Most universally hated in the world

[slick]

I was curious as to who are the most universally hated group or race in the world. It seems like blacks and Jews are the most hated people universally. I have never known of people who have such more negative visceral reactions to blacks and to the Jews. What have we and the Jews done for all this hate? I have kept in mind that many people throughout history have been oppressed like the Irish, Phillipinos, and Armenians.

[mike2]

It's quite simple, I think.

West African and Bantu blacks come mostly from tribal cultures and these cultures were not to be respected but exploited by the colonials. Same story with the Amerinds. But the Amerinds were transported all over hell's half acre. Blacks on the other hand have undergone a great diaspora.

As for Jews, they are seen as a parasitic culture that live
off the accomplishments of other races. In other words, they do none of the real work, but rather just organize and get fat off the people they oversee. Jews have also undergone a great diaspora.

Gypsies have, too, and they aren't exactly liked either.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Educate Me]

Gypsies


I dont think amerinds are hated

[buddyrydell]

Plenty of groups besides the Jews and black Africans have encountered racism and prejudice throughout history. However, in sticking to the original question, I think that in regard to the Jews, much of the hatred and prejudice directed towards them has been based on the fact that they have been blamed for the death of Jesus by some European Christians. This accusation, combined with politically convenient motives in using them as scapegoats for anything that may happen to be wrong with society, has worked time and again as they have been a minority wherever they have lived since their exile under Roman rule which dispersed them throughout Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere throughout the world. From this time until the establishment of Israel as its own nation, the Jews have been a minority in every country that they have inhabited, thus they have been continuously viewed with suspicion and contempt. The relative success of many Jews despite facing such odds has only increased the envy of many of their non-Jewish neighbors. Thus, the millenia-old persecution of the Jews has its roots in religion, politics, and good old-fashioned prejudice based on ignorance.

As for black Africans, I think it was somewhat accidental in some respects as to why they became the victims of repeated racism. As the age of exploration took off in Europe, Africans as well as other non-European peoples were first exposed to Europeans. Because Europe was technologically more advanced than Africa, the New World, and much of Asia, it was able to achieve colonial supremacy for a long time in those areas. When Europeans began to colonize the New World, the Native Americans were largely decimated by disease, warfare, and slavery early on. Thus, Europe looked to Africa as a source of slavery since Native Americans were suddenly in short supply. Europeans used their cultural/technological advancement as an excuse for racism, as well as the fact that Africans simply looked different. Attitudes of African inferiority became virtually engrained in the minds of some Europeans and their New World descendants to the point that Africans were routinely regarded as less than fully human in some circles. Because of this, people of African descent have been thought of as lower than people of other ethnic origins in many countries, something that is a lingering effect of the so-called "New World caste system." Had Europeans gone to say, China, and imported Chinese or other East Asian slaves rather than African ones, then those people would probably instead be regarded as lower (and as such would be more likely to be lower on the socioeconomic ladder). The same would have been true had Europeans been colonized and used as slaves by somebody else.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

I think the dislike of Jews is much older than any dislike of Gypsies or African negrids. The Roman satarist, Juvenal (Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis) obviously did not like Jews and negroids for different reasons. The Jews mainly because of their lack of respect to Roman Gods and Roman traditions, the perceived Jewish superstitions and food habits. The negroids he found unattractive. Of the two the Jews are the most despised. African negroids in Europe were always treated well and with respect, if as curiosities, up until Colonialism in Africa. The gypsies likewised only began to be disliked after their strange behaviour in Europe. Initially the gypsies were accepted.
I consider the question to be ethnocentric, North American. Europeans never had the dislike of negroids that Americans developed. Many slaves were freed and intermarried with native English people. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833. The Americans took a bit longer to do that, and one nasty civil war.

[erudite]

mike2 said:

It's quite simple, I think.

West African and Bantu blacks come mostly from tribal cultures and these cultures were not to be respected but exploited by the colonials. Same story with the Amerinds. But the Amerinds were transported all over hell's half acre. Blacks on the other hand have undergone a great diaspora.

Nah, I don't get it with the 'tribal' label because it carries negative connotations of uncivilised people. Most West African cultures were in fact highly organised and stratified like Osma dan Fodio's kingdom of Sokoto, the Ashanti kingdoms of modern day Ghana and the Touba community in Senegal. The label of 'tribal' was discriminately applied to peoples by Europeans to inject an air of superiority over the native peoples of Africa.

[Wadaad]

erudite said:

mike2 said:

It's quite simple, I think.

West African and Bantu blacks come mostly from tribal cultures and these cultures were not to be respected but exploited by the colonials. Same story with the Amerinds. But the Amerinds were transported all over hell's half acre. Blacks on the other hand have undergone a great diaspora.

Nah, I don't get it with the 'tribal' label because it carries negative connotations of uncivilised people. Most West African cultures were in fact highly organised and stratified

Most? and no, Charlie...the tribal label isnt due to solely European racism...the fact that that society had a somewhat "tribal" aspect to it maybe a reason too

[mike2]

Native Americans had quite impressive full-blown civilizations with architecture and everything (the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, Anasazi, Mississippians), yes, but most Amerinds were tribal and disunited, at least by the time the Europeans arrived. Same with black Africans. Sure, there are various noteworthy kingdoms (Mali, Ashanti, Songhai, Great Zimbabwe, Kongo, Benin, etc.), but most black Africans were members of tribal societies. It would be silly to say otherwise. The sheer linguistic diversity of black Africa and the Americas is enough to substantiate such a claim. There's nothing wrong with tribal society, only that they are easy to exploit by greater powers and are not as impressive, and therefore not respected.

If it makes you feel any better, most of northern Europe was tribal before the advent of Greek and Roman influence. A Gaul or a German would be get no more respect from Herodotus than an Ethiopian or Libyan (though the Ethiopians at that time were of course very advanced and known throughout the land and certainly not tribal).

[erudite]

wadaad said:

erudite said:

Nah, I don't get it with the 'tribal' label because it carries negative connotations of uncivilised people. Most West African cultures were in fact highly organised and stratified

Most? and no, Charlie...the tribal label isnt due to solely European racism...the fact that that society had a somewhat "tribal" aspect to it maybe a reason too

Ok, define tribal and please contrast the difference between non-tribal and tribal like.

[mike2]

A tribe is a usually homogeneous, independent, local division of an aboriginal people that is united by a common language and a relatively small land division. Tribes wield very little power outside of their own realm. Tribes submit to their own local rulers/chiefs rather than to kings. That's the best definition I can give you off the top of my head. But does a tribe really need to be explained?

Non-tribal societies are usually large, heterogeneous, widespread divisions that usually embrace many different ethnic groups and sometimes languages. Civilians of non-tribal societies submit to laws of a king or emperor rather than strictly to a local chieftain. There is much bureaucracy in non-tribal societies. It's not like you can just walk up to the king and ask for something.

Basically the distinction lies in influence. Tribal societies influence only those who immediately border them. Kingdoms are to be feared by all.

I'm sure the Egyptians didn't give a flip about the disjointed Libyans to their west, but they surely kept an eye on the Nubians to their south.

Tribal societies exist mostly for reasons of immediate survival and kinship (theirs safety and companionship in numbers). Kingdoms, however, are vast and are much more concerned with politics and what's goin' on with other nations. They look to the outside world rather than to within. You could say most tribes are isolationist, whereas most kingdoms are imperialist and will jump at a chance to acquire more land and power.

[erudite]

mike2 said:

A tribe is a usually homogeneous, independent, local division of an aboriginal people that is united by a common language and a relatively small land division. Tribes wield very little power outside of their own realm. Tribes submit to their own local rulers/chiefs rather than to kings. That's the best definition I can give you off the top of my head. But does a tribe really need to be explained?

Non-tribal societies are usually large, heterogeneous, widespread divisions that usually embrace many different ethnic groups and sometimes languages. Civilians of non-tribal societies submit to laws of a king or emperor rather than strictly to a local chieftain. There is much bureaucracy in non-tribal societies. It's not like you can just walk up to the king and ask for something.

Basically the distinction lies in influence. Tribal societies influence only those who immediately border them. Kingdoms are to be feared by all.

I'm sure the Egyptians didn't give a flip about the disjointed Libyans to their west, but they surely kept an eye on the Nubians to their south.

Using that definition you provided, Europeans were also highly tribal but tribal is almost *NEVER* used to describe any European group, why is that?

[mike2]

erudite said:

Using that definition you provided, Europeans were also highly tribal but tribal is almost *NEVER* used to describe any European group, why is that?

Actually, I've heard it used quite frequently when describing Germanic tribes and Gallic tribes. And surely you've heard of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Rome is also said to have originally been made up of three tribes: the Latin, the Sabine, and the Etruscan.

The tribes of Greece were called phyles. However, these phyles were very influential and became city-states.

[mike2]

In fact, all kingdoms and empires started off as tribes, but these tribes grew powerful and gained much influence throughout the land. Much of Black Africa, the Americas, and Oceania did not gain that kind of influence because tribes consist of clans and families rather than of cities and nations. There was little impetus to unite and form a powerful state.

Much of it is a question of language and size. These are the best measures to use to separate a tribal society from a non-tribal one.

[mike2]

Imagine for instance, if all the Mande people were united under one banner and one language. That would be an incredible non-tribal civilization, with plenty of time to perfect its own architectural style and impressive, completely unique identity. But alas, the Mande do not make up any sort of superkingdom (though perhaps at one time they came close, such as is the case with Mali). They are now a widespread disjointed group of people that share only a similar linguistic background and traditions. They are not united and therefore they are spread out and tribal and incredibly diversified. They do not answer to a single authority and they do not make up their own country called Mandeland or what have you. Indeed, Greece was made up of many different city-states and you could technically call these city-states "tribes," but all of these city-states shared a common Hellenic language and influenced each other greatly. Therefore the phyles of Greece do not exactly share or conform to the same situation as the very diversified peoples of Africa do.

Because of the spread of Indo-European languages, you don't have this kind of linguistic diversity and mayhem in Europe. And because of the Roman Empire, the borders of European countries are more natural and somewhat divided on ethnic lines. Greece is where Greeks live. Germany is where Germans live. But Burkina Faso is where Mossis, Senufus, Bobos, Gurunsis, Bunansis, Lobis, Fulanis, Samos, and Gourmas live. It's complete chaos. Was it always this way or is this just the effects of colonialism? I don't know what the political borders of West Africa were before the Europeans arrived and I doubt many other people know.

Because of this complicated state of affairs, because there are so many languages, and because there is very little unity between the macro-ethnic groups, black Africa is mostly tribal. It is all a question of proportion, diversification, and influence.

Wow, that was a lot to say. Maybe I should be some kind of a history professor. I'm only 18, after all. Plenty of time to make up my mind about that.

[nockwasright]

I think only the Jews have really been (and still are) hated. Blacks and Gypsies have more been (and still are) despised and underestimated.