Middleman minorities

[nockwasright]

Some populations in the countries where they were an ethnic minority used to assume (and up to a certain degree still have) the economic role of the middleman (in economies that were still mostly based on the two first sectors, agriculture and industrial production, they specialised instead in the third sector, as retailers, merchants, money lenders).

The most famous (as such) “middleman minority” are the Jews. But also the economic role of middleman has been assumed by Chinese in Southeast Asia, Ibos in Nigeria, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Lebanese in West Africa, Indians in East Africa. *

Other populations, as Germans, Italians, Japanese, Irishmen, Slavs, etc. never or seldom assumed this economic role in the places where they were ethnic minorities.

I am using the past tense as in the Western World economies now most of the people is employed in the third sector, so the differences are fading.

Is there a pattern? I mean, does someone see some connection between the “middleman minorities” or the circumstances that made them middleman minorities? Or it is just chance?

*Indirect source: T. Sowell, Migrations and Cultures. If some wants the direct sources can PM me (and I’ll give him the footnotes).

[KLI]

hmm very good question. One of the factors has to be their minority status within society, I guess trading was one way of accumulating wealth when more traditional methods eg warfare (remember that was the most common way of aquiring resources back in the day) are not so possible. Another has to be historical circumstances.

This topic deserves better more detailed answers. These papers about the Tamil merchan class in Mauritius and the merchant class of Irskustk may have some answers:

www.manus.baikal.ru/eng/es08.htm
www.tamilnation.org/diaspora/mauritius/reddi.htm

[nockwasright]

Mujahid said:

One of the factors has to be their minority status within society, I guess trading was one way of accumulating wealth when more traditional methods eg warfare (remember that was the most common way of aquiring resources back in the day) are not so possible.

I refer only to the cases of peaceful migrations. The other populations mentioned (as Germans, Italians etc.) also were peaceful migrants with minority status in many occasions, but they never ended up with that economic role.

Thanks for the links by the way.

[SensoUnico]

In SE Asia and Pacific islands it is the Chinese that are the middlemen minority, in Africa the Indians.

[Lycansupreme]

SensoUnico said:

In SE Asia and Pacific islands it is the Chinese that are the middlemen minority, in Africa the Indians.

The Indians over in Africa are usually just referred to as 'Asian' from what I gather.

[nockwasright]

Well, I was guessing if this populations/cultures can be considered as having more "relational ability" with different cultures than others.
There could be a reason that explains why Chinese and Lebanese, when minorities, end up as merchants, and instead Germans and Japanese don't.
Some ideas?

[SensoUnico]

Indians are called asians in the UK as well. I was just trying to separate asians as Lebanese, Turks, Indians and Chinese are all asians. I would be speculating but the Chinese come from an enterprising culture where every opportunity is ceased to make a living and the easiest route is usually taken. The Chinese tend to be better educated than SE Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Chinese have a long history of studying. The writing pictographs require much memorising just to write mundane details. The Lebanese may have inherited some of the mercantile zeal of some of their Canaanite ancestors the Phoenicians. The Japanese are isolationists or were until forced into the modern world by the Americans and I should thank those Americans for my computer, DVD player, television and sundry other products in my house.

[Siafu X]

nockwasright any links to info on the Lebanese in west africa??

[Drooperdoo]

Siafu X,
British author Graham Greene's novel The Heart of the Matter is based on the author's real experience in British administration during his time in colonial Africa. The big movers and shakers were the Lebanese. They play a very prominent role in the novel.

P.S.--Weren't the Armenians middle-men in Uzbekistan? Like the Jews in Germany, they bragged and said that the Uzbeks would be nothing economically without them. Then an embarrassing thing happened: The Uzbeks rose up and tossed them out of their country--and prospered. Uzbekistan did better, not worse, after getting rid of their middle-men. So much for the nonsense peddled by the merchant-class . . . that they're indespensible, and somehow superior and smarter to the people whose country they find themselves in. Same thing happened in Germany. After tossing out its middle-men, Germany actually prospered--and went from a Third World, inflation-torn post-WWI economy to an economy that rivaled Great Britain. Several books and articles were written at the time, calling it "the economic miracle of Germany".

* Many historians note that Hitler was only demonized in the international press after he turned on the international bankers and demanded that Germany had a right to print its own money. (Significantly, this was well before World War II, and any scrap with ethnic minorities inside Germany.) They were ALREADY tageting Hitler for removal, lest his actions cause a domino-effect across the continent and other nations realize that they didn't need the banks. John F. Kennedy tried to do the same thing--to pry America's currency away from the private banking cartel that deceptively calls itself "the Federal Reserve" and give authority to regulate the country's money back to the US Treasury--as per the Constitution. Kennedy was soon thereafter assassinated--and his successor [Lyndon B. Johnson] reversed Kennedy's policy. In fact, it was the very first piece of legislation that Johnson vetoed upon entering office. Kind of makes you realize the powers arrayed against Kennedy and the people who were really behind Johnson's accession to the presidency.

P.P.S.--Read this article on free trade agreements and how those countries that let the banks and middle-men come in get screwed, while those countries that rely on themselves prosper. It'll open your eyes: business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1664984,00.html

[vgambler33]

nockwasright said:

Some populations in the countries where they were an ethnic minority used to assume (and up to a certain degree still have) the economic role of the middleman (in economies that were still mostly based on the two first sectors, agriculture and industrial production, they specialised instead in the third sector, as retailers, merchants, money lenders).

The most famous (as such) “middleman minority” are the Jews. But also the economic role of middleman has been assumed by Chinese in Southeast Asia, Ibos in Nigeria, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Lebanese in West Africa, Indians in East Africa. *

Other populations, as Germans, Italians, Japanese, Irishmen, Slavs, etc. never or seldom assumed this economic role in the places where they were ethnic minorities.

You have the Syrians,Lebanese,Palestinians in Latin America were middle man minorities. The Greeks in West Africa. The Parsis in India.