Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Damn!!! That is some real stuff right there. Wow!! I like the connection or lack thereof between blacks and Americans being seen as different for the purpose of supporting racial stereotyping and prejudices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
Excellent post. People do not really understand how recent discrimination based purely on skin color is, and how it originated as the justification for slavery & genocide in America. Prior, people were oppressed based on their religion, nationality or culture...there was no wide-spread concept of superiority or subhuman-ness based strictly on skin tone.
I don't know why you two are buying into that posters opinion. Those subtle differences he makes regarding ethnicity/religion/culture vs. different races makes no sense from a historical standpoint if you consider that races have enslaved their own people.
The blacks in Africa are a perfect example of not only enslaving their own, but even the way whites are treated now. It is just too convenient to claim the aforementioned differences (i.e. instead of "race") when it suits them. Whether it be the Aztecs, Egyptians, or countless other groups in history, mans inhumanity to man is not limited to evil white men as those pushing the false narrative of "white power structure" would have you believe. America was never perfect, but we overcame our slavery much quicker than many nations despite our relatively new status as a nation/people.
Heck you have people still being enslaved in various parts of the world, including Africa today. Not be whites, but by fellow blacks. It is estimated that 20 million slaves exist in various countries today. This problem is not limited to the African continent only, as it can be seen in other countries like China, Bangladesh and many others.
The slaves sold in Africa serve various functions ranging from commercial and domestic labor, to sexual exploitation. Children, particularly girls, from Togo and Benin are in high demand by the wealthy people in Lagos and Libreville.
In recent times, slave trade was only considered as an element of war-torn countries like Angola, Chad, Somalia and Sudan, where 10 year old girls serve as sex slaves or servants at the military bases. However, it is now seen that throughout some nonviolent West African states, human trafficking is booming. Some countries that are believed to be implicated in slave trade include Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Gabon.
In addition, there are many factories and cocoa plantations in Africa that largely use slaves for labor. These slaves are usually found in the remote rural regions of West Africa. Here, boys ranging from age 12 – 16 are trafficked to cocoa plantations where they are used to provide slave labor for planting and harvesting cocoa beans, which are then exported for chocolate production.
Since the major underlying factor of slavery is utter poverty, the only way in which slavery can end in Africa is if poverty can be effectively dealt with.
Yet to the race merchants in modern day America, slavery was invented by imperialistic whites from Europe and brought to the new world.
Only through the ideals of our Founding Fathers (European white guys) and the Constitutional Republic they gave us, did we overcome the evil of slavery. Yet despite all the treasure of white blood lost in the process, the race and grievance merchants want to demonize all whites for the sins of some of our fathers.
Another words, unlike guilty white liberal Ben Affleck, many white people such as myself have no connected heritage to slave owners.
Another words, unlike guilty white liberal Ben Affleck, many white people such as myself have no connected heritage to slave owners.
How can you possibly know that? At ten generations, you have 2,046 direct ancestors. Add in siblings and the numbers become astoundingly huge very quickly. I've been working on my family tree for over two decades, and I can't even come close to filling in just the basics of a ten-generation tree. And even with good documentation, there will always be doubt. This is the kind of nonsense that makes me crazy as a family historian. You cannot know that your ancestors are unconnected to slavery. To say with certainty is the height of arrogance.
So slavery did not exist, based on ethnic/national differences, until evil Europeans "invented" it? That's your statement? Seems a shaky stance to me.
Seems to me that your hypothesis can be vaporized with even the most cursory, common knowledge, consideration.
Off the top of my head... which group of people did dark-skinned Pharaoh force into slavery to build his grand empire (among others). Could it have been the lighter-skinned Jews? And could he possibly have been singling them out as a different "race" worthy of slavery based on their ethnic differences (i.e. "race")?
Point is white-skinned, brown-skinned, dark-skinned, etc, people have never had the corner on the market when it came to slavery. And you can bet in many, if not most, cases, skin color was used as an identifying marker (thus the concept of "race"). If you think civilizations from the past were color-blind, you are not using any logic or common sense at all. Do you really think people and their ways suddenly changed when the barbarians of Europe became more civilized? Before that, the earth was inhabited by color-blind angels?
On the bold above wanted to mention that you misunderstood the other poster. Europeans didn't "invent" slavery based on ethnic and national differences, they "invented" it based solely upon skin color alone starting from the late 17th century going forward.
As you mentioned above, practically all peoples in the world enslaved other persons, but those who were enslaved were not deemed as inferior just because they were white, black or brown. They were deemed inferior based on tribe or ethnicity or their weakness in battle.
In America, the Caribbean, and South America in particular slavery was introduced (i.e. invented) by Europeans based solely on skin color alone, no matter one's religion, tribe, or ethnic background. People who had similar skin colors - brown to dark black, were deemed inferior based on that alone and relegated as slaves or second class citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Not that Wiki is a reliable source (they are cited), but what do you make of these historical analyses:
**** Edith Sanders in 1969 cited the Babylonian Talmud, which divides mankind between the three sons of Noah, stating that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."[107]....
**** ... the earliest appearance of dark skin as a punishment for the descendants of Ham directly related to "Black Africans" does not appear until the 9th or 10th century ...
**** ... Bernard Lewis has cited the Greek philosopher Aristotle who, in his discussion of slavery, stated that while Greeks are free by nature, 'barbarians' (non-Greeks) are slaves by nature, in that it is in their nature to be more willing to submit to despotic government.[109] Though Aristotle does not specify any particular races, he argues that people from outside Greece are more prone to the burden of slavery than those from Greece.[110] ... This proto-racism is seen as an important precursor to modern racism by classicist Benjamin Isaac.
**** ... The Ancient Hebrews, in referring to all who were not Hebrews as Gentiles, were indulging in ethnocentrism
These, and a bunch more, if not pointing to early racism, most certainly point to the possibility of a division in the cultures based on racial lines. Many of these references refer to "proto-racism" and "ethnocentrism."
If nothing else, in reading all of the articles on the topic, what I noted is that there is not complete agreement by anthropologists, historians, sociologists, etc, as to exactly when "racism" began in earnest. You state that it was middle age Europe. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I see no conclusive discussion of that by these cited experts. I think you are taking a theory and running with it before it is proven. IMO, there is just as much evidence (at least that I see at this point) for the idea of "racism" to have began far, far earlier than that. I think, if nothing else, there is a good case for the Greek period and Greece to have certainly shown those tendencies.
Ultimately, none of us were there. So we have to rely on after-the-fact evidence that has deteriorated for thousands of years. I see that even the experts cited do not agree. How can you, then, present your version as fact?
On the red, none of your examples above point to color based "racism" as we know it nor were Hebrews enslaved based on their skin color. Greeks and Romans considered "barbarians" to be the lighter skinned people of northern Europe, specifically the Gauls (French) and Germanics (German). Africans, especially Egyptians who ranged from dark black in the south to brown in the north, were highly esteemed by both Greeks and Romans due to their civilized cultures. Also Romans in particular had many slaves who were not black. Slavery for the Greeks and Romans was not based on skin color. They looked down on less civilized people, no matter their skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Here are some more:
**** ... When the lighter ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the darker group "the evil race of Ish". When the darker ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the lighter group "the pale, degraded race of Arvad".[2]
**** ... an historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended."[2]
If nothing else, you guys that love to speak in declaratives do prompt further research. I can thank you for that. From what I have read in summaries, this idea of "race" developed over time, it didn't all of a sudden pop up one day in a castle in Europe.
Of course, by reading a few blurbs on the matter, that doesn't mean I have any more expertise on the topic that you do. If I had a lot of time and a bunch of research on the matter, I could further develop my views. But at this point, I think I've seen enough to cast doubt on your declaration, especially considering that you have an axe to grind. I personally don't care much one way or the other because that all happened centuries ago. I'm not responsible for what anyone did at that time. I can't change it, so I'm going to move on. Lots of bad things happened in the past on all sides and colors of humanity. There's nothing I can do about that. It's done. I can only control what I do in the here-and-now.
The above again is not representative of color based slavery. "Racism" is the modern sense is based primarily on skin color. The fact that there were darker and lighter Egyptians in power over many centuries and millenia is proof that they did not enslave or deem Egyptians of a different hue as inferior to themselves based solely on color alone as what was done by Europeans during the Atlantic Slave Trade (and which was adopted by Europeans in Asia as well as Africans were also sent to Arabia/Persia and Asia via European colonist and later on Persian/Arab rulers).
Racism as we know it today against blacks, which relegates blacks as an inferior "race" was indeed invented by Europeans within the past 400-500 years. I don't even know why you are trying to act like that is not the case. Maybe some weird guilt complex, but IMO as a black person, it is what it is. We cannot change it but that is what happened. No one sought to dominate or enslave people based solely on skin color until Europeans did so. Romans and Greeks had white/European slaves, as did Russians, Chinese had Chinese/Asian slaves, the Asante and Igbo had black/African slaves. None of these societies or ethnic groups sought to only enslave people who looked dramatically different from them until Europeans did it in the late 1600s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac1
Why are you on a discussion board if you don't want to discuss anything? If you don't like it............go away, please.
Lol, who are you to deem a question relevant or not?
Like you, I'm curious. You should take your own advice and ignore me if you don't want to answer. But I like to point out silliness when I see it and it is silly to ask such questions. Also, they have been asked multiple times before here and you could have just reviewed another thread with the same topic.
In all seriousness, there is nothing in my life that would identify me as of European descent other than the color of my skin and perhaps my surname, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. My ancestors came to these shores a long, long time ago. How and why can be only surmised from a smattering of records. To say that I am anything other than American would be silly, as is the case for my parents and their parents before them and so on and so on. Anything else that would identify me as belonging a particular culture or combination of cultures beyond these shores is lost. There are no recipes or holiday traditions or accent or anything else that would identify me as Irish or Dutch or Finnish or Austrian or Italian. None. Absolutely none. And I have a certain sadness about this to be perfectly forthright about the matter, but I am comfortable being referred to as a White American by others, because that's how I physically present. As for people with dark brown skin, I have no dog in that fight, so I can only adhere to however an individual wishes to be known in a particular context. If it is African-American, so be it. If it is Black American or Mixed American or just plain American, the same applies.
So you are saying if you were "dark brown skin" you'd prefer to be called black and it really makes no sense to call Black people African American....Thanks for your input.
I guess the only reasons I know of to actually describe someone is if you are meeting them for the first time or if they committed a crime and it's for the police.
Why not just describe an African American man as a "Dark skinned male with African features"? And then the height and weight ect. How do we know anyone is an American anymore? We have something like 100,000 African immigrants in Minnesota alone, some are citizens some are not. BUt in the liberal world they are all "African Americans". That is how stupid and shallow they are.
Why do liberals constantly want to create these divides in Americans? Everyone has to have a label.
I'm saying that I prefer to be identified as an American but if more information is necessary, White American is fine. And if you want to pick me out of a crowd of light-skinned American people, it would probably be most effective to call me out by my most unusual physical characteristic, which is my hair color. As for how to refer to a people whose skin is darker than mine, I will defer to their individual preference.
I don't know why you two are buying into that posters opinion. Those subtle differences he makes regarding ethnicity/religion/culture vs. different races makes no sense from a historical standpoint if you consider that races have enslaved their own people.
The blacks in Africa are a perfect example of not only enslaving their own, but even the way whites are treated now. It is just too convenient to claim the aforementioned differences (i.e. instead of "race") when it suits them. Whether it be the Aztecs, Egyptians, or countless other groups in history, mans inhumanity to man is not limited to evil white men as those pushing the false narrative of "white power structure" would have you believe. America was never perfect, but we overcame our slavery much quicker than many nations despite our relatively new status as a nation/people.
Heck you have people still being enslaved in various parts of the world, including Africa today. Not be whites, but by fellow blacks. It is estimated that 20 million slaves exist in various countries today. This problem is not limited to the African continent only, as it can be seen in other countries like China, Bangladesh and many others.
The slaves sold in Africa serve various functions ranging from commercial and domestic labor, to sexual exploitation. Children, particularly girls, from Togo and Benin are in high demand by the wealthy people in Lagos and Libreville.
In recent times, slave trade was only considered as an element of war-torn countries like Angola, Chad, Somalia and Sudan, where 10 year old girls serve as sex slaves or servants at the military bases. However, it is now seen that throughout some nonviolent West African states, human trafficking is booming. Some countries that are believed to be implicated in slave trade include Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Gabon.
In addition, there are many factories and cocoa plantations in Africa that largely use slaves for labor. These slaves are usually found in the remote rural regions of West Africa. Here, boys ranging from age 12 – 16 are trafficked to cocoa plantations where they are used to provide slave labor for planting and harvesting cocoa beans, which are then exported for chocolate production.
Since the major underlying factor of slavery is utter poverty, the only way in which slavery can end in Africa is if poverty can be effectively dealt with.
Yet to the race merchants in modern day America, slavery was invented by imperialistic whites from Europe and brought to the new world.
Only through the ideals of our Founding Fathers (European white guys) and the Constitutional Republic they gave us, did we overcome the evil of slavery. Yet despite all the treasure of white blood lost in the process, the race and grievance merchants want to demonize all whites for the sins of some of our fathers.
Another words, unlike guilty white liberal Ben Affleck, many white people such as myself have no connected heritage to slave owners.
`
Sounds like white guilt to me; and you are justifying the horrendous past of this country towards blacks, that is a separate discussion. We are discussing why whites are not called European Americans.
I accepted that poster OPINION because it was articulate thoroughly and he support his POV with accurate interpretation of historical information. He made a connection with labeling to justify racism, you just talked about how every society at one time or another had slaves.
Why are we only focusing our PC on "black" people, why not "white" people? What is a "white" person? If we are going to call black people African American even though they have no African cultural, why not call white people English or Irish or German or Polish or whatever "new" or "old" immigrant country they cam from American?
As a matter of fact since all people originally came from African, why don't we call everyone African American, why just black people?
When do we draw the line of African American people in the U.S.? 400 years removed or 10,000 years removed?
What do you want to be called "white" people? I have never seen a white person before? I have seen some "black" people before, but never a "white" person.
I'm going to start calling all "white" people European Americans...... I think they should be reminded where they are from as well as Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, and African African Americans......... You never here Armenian American, Italian American, Russian American, German American......so European American is appropriate no?
We can, but most of us are such a mixture we would have to be called about 6 different Americans. In my case: my moms family is 100% German, but dads go back to the Mayflower, on his maternal grandmothers side. Some of her family came from England as well and there is scottish mixed in. Dad's dad came from Ireland. And ours is simple compared to some. ok, European Americans would fit I guess. I never thought about that.
On the bold above wanted to mention that you misunderstood the other poster. Europeans didn't "invent" slavery based on ethnic and national differences, they "invented" it based solely upon skin color alone starting from the late 17th century going forward.
As you mentioned above, practically all peoples in the world enslaved other persons, but those who were enslaved were not deemed as inferior just because they were white, black or brown. They were deemed inferior based on tribe or ethnicity or their weakness in battle.
In America, the Caribbean, and South America in particular slavery was introduced (i.e. invented) by Europeans based solely on skin color alone, no matter one's religion, tribe, or ethnic background. People who had similar skin colors - brown to dark black, were deemed inferior based on that alone and relegated as slaves or second class citizen.
On the red, none of your examples above point to color based "racism" as we know it nor were Hebrews enslaved based on their skin color. Greeks and Romans considered "barbarians" to be the lighter skinned people of northern Europe, specifically the Gauls (French) and Germanics (German). Africans, especially Egyptians who ranged from dark black in the south to brown in the north, were highly esteemed by both Greeks and Romans due to their civilized cultures. Also Romans in particular had many slaves who were not black. Slavery for the Greeks and Romans was not based on skin color. They looked down on less civilized people, no matter their skin color.
The above again is not representative of color based slavery. "Racism" is the modern sense is based primarily on skin color. The fact that there were darker and lighter Egyptians in power over many centuries and millenia is proof that they did not enslave or deem Egyptians of a different hue as inferior to themselves based solely on color alone as what was done by Europeans during the Atlantic Slave Trade (and which was adopted by Europeans in Asia as well as Africans were also sent to Arabia/Persia and Asia via European colonist and later on Persian/Arab rulers).
Racism as we know it today against blacks, which relegates blacks as an inferior "race" was indeed invented by Europeans within the past 400-500 years. I don't even know why you are trying to act like that is not the case. Maybe some weird guilt complex, but IMO as a black person, it is what it is. We cannot change it but that is what happened. No one sought to dominate or enslave people based solely on skin color until Europeans did so. Romans and Greeks had white/European slaves, as did Russians, Chinese had Chinese/Asian slaves, the Asante and Igbo had black/African slaves. None of these societies or ethnic groups sought to only enslave people who looked dramatically different from them until Europeans did it in the late 1600s.
Like you, I'm curious. You should take your own advice and ignore me if you don't want to answer. But I like to point out silliness when I see it and it is silly to ask such questions. Also, they have been asked multiple times before here and you could have just reviewed another thread with the same topic.
Oh, it's not about me ignoring you, it is about this discussion board. If you over hear people discussing something in the park that you don't like and you come over and say "why are you guys talking about that?" as to poison our discussion or take validity away from it.....get real. You like being a part of this discussion (hell, you just wrote a dissertation) but display this transcending behavior as if you are the overlord; just look at your "I like to point out silliness"...........LMAO, who are you to say what is silly? And if it has been posted many of times, why did you come here?
Practice what you preach......."let me go join the silly discussion and tell them how silly it is after I give my two cents
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
