Racism is a thing of the past....

[IM2]

Racism has not always been part of the human condition. Especially since races did not exist until the 15-1600's.

I think we may have varying definitions of race or racism. Maybe I am misusing terms or you are referring to institutionalized racism, or some other factor. I don't pretend to be a social science scholar.

But I respectfully disagree, based on my understanding of the terms "race" and "racism."

Racism goes back to at least 322 B.C. (probably much earlier), based on Aristotle's writings where he distinguishes the Hellenes race (Greeks) from the barbarian races (usually referring to Armenians [original Caucasians] and Persians) equating them to slaves, and equating slaves to animals:

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

"But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one."

Aristotle on Slavery

If that motherfucker is not racist, my vocabulary needs an adjustment/update.

.

You can't have racism without races. When racial classifications were developed all these groups were white. So I would call this ethnocentrism. And that's wrong too.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Racism is alive and thriving in IM2's brain. :/

Didn't he start another thread exactly like this a year or so ago?

 

[IM2]

Racism is alive and thriving in IM2's brain. :/

Didn't he start another thread exactly like this a year or so ago?

Racism is alive and thriving in your brain. That's why you are a racist.

 

[boedicca]

Oh Goodie Goodie Gumdrops! Yet another Racist Race Baiting thread by a Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Racism has not always been part of the human condition. Especially since races did not exist until the 15-1600's.

I think we may have varying definitions of race or racism. Maybe I am misusing terms or you are referring to institutionalized racism, or some other factor. I don't pretend to be a social science scholar.

But I respectfully disagree, based on my understanding of the terms "race" and "racism."

Racism goes back to at least 322 B.C. (probably much earlier), based on Aristotle's writings where he distinguishes the Hellenes race (Greeks) from the barbarian races (usually referring to Armenians [original Caucasians] and Persians) equating them to slaves, and equating slaves to animals:

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

"But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one."

Aristotle on Slavery

If that motherfucker is not racist, my vocabulary needs an adjustment/update.

.

You can't have racism without races. When racial classifications were developed all these groups were white. So I would call this ethnocentrism. And that's wrong too.

Ah.

Understood.


Thanks for clarifying.

.

 

[IM2]

Racism has not always been part of the human condition. Especially since races did not exist until the 15-1600's.

I think we may have varying definitions of race or racism. Maybe I am misusing terms or you are referring to institutionalized racism, or some other factor. I don't pretend to be a social science scholar.

But I respectfully disagree, based on my understanding of the terms "race" and "racism."

Racism goes back to at least 322 B.C. (probably much earlier), based on Aristotle's writings where he distinguishes the Hellenes race (Greeks) from the barbarian races (usually referring to Armenians [original Caucasians] and Persians) equating them to slaves, and equating slaves to animals:

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

"But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one."

Aristotle on Slavery

If that motherfucker is not racist, my vocabulary needs an adjustment/update.

.

You can't have racism without races. When racial classifications were developed all these groups were white. So I would call this ethnocentrism. And that's wrong too.

Ah.

Understood.


Thanks for clarifying.

.

I appreciate our conversations as of late. Thank you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I appreciate our conversations as of late. Thank you.

No. Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to respectfully engage.

I have notice a trend on this particular board. A lot of people yelling. Nobody listening.

And, one cannot hear if one does not listen.

I decided to that I had a problem. I was yelling and not listening.

I decided to listen.

Makes a huge difference.



.