at their neighbours.
How did national identity become so strong and how did the level of hatred get to very bloody civil war levels? I know WW2 had genocide(s) but if that was a major factor, how did people 'get on' with people they identified with genocide?
Did they 'get on'? Or was the state strong enough to suppress discontent and the end of communism finish the state's authority? Why did Macedonia and Slovenia not see the same violence, and was there any residual Dalmatian separatism?
Apologies that this is so broad in scope!
85% of the USSR's population was composed of Eastern Slavs and other minor European groups, but then you have Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia. I've noticed that they are almost entirely forgotten, whenever the USSR is portrayed in the public stage. The "typical Soviet" is always an Ivan Ivanov from Western Russia, never do we see anything about ethnic Kazakhs or Uzbeks or Azeris and so on.
Do we have any writings from people belonging to these minority groups? What was life like for them in the Russian dominated Union? Did they experience discrimination in everyday life, being stereotyped, distrusted, marginalized? Did they feel like the USSR truly was a proper colour-blind Union?
I am a senior Finance major at Penn State University and decided to take a Sociology elective in order to graduate this semester. It is a 750+ student lecture on race and ethnic relations. The class is famous for being the largest course in the United States of that subject. The professor gets the class going by bringing up controversial topics and relating them to race, ethnicity, religion, etc. and catalyzing arguments between students of different backgrounds.
The professor- Sam Richards- live streams every class. Last week, he conducted a social experiment between a sorority girl from Philadelphia and an international student (F) from China. Without looking at the projector, he asked the girls about what they do in their free time, whether they are smart or not, how their parents talk about them in public. It ended up perfectly that the American girl was overconfident in her abilities of being smart and cheerleading while the Chinese student was much more humble and skeptical about being smart and playing the drums.
Do you think this example was too coincidental considering the subjects of the video were as extreme as they come? (White, female, sorority vs. Chinese, int'l student at prestigious university) Comment on how accurate these Western vs. Eastern cultural confidence difference are. If you have personal experience that is even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd-8rLCXte0
Aboriginal:
Inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.
Asian:
Strictly, this label applies to anyone originating from the Asian continent. In practice, this term is used in the United Kingdom to mean people with ancestry in the Indian subcontinent. In the United States, the term has broader meaning, but is mostly used to denote people of far Eastern origins, for example, Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos. More specific terms should be used whenever possible.
Asian Indian:
A term currently used synonymously with South Asian (see below), but with the important limitation that major South Asian populations such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi may not identify with it. This term is being used in North America to distinguish the population from Native Americans, previously known as American Indians.
African:
A person with African ancestral origins who self identifies, or is identified, as African, but excluding those of other ancestry, for example, European and South Asian. This term is the currently preferred description for more specific categories, as in African American, for example. (In terms of racial classifications, this population approximates to the group historically known as Negroid or similar terms.) In practice, Northern Africans from Algeria, Morocco, and such countries are excluded from this category. (See also Black.)
Afro-Caribbean/African Caribbean:
A person of African ancestral origins whose family settled in the Caribbean before emigrating and who self identifies, or is identified, as Afro-Caribbean (in terms of racial classifications, this population approximates to the group known as Negroid or similar terms). (See also Black.)
Artificial intelligence:
machina sapiens - An agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. AI or Superintelligence may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world.
Bangladeshi:
A person whose ancestry lies in the Indian subcontinent who self identifies, or is identified, as Bangladeshi. (See also South Asian.) Between 1947 and 1971 the land known as Bangladesh was East Pakistan and before that India. There is no clear cut equivalent in terms of racial classifications, though historically Northern Indians
What I mean is, when sociologists approach the discussion of race and ethnic relations, we do accept that race is a real constructed social phenomena but reject any parameters to define race because every explanation/justification is just arbitrary. When we discuss ethnicity, are we're more susceptible to accepting of that biological-social construct because it is formed in a combination of a sense of unity, sharing of cultural tradition, consciousness of being different from other groups, and other intangible factors?
tl;dr: Does the field of sociology reject the term race since it is poorly justified in a comparative approach and ethnicity can be more easily accepted and compounded?
I hope this makes sense??
