2006-08-30 19:20:26 · 20 answers · asked by dudley c 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
they weren't nearly as white as we are.
2006-08-30 19:23:41 · answer #1 · answered by jake cigar™ is retired 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's an interesting question... Took me away from my numbers for a while...
Europe was torn apart by wars a long time before the so called 'world wars'.
People like Napoleon aren't considered historical figures for having fought 'non-whites'; so if you want to start thinking of violence as a race/colour issue, then you should include these wars too.
Also the Boer war, which was more recent. Although that one does take the name of one of the protagonists.
Then again there were many wars among the 'American Indians' even before the arrival of the 'Whites', wars in Africa...
None of these conflicts were described in terms of colours/race.
Of course, there have also been many almost racial wars, such as the whole slew of crusades, the decimation of 'American Indians', of the South-American Dynasties, of the Original Australian inhabitants... But neither are these called White on Red/Black/Blue... or Catholic/Christian on Islamic/Pagan... Although I would say that there is good reason to.
So I would say there are 3 main reasons not to call the two 'World Wars' white-on-white violence.
First there have been many other such cases, so unless we call all of them as such, we should not make exceptions for the 'World Wars'.
Secondly, the nature of the conflict was not primarily one of race, or religion, but one of power; highlighting the fact that most people involved in the war were white does not serve any purpose.
Thirdly, especially in the case of the second 'World War' there were non-white countries involved: Japan. I will not include people from colonies because they did not decide to go to war by themselves, and paid the price for being colonies, not for being what they decided to be.
However, I think it would be worth asking why the decimations of 'American Indians', Incas, Original Australians, or the crusades are not called white-on-non-white violence.
2006-08-30 19:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they were World Wars and non-white soldiers also participated particularly in the First World War. Any number of British Colonies from Africa sent solders to Europe and the Middle East. The Chinese were allies against the Japanese and Germans.
2006-08-30 19:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Germans thought they were genetically the "Superior Race". Those particular mad men . . . as opposed to your everyday run-of-the-mill white racist or black racist, or red, brown, yellow racist . . . were not as interested in debating the superiority or inferiority of human dermal (skin) variations as they were in ELIMINATING everyone, through ruthless fascism and torture and terror and bloody murder, who did not go along with the party line. That particular beast, fascism, is found among ALL tribes of mankind, ALL faiths, and ALL dermal variations. Fascism is one of the most horrible diseases that we can suffer as a species. And, it's rising in the world again. Many fear the fascism of the the Bush administration will destroy this nation and the world, and that it already has begun to reach desperate levels. Something very real and very serious is going on. And, it's not about dermal pigmentation. Dermal pigment variations isn't a passion good people should ever concern themselves with, but especially not now, in these troubled times when so much freedom, so many lives and blood. . . of all dermal pigment variations, already have been lost.
2006-08-30 19:54:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your referring to the wars that changed the history of this world and all you can comprehend is race?
What planet are you on...race didn't come into it except on the Germans behalf with the Jews!
But you have to remember Hitler was a nut Job so please don't spit on the graves of the 100,000's of men who died to give you the freedom you have today other wise you could be speaking Japenese or German and bending over for a living as a little rent boy!
2006-08-30 22:39:15 · answer #5 · answered by celtic_colieen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They started off as being the white races fighting each other but later the Japanese and Chinese became involved and then other non white nations were brought into it because they were in the Commonwealth and didn't really have a choice.
2006-08-30 19:30:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I understand your question as its in reference to an earlier question here about black on black violence. Its a fair point in one sense, simply that it started in Europe.
Warring countries can be any race/colour against any same or different. There was certainly racism involved in the genocide of WW2.
2006-08-30 19:39:19 · answer #7 · answered by hmmmmmmanna 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because they weren't white on white, it was people of all back grounds, who in them days were proud to fight for the country they lived in, no matter the colour of the skin, and each were proud to fight along side each other.
2006-08-30 19:49:13 · answer #8 · answered by ringo711 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh no
dont tell me we are going to get the World wars banned because they have a colour mentioned in them.
The world has gone mad especially the UK
2006-08-30 19:36:25 · answer #9 · answered by maka 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
HELLO, they were called "World Wars" for a reason; i.e. the entire world, not just the whites, was involved.
2006-08-30 19:30:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why is there a need to clarify the races involved in a violent conflict if conflict itself has nothing to do with race?
2006-08-30 19:24:08 · answer #11 · answered by extton 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋