- Thread starter
- #21
It's important when studying history not to superimpose modern concepts onto ancient groups of people, and this argument seems to be based on doing exactly that. People back then did not have a concept of 'race' as we do now; they didn't categorize themselves into, for example, 'Black' and 'not Black.'
Egypt's position, and its ease of travel made possible by the Nile, meant that a lot of people congregated there from nearby lands, and where there's congregation, there is inevitably intermixing. (Read their myths; there was apparently a lot of intermixing.) In all likelihood, they would have noticed that northerners had lighter skin, and southerners had darker skin, and that was about it.
You're right the past was very different. I think that most people don't realize just how out side of our understanding the past was; many things that we consider horrendous they thought acceptable and even proper. And people also confuse civilization and humane treatment; they are not the same. For example, the Aztecs and the Romans had advanced civilizations for their time and locale, and both were brutal cultures. A Roman master could buy a slave for the purpose of raping and torturing him to death. Romans could homosexually rape slaves, and no one thought anything of it; it was just a master using his property; Aztecs brutally sacrificed 10s of thousands of people to their gods. Some Aztec young men eagerly offered their bodies for sacrifice. Yes the past was different. Not only was technology different so were the people; they thought differently. It is not just to judge the people in the past by the same standards of today. They understood the world totally differently.
Last edited: