Will 1

Isaac Will
Dr. Schaepdrijver
HIST 120U
15December2015
FinalReport2:Race/EthnicityIntheWorksofHobsbawmandMazower

Race is defined as being each of the major divisions of humankind, having

distinct physical characteristics. Ethnicity is similarly defined as the fact or state of
belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. However,
both Eric Hobsbawm and Mark Mazower would note that from 1848 to the end of the 20th
century, race was considered much more; race and ethnicity werent just letters with ten
or so word definitions. Instead, race and ethnicity generated views that created nations
and societies, but also tore them apart, collected individuals, but oppressed select groups,
created wars, but also ended them, and delineated rights, but ultimately evolved to ensure
them as well. Through The Age of Capital, The Age of Empire, and Dark Continent, the
evolution of 19th and 20th century views on ethnicity are explored- we again do not see a
simple, stable progression, but rather highs and lows with steps both forward and
backward. Nonetheless, readers are made aware of times veiled pattern: many more
viewpoints on race and ethnicity have become neutral or accepting, while state-backed or
widely supported detrimental racialism has also become increasingly limited since the
middle of the 19th century.
Alongside the time progressing toward the 19th centurys second half came states
creating nations across Europe. And alongside states creating nations, came the

Will 2
significance of race in politics. As Europeans sought to nationalize, it became clear that
creating a nation-state required more than just a territory within defined borders; many
had achieved that already. When Massimo dAzeglio stated We have made Italy; now
we must make the Italians, he was reflecting the challenge of numerous sovereignties.
Becoming a modern nation required a populated area, defined by its past history,
common culture, its ethnic composition, and increasingly, its language (Capital 84). Put
simply, what nations required was homogeneity. In many cases, complete homogeneity
was not possible due to different ethnicities, cultures, or histories, etc. So as a result,
Hobsbawm noted that states were best -though not fully- able to create nations through
linguistically homogenized citizens (Empire 150). He writes, the call for an independent
state territory seemed increasingly inseparable form language. Even culture could be
homogenized through such a medium, as most of it was oral, whether it be the songs,
ballads, or epics of the modern people (Capital 84).
And as a result, aspiring nation-states promptly took to adopting a linguistic
identity: Irish nationalists identified themselves with Gaelic, rather than English, while
Zionists identified themselves with Hebrew, and the Norwegians identified themselves
with Nynorsk, etc. (Empire 158). Germany was primarily considered a nation because
these German people shared the same written language as well (Capital 84). Although
these examples of language adoption mostly failed, except in Germanys case, they
exemplify the broader point: Becoming a nation increasingly relied on the homogeneity
of language.
While Austria-Hungary tackled the developing issue of a vastly multilingual
territory, others tackled the same issue on a somewhat smaller level. The argument for

Will 3
homogeneity was directed as much against the regional languages and cultures of itself
as against the outsiders, (Capital 87). This goal of having a nation unified within was
best achieved through education, unsurprisingly. And the best way to homogeneity was
through the state bureaucracy implementing an official public language to be taught in
schools. Hobsbawm supports this, stating, From the moment that society rested on mass
literacy, a spoken language had to be in some sense official a medium of bureaucracy
and instruction (Empire 146). Ultimately for the very purpose of implementing an
official language, one sees the number of primary schools vastly increase nearly
everywhere from 1870-1914. Primary school teachers tripled in Sweden and doubled in
Norway, while primary school students doubled in the Netherlands, tripled in the UK,
increased by thirteen times in Finland, and even quadrupled in the previously illiterate
Balkans (Empire 150). Hobsbawm put it most simply- Schools and institutions, in
imposing one language of instruction, also imposed a culture, a nationality, (Capital 99).
Nation-state aspirants were empowering the ethnic-linguistic definition of countries that
we know today.
This being said though, Hobsbawm does note, Few states really tried to stop
private life of a minority language and culture, so long as it did not challenge the public
supremacy of the official state-nation (Empire 151). This would explain how countries
such as Austria-Hungary and the United States were able to remain afloat (though the
former only for a select amount of time). Assimilation to both a nations culture and
language was powerful. Assimilation was ideal. Assimilation was the goal. But then how
does the goal of homogenized language and ethnicity tie in with racism?

Will 4
Although it was still very possible for those speaking less-common languages
and exhibiting less-common cultures to coexist within a state (such as Cavour did in
Italy), the trouble arose where ethnic groups refused to assimilate by dropping their
cultural identity or language. This is likely where 19th century Europe began to develop
strong ideas of racialism. For example, European Jews one of the most frequent targets
of racism opted to keep Yiddish as their native language. They refused to assimilate by
latching themselves to another lingual identity. Alongside not withholding any European
territory, the Jews were not considered nationalist. In turn, the Jews were alternatively
considered backwards (Capital 96). And even where a nations minorities did not adopt
the states language, but kept their own whilst posing no threat to the state, they were still
downgraded in society. Left to sink or swim, many cultures struggled speaking against
the official language, such as the Czechs taking part in Germanys Frankfurt parliament
(Capital 87). Also, authorities in the Habsburg Empire would not recognize the Jews
Yiddish, mentioned beforehand, even as a separate language (Empire 147). Hobsbawm
summarizes this in saying, Those whose first language was an unofficial vernacular
would almost certainly still be excluded from the higher ranges of culture and private or
public affairs, (Capital 157). Assimilating to the process resulted in a cultures
stagnance- or even disappearance. Hindering the process resulted in racism.
As nations successfully implemented a national language and culture, it became
clear that certain ethnicities possessed societies performing more dominantly on the
global stage. A dominant race of white Europeans seemed to establish itself on the way
to the 20th century. Further paving the way for increased racialism in Mazowers era was
the new study of physical anthropology and evolution. A biological mechanism had now

Will 5
been provided to explain this inferiority, particularly by European whites/Englishmen,
who Hobsbawm quoted felt themselves destined for superiority (Empire 31). He also
mentions that,
Physical anthropology automatically led to the concept of race, since the
physical differences between white, yellow, or black peopleswere undeniable. This did
not in itself imply any belief in racial inequality, superiority or inferiority, though when
married to the study of the evolution of man on the basis of pre-historic fossil record, it
did. (Capital 266). Those fighting for superiority would now associate inferiors with
being less evolved- whether these minorities, lower socioeconomic classes, and cripples
were on an earlier stage of biological evolution, or socio-cultural evolution (Capital 267).
It wasnt long before Social Darwinism became popular. Soon superior nations, like
France, Britain, Germany, Italy, etc. were imperializing, and therefore exemplifying their
racial dominance technologically, militarily, and economically. Many believed no other
race could biologically do what the whites had done. So now at this point, non-whites
were considered inferior- but this time, there was no possible escape. No amount of
assimilation would turn men with dark skins into real Englishmen, or for that matter,
white men either (Empire 152). Accompanying mass migrations of minorities (such as
15% of the Polish population), this paved the way for half a century of xenophobia.
Many in the working class pressured to ban immigrants of color, like in Australia
or California (Empire 72). Soon, another factor was added to stirring racism other than
simply refusing to assimilate: class security. Entire socioeconomic/political classes of
nations did not want foreign immigrants entering their country; the bourgeoisie did not
want minorities to penetrate the working classes, as this would grow the size of the

Will 6
proletariat. The working class, as well, generally didnt want the minorities either, as this
would drive wages down and weaken job security. The linguistic/cultural differences,
physical anthropology, and xenophobic class fears brought to light by Hobsbawm would
all set the stage for racism in Mazowers period, from 1914 onward.
As mentioned in the paper examining the social contracts evolution, proceeding
the First World War came an increased focus on the collected masses and the nation itself.
As liberalism looked tired and the organized left had been smashed, many
governments sought to focus on the nations collective common good rather than
liberties of the individual or minority, for that matter (Mazower 26, 30). And as state
governments became more interested in their common good as aforementioned in the
pervious paper and as individual rights were overridden, governments simultaneously
became more interested in their ethnic composition to ideally obtain the dream of a pure
nation. This dream was so prevalent that one Greek scholar could write, on Greek soil
there should remain nothing that is not Greek. The largely supported Nazi Party at the
time would also announce, None but members of the nation may be citizens of the state
(Mazower 42). When a philosopher associated with Jews was openly murdered at the
University of Vienna, the Catholic-nationalist newspaper pronounced, we are
Christians living in a Christian-German state and that it is we who decide which
philosophy is good and suitable, (31). And in Germany, Britain, and other areas in
Europe, as well as the USA, sterilization or worse of the mentally, physically, or racially
diseased bodies went relatively uncontested (35). Stalin would purge and discriminate
against millions of peasants targeted by the Bolsheviks. Algerian laborers in France
would be considered un-assimilable and deported by the tens of thousands (58). America

Will 7
would succeed despite strict segregation and immigration policies, and so would both
France and Britain - the hypocritical champions of minority rights - despite difficulty
for those of color to acquire citizenship, and so on (58). All of this was largely in that
interest of cleansing the state for the goal of a pure nation. This is summarized best by
Carl Schmitts argument that a modern mass democracy presupposed first homogeneity
and second- if the need arises- elimination or eradication of heterogeneity (47).
However, the major conflicting issue arose when the majority no longer believed that
minorities could assimilateand the minorities no longer desired to do so.
Despite all aforementioned racially motivated actions, it was widely neither
acceptable to exterminate nor expel minorities (this proven when the Turks and
Armenians tried the former and when the Greeks and Turks tried the latter). Such
atrocities, despite being relatively prevalent, nonetheless offended ideas of liberal
individual rights (62). This stalemate of a scenario, with no solution between minority
and majority, was taken to Versailles. Here, the victors of The First World War opted to
keep the minorities where they were, but now under the protection of international law.
Via the League of Nations, minority rights treaties were signed, guaranteeing
citizenship, equal treatment under the law, religious freedoms, rights to schooling, and
etcetera (54). The first form of minority protection had been established.
No misconception should be made though- for despite the League standing as a
positive step toward racial/minority rights protection, its successes were few. The Alands
islands dispute between Finland and Sweden, the steps toward granting minoritys
cultural autonomy in Estonia, and the steps toward national education by Latvia were
among its few accomplishments. Minimal cases of discrimination were ever seen before

Will 8
the Leagues board, and nations signing such minority protection treaties felt more
humiliated than morally dignified. Even many of the British, whose country championed
minority rights, believed such treaties from the League of Nations were preventing the
process of assimilation. If they were right, this may have been the only action prevented
by the League: violent Yugoslav oppressive behavior in Macedonia seemingly went
unnoticed, while the Polish government launched its bloody Pacification Campaign
over the Ukrainians, and more, as mentioned later on (55). It is without surprise that
Mazower ultimately writes, the minority-rights treaties did not work very well (42).
So again, despite steps for minorities by France and Britain, and the well-meaning
intentions of the League of Nations, handling the issue of minority protection tended to
be less constant progression in the sake of moral righteousness, but rather more
hypocritical and bureaucratic. Because of this, the idealistic step in the right direction was
mostly imaginativeand weakening in the face of states creating national communities.
From the perspective of minorities, what we now see is resentment in their own
land or place of refuge, and exclusion through citizenship laws elsewhere. An ultimatum
presented itself, in some places more blatantly than others: Assimilate to a nations
homogeneous culture and accept its racial hierarchy, become stateless elsewhere, or
stand at the mercy of a nationalistic state with unreliable protection from minorities
treaties. Here, it is impossible to overlook the struggles of the Jewish race, as it was the
most evident, reoccurring, and prevalent ethnic struggle at the time. One cannot discuss
the 20th centurys racial struggles without using Jews as a dominant example. Mazower
writes, because democracy was about the creation of national communities, it was
generally anti-Semitic for Jews were historically considered to hinder this process

Will 9
through keeping their own language and culture (Mazower 59, Capital 96). This state
backed Anti-Semitism became prevalent and clear as the 20th century moved toward
World War II. Romania, for example, had passed a citizenship law making 100,000 Jews
stateless, Hungary had marked Jews as a separate race rather than their own in 1920,
while Germany and France had come to imprisoning members of the Jewish race
(Mazower 59, 63). This state backed Anti-Semitism would pave way for Hitlers Final
Solution to the ethnic issue: the Holocausts genocide.
However, state backed anti-Semitism was not the only aspect that paved the way
for this genocide (an extreme example that nonetheless vastly reflected the 20th centurys
ethnic difficulties). The League of Nation, the first supposed international protector of
minorities, also had to fall as well. And it did; first by the acts of other nations, such as
Nazi Germany withdrawing or Poland stating it had no minority rights obligations, then
by the waning confidence of European minorities themselves, evident through the only
204 minority petitions received in 1930then to only 15 in 1936 (60). Of course, its own
inadequacy cant be discounted either. Mazower writes that the League was shrinking to
something far more modest (68). Resultantly, minority rights began to collapse in the
face of a more determined challenge. With the rise of Nazi Germany came a new racial
nationalism across eastern Europe, a new assault on minorities and, as a result, a fastgrowing refugee crisis (43).
Mazower now writes that, Since there existed no common rule of law, there
was little value in international institutions such as the League or the Permanent Court of
International Justice (71). Races and ethnicities considered inferior now had no place to
run. They had little to no rights in specific countries, nor anyone to uphold them. As a

Will 10
result, atrocities ensued. A more brutal approach to Europe ethnic tensions arose (160).
Italians, who vastly believed they were a superior race, killed enormous numbers of
Ethiopians through gas and chemical warfare, as well as saturation bombing, detention
camps, and concentration camps. They also invaded Ethiopias capital and killed more
than one thousand in cold blood, as well as several hundred monks (72). Eugenicists
began attempting to stop racial inferiors from breeding across Europe, and forced
population exchanges occurred, such as one proposed between the Italians and Germans
(96, 160). And while the Croat Utaste slaughtered 334,000 Serbs, the Romanians carried
out bloody pogroms in Transnistria and oppressed Jews in extreme Anti-Semitic
movements alongside Hungary (171, 172). However, in the absence of a strong minority
rights protector, even democratic nations discriminated against those considered inferior
(through eugenics, or forced sterilization, etcetera). Vast quantities of refugees amassed
stateless in Europe. Small, sporadic attempts surfaced to protect refugees under
international law, such as the Nanseen passport, but were ultimately diluted in the midst
of a depression and strong racial hierarchy ideas.
However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that these ethnic atrocities
were universally acceptable. They were rather just universally uncontested, with no force
empowered to stop them. For example, Mazower has noted, Neither later nor at the time
did this kind of bloodshed occasion much criticism (72). Some liberals were shocked,
but the vast majority at the time was still interested in creating a pure nation. For an
international organization to uphold human/ethnic rights, and for racial and ethnic
minorities, their plight would still have to climax during the Second World Wars
Holocaust before it could begin improving.

Will 11
In looking at the Holocaust, two things can be seen. First- the most well known
example of ethnic cleansing. Second- what Mazower would likely consider to be the 20th
centurys climax of racial discrimination. Its important to note that Mazower makes it
clear throughout Dark Continent that Nazi Germany was not an anomaly, nor even a
pioneer in such policies as cleansing the nation, (60). Anti-Semitism was a rampant
belief in Europe- as was the belief in a racial hierarchy and ethnic cleansing (later coined
as genocide). Nazi Germanys seemed to be one of the most brutal and largest, as well as
the most infamous.
Jews were gradually but systemically excluded from the national communityfirst dismissed from public employment, then subject to economic boycott (99). While
in Italy, racial laws led to hundreds of dismissals from the universities and civil service
(101). Alongside Italy and Germany were the aforementioned continent-wide cases of
Jewish/minority discrimination, such as those in Hungary or Romania. Mazower writes
though, that none of this not even in Italy could be compared to the extent or
intensity with what was happening in Nazi Germany (99). Mazower also adds, In fact,
the Final Solution of the Jewish question emerged out of a broader interlocking set of
racial issues which the Nazi regime sought to solve during the war.
In specifically Germany though, Jews, and other racial inferiors, were uprooted
by the masses. They were promptly displaced with no homes, resettled elsewhere, put
into concentration/detention camps, or even murdered (158). By this most infamous
example in Nazi Germany, one begins to see that the decades from 1920 through the
1940s may have displayed the most brutal, widespread disregard for racial/ethnic

Will 12
minorities in history. This occurred simply for the idealistic and imaginative goal of
nationalizing through the creation of a cultural/lingual homogenous state.
The atrocities committed upon minorities were horrible- this is needless to say.
Whats essential to illuminate, however, are the effects of these atrocities on races. The
Nazi regimes brutality appalled the continent. In fact, it did this to such an extent that
many demanded reform. Mazower supports this, stating, the struggle against Hitler had
revealed the importance of human civil rights (191). As a result, liberal thought again
desired to safe-guard human rights as the war drew to a close; it had revealed that the
individual needed protection against the state. The war had revealed that individual rights
should be protected, including minoritys- not just the collectives, and not just the
nations. And as the 1950s drew nearer, the brutality of WWII and Axis occupation was
still fresh in the minds of many Europeans. The liberal concern for world peace, and the
safeguarding of human rights, reinvigorated the need for international law. Some positive
changes ensued: suffrage was extended in countries such as France, Yugoslavia, and
Greece (208). Regarding ethnic protection, human rights were given priority over
economic and social rights in the Charter, and the Genocide Convention added an
important new crime to those recognized under international law, and imposed
obligations upon ratifying states to act to prevent or punish its commission (210, 211).
But again, there should not be a misconception as Mazower moves his analysis
into the 1950s. The United Nations, Genocide Conventions, and the Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948 were positive steps forward for racial and ethnic minoritiesbut
they initially barely did more than simply symbolize the newly found rights of an
individual under international law. Mazower writes that there were no provisions for

Will 13
enforcement, and therefore were little more than a pious wishes. He also comments on
the overall weakness of the United Nations in upholding minority rights, considering it to
be even a step backwards from the League (210).
Mazower is also quick to dispel any notion that Hitlers appalling atrocities
against Jews invigorated an open-mindedness toward the ethnicity, and erased any
thoughts of racial hierarchy. In fact, he writes that the opposite is true. Anti-Semitism
did not disappear from Europe after 1945: to the contrary, it intensified across the
continent immediately after the war ended this largely due to the previously displaced
Jewish returning home to find their properties looted or occupied (209). Also,
surprisingly, nations subjected to Nazi rule seemed to have a decreased regard for
inferior races. As an example, he notes that the French killed up to 40,000 Algerians
and 100,000 dead in Madagascar (209). Both outbreaks of Anti-Semitism and a series of
genocides would occur throughout the 20th centurys last halfbut never again to the
appalling extent it had from the 1920s-40s.
As time progressed and the 20th century moved onward, international
organizations and liberal thought prevented any major first-world cultural
extermination. This was largely in fear of returning to pre-war and inter-war conditions.
Matters regarding race and ethnicity could largely be traced through constitutional
reforms; toward the latter half of the 20th century, these reforms displayed a concern for
human rights born of bitter wartime experience, and awareness of the need to defend the
individual against the power of the state (287). Social policies after the war focused on
the citizen and his opportunities. Resultantly, state-backed, violent racial discrimination
rarified. National immigration rates skyrocketed.

Will 14
However, on a relatively smaller scale, racial/ethnic discrimination once again
became prevalent world wide upon the 1970s economic crash. This time, national
discrimination occurred against a variety of racial and ethnic groups: foreign immigrants.
Between both Hobsbawms and Mazowers analysis, its clear that economic instability
and racial discrimination frequently go hand in hand. This is likely due to remnants of
racial-hierarchy logic, as well as the working classs fear of lowered wages. Regardless,
European nations threw their previously welcoming immigration policies into reverse.
In most countries the 1970s marked the end of mass immigration and the beginning of
restriction (345). This was largely due to the mass migration coming from the East,
where millions of poverty-stricken workers were predicted to flood westward. Those
ethnic minorities able successfully immigrate became subjects of bias and discrimination.
Minorities who already existed within the territory became scapegoats.
In the 1980s, though not in the form of extermination camps, racial intolerance
was now visible through an alarming increase in the proportion of foreign and ethnic
minority prisoners, widespread racism in police forces, and unemployment (345). As just
one example, Londons unemployment rate amongst young blacks was an astonishing
51%, whereas amongst other minorities it was 37% through the 1980s. European
societies were still struggling to accept racial/ethnic minorities as full citizens.
Immigration controls and asylum laws tightened, except in areas such as Germany
which took in nearly 80% of the immigrants (345). Elsewhere, such as France, Italy, or
Greece, massive deportations took place (346). To prevent further immigration, many
countries implemented horrible hosting conditions, such as camps, detention centers,
abandoned barracks, or old ships offshore. Both the immigrants/minoritys right to work

Will 15
and right to welfare were gradually dissolved. And if conditions were particularly bad in
the UK, they were monumentally worse on the mainland where racism was much less
inhibited (347). Anti-immigration rhetoric was a common trait amongst almost all of the
European nations.
However, it would still be nave for one to assume that nothing changed regarding
race over the broad span of 150 years. One does see established organizations
strengthening in power or reputation. Even if the UN Charter failed initially, an
increasing regard for the specific individual rights of racial/ethnic minorities and
immigrants was present. It was now established tangibly, such as when Austrias
Foreigners Police Law was deemed unconstitutional according to the European
Convention on Human Rights (348). Where the established organizations were weak,
modern liberalizing thought compensated. Mazower writes that Racism may have
remained a powerful current in European attitudes, but anti-racism was also growing, and
migrants rights were defensible in domestic courts (348).
But, to seemingly write as a broken record, race has not evolved in constant
steady progression. There have been highs and lows and peaks and valleys since midway
through the 19th century. Surely, undeniable progress has been made. But with yet another
refugee crisis - this time stirring from the Middle East - and with a war on terror being
fought largely as one race against a radical otherthe opinions on race and ethnicity will
again endure vast shifts as time progresses.