Which race started racism? Where did it come from?

[Not2BSubjugated]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Find out How Skin Color Evolved

Can't you speak for yourself ?

Behavior Today Is a Clue to Prehistory

Africans turned black after they were pushed back into the jungle for following the Whites out of it and raiding them. Producing nothing of their own, they did nothing but rob and kill those who did.

 

[Unkotare]

All of this is incorrect. The picture is not Anthony Johnson. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in America. In 1654, there were no photographers in Virginia,

Seven Lies, Half-Truths, and Irrelevancies People Trot Out About Slavery—Debunked

Massachusetts Bay Colony was the first slave-holding colony in New England. The first slaves were brought to the colony in the early 17th century.

The exact date slaves first entered Massachusetts is unknown but many sources suggest Samuel Maverick was the first slaveholder in the colony after he arrived in early Boston in 1624 with two slaves.

According to the book Bound for America: The Forced Migration of Africans to the New World, the first slaves imported directly from Africa to Massachusetts arrived in 1634.

A few years later, in December of 1638, a slave ship named Desire brought Boston’s first shipment of slaves from Barbados, whom had been exchanged for enslaved Pequot Indians from New England.

In 1641, Governor John Winthrop, a slave owner himself, helped write the first law legalizing slavery in North America, the Massachusetts Bodies of Liberty, which the General Court passed on December 10, 1641.

Slavery in Massachusetts

All of this happened before 1654.

Blacks did not make slavery legal in he United States.

Racial classifications were not created until the 15-1600's, so black Egyptians did not invent racism. And blacks did not create the system of racism as it is in America.



.

And blacks did not create the system of racism as it is in America.

No it was Southern White Democrats that created the racism of today, and the Democrats today still see only the skin color, genitalia, wealth, or education of the individual to pander to, thus keeping RACISM as their modus operandi.

No the racism of today was created by whites, and the republican party of today is the party f racism....

 

[Mickiel]

I think the first humans were mid brown in complexion ; and their children were perhaps the first to be racist. You know how children are, but these first children may have been different shades of color. I think racism came from something that simple. Two kids who came out different, started fighting with each other.

 

[Paul Essien]

Behavior Today Is a Clue to Prehistory

Africans turned black after they were pushed back into the jungle for following the Whites out of it and raiding them. Producing nothing of their own, they did nothing but rob and kill those who did.

I could spend several thousand words showing you to the evidence on this subject, compiled by African and European scholars alike.

But if you are truly interested in this material then you can begin explaining how authors like Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, Walter Rodney and Ivan Van Sertima are wrong and for you whose racism will most likely lead you to dismiss black scholars and do that "We Wuz Kangs" reply you can explain the writings of Basil Davidson: are wrong too. Basil Davidson one of the most respected Africa scholars in modern history, who is both white and British.

 

[IM2]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

More stupidity trying to justify racism. When a child is born they will interact with any other child no matter the color. So racism is not natural it is taught. That's how things work here on planet earth. I can understand how whites want to deny what they have done, but you shouldn't have done it, therefore deal with the consquences.

 

[IM2]

The Historical Origins and Development of Racism

Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable. An ideological basis for explicit racism came to a unique fruition in the West during the modern period. No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

More stupidity trying to justify racism. When a child is born they will interact with any other child no matter the color. So racism is not natural it is taught. That's how things work here on planet earth. I can understand how whites want to deny what they have done, but you shouldn't have done it, therefore deal with the consquences.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with. I ain't that guy.

I'm also not trying to justify racism. I'm just explaining that it's simply a probable consequence of our natural in-group preferences.

You clearly didn't read my post, though, because I said nothing that implied that children naturally avoid other children who are different from them. I said that people naturally show preference to people who are the same as them. The fact that children will play with each other despite differences doesn't disprove this, it simply illustrates that children tend to value having playmates more than they seek to avoid the unfamiliar.

Edit: Also, children aren't the greatest example because they don't come readily equipped with the entire array of human instinct. Some of those instincts develop as a human being ages. Left to their own devices and unattended, for instance, you don't see a lot of toddlers fucking. End edit.

Essentially, what I described was that humans PREFER the familiar, not that they necessarily hate the unfamiliar. Seriously, are you ever going to respond directly to something that I've said, or just tear down your own straw men and then bash me based on the assumption that I'm the evil color?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The Historical Origins and Development of Racism

Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable. An ideological basis for explicit racism came to a unique fruition in the West during the modern period. No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Whoa whoa whoa, what happened to being all about the dictionary definition? Only when it suits your side of an argument? When it doesn't, PBS's definition is the one to go with?

 

[IM2]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

More stupidity trying to justify racism. When a child is born they will interact with any other child no matter the color. So racism is not natural it is taught. That's how things work here on planet earth. I can understand how whites want to deny what they have done, but you shouldn't have done it, therefore deal with the consquences.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with. I ain't that guy.

I'm also not trying to justify racism. I'm just explaining that it's simply a probable consequence of our natural in-group preferences.

You clearly didn't read my post, though, because I said nothing that implied that children naturally avoid other children who are different from them. I said that people naturally show preference to people who are the same as them. The fact that children will play with each other despite differences doesn't disprove this, it simply illustrates that children tend to value having playmates more than they seek to avoid the unfamiliar.

Edit: Also, children aren't the greatest example because they don't come readily equipped with the entire array of human instinct. Some of those instincts develop as a human being ages. Left to their own devices and unattended, for instance, you don't see a lot of toddlers fucking. End edit.

Essentially, what I described was that humans PREFER the familiar, not that they necessarily hate the unfamiliar. Seriously, are you ever going to respond directly to something that I've said, or just tear down your own straw men and then bash me based on the assumption that I'm the evil color?

I will talk about slavery and colonialism because it does impact things now. This bogus excuse those like you use is very weak. Here you are in a thread talking about racism starting a million years ago and you come forth with that flimsy bullshit. Racism is taught. It is a learned behavior, It is not natural and that is a fact. So you will be that guy when I decide you are that guy. Because racism by whites did not end with the end of slavery and in fact the same racism extends into your lifetime and exists right now. Since we are taking about he start of racism it was started by Europeans. That's what has ben discovered. No amount of whites having temper tantrums about what you won't be changes that,.

 

[IM2]

The Historical Origins and Development of Racism

Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable. An ideological basis for explicit racism came to a unique fruition in the West during the modern period. No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Whoa whoa whoa, what happened to being all about the dictionary definition? Only when it suits your side of an argument? When it doesn't, PBS's definition is the one to go with?

This PBS article is about when racism started. It states that racism exists when those things happen, It did not state the definition of racism. What it shows is what people do when they believe they are superior to people due to race.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Nobody invented racism. In-group preference is a trait shared among most animal species and virtually all mammals. Glad I could clear that up.

But you didn't. Racism is not a natural human trait as humans as a species of animal will associate with other humans. A brown skinned human is just as much a human as a pink skinned one. For what you say to be the case a human would gave to hang out with cows or horses because that would be outside the group preference.

Wow. So it used to be that the only groups were species, huh? Pretty much, then, the first time an explorer from Africa encountered an Asian person, both parties were like, "You look differently, but are clearly just as human as I am. And since you are a man and not a cow or a horse, we shall be as family!" But then, somewhere down the road, some white guy measured a brown person's skull size and came to some biased conclusions, and nobody's gotten along ever since. That's an interesting history.

Anyway, back here on Earth, humans appear to have survived by running in small tribes. Since we aren't a hive queen/drone species we, like all other individually wired social animals, arranged ourselves into small, largely familial groups, like wolf packs or schools of fish. The larger, complex societies that we've since arranged are based on this social tendency, but are only possible due to our ability to reason and to preserve knowledge, but our instinct drives us first to protect those closest (typically blood relations and romantic partners) against the rest of the world, our own species included. This instinct tends to express itself as ever larger concentric circles of in-group preference. Humans tend to show preference to their immediate families over their extended ones, then they tend to show preference to their extended families than to people who aren't familial relations, then they tend to show preference to people from their own communities than people from other ones, then they tend to show preference to people with similar customs and values than people who act very differently. An old Arab proverb put it beautifully. Paraphrased, it's essentially, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world.

On the other hand, the prevalence of multi-ethnic societies is an extremely new phenomenon compared to the entire span of human existence. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of our species' history, everybody in the immediate family obviously looked like you. Everybody in the extended family looked like you. Everybody in the greater community was essentially extended family of extended family, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who lived close enough to you to have very similar customs and traditions shared your ethnicity, and pretty much looked like you. Everybody who looked vastly different from you, for most of human history, came from somewhere far away and had very different particular values, and customs that were so different that it was near impossible to even wrap your mind around them, which means that ethnic preference was almost as inevitable as loving your own children.

More stupidity trying to justify racism. When a child is born they will interact with any other child no matter the color. So racism is not natural it is taught. That's how things work here on planet earth. I can understand how whites want to deny what they have done, but you shouldn't have done it, therefore deal with the consquences.

Every time we have a conversation you assume that I'm white. Again, for like the eighth time, I'm a Hawaiian mutt. Even if I was white, I wasn't born until 1982, quite a number of years after slavery and colonialism. No white person alive today "done it", so save your bullshit guilt trip for someone who's willing to take blame for some shit they had nothing to do with. I ain't that guy.

I'm also not trying to justify racism. I'm just explaining that it's simply a probable consequence of our natural in-group preferences.

You clearly didn't read my post, though, because I said nothing that implied that children naturally avoid other children who are different from them. I said that people naturally show preference to people who are the same as them. The fact that children will play with each other despite differences doesn't disprove this, it simply illustrates that children tend to value having playmates more than they seek to avoid the unfamiliar.

Edit: Also, children aren't the greatest example because they don't come readily equipped with the entire array of human instinct. Some of those instincts develop as a human being ages. Left to their own devices and unattended, for instance, you don't see a lot of toddlers fucking. End edit.

Essentially, what I described was that humans PREFER the familiar, not that they necessarily hate the unfamiliar. Seriously, are you ever going to respond directly to something that I've said, or just tear down your own straw men and then bash me based on the assumption that I'm the evil color?

I will talk about slavery and colonialism because it does impact things now. This bogus excuse those like you use is very weak. Here you are in a thread talking about racism starting a million years ago and you come forth with that flimsy bullshit. Racism is taught. It is a learned behavior, It is not natural and that is a fact. So you will be that guy when I decide you are that guy. Because racism by whites did not end with the end of slavery and in fact the same racism extends into your lifetime and exists right now. Since we are taking about he start of racism it was started by Europeans. That's what has ben discovered. No amount of whites having temper tantrums about what you won't be changes that,.

I didn't say not to talk about colonialism or slavery, and I didn't say that it doesn't impact things now. Again, respond to shit I've actually said, don't just put arguments in my mouth and then strike them down.

You haven't yet successfully pointed out how in-group preference isn't a thing or why it wouldn't manifest as racism. The only part of it that's a European invention is the definition of "race". The rest is just tribalism translated to a large scale.

But hey, fuck being able to articulate your beliefs. Just keep restating that the white man is the source of all evil, and keep assuming that anybody who disagrees with any part of your ill-thought-out racial "philosophy" is a racist white person, even when they're Hawaiian.

Lastly, you declaring that I'm white and also responsible for slavery and colonialism just because racism still exists today, doesn't actually make me white and responsible for slavery and colonialism, you arrogant fucking moron. You don't get to just decide that I'm "that guy". No amount of historical victimization of your people bestows upon you the ability to dictate the nature of reality.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The Historical Origins and Development of Racism

Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable. An ideological basis for explicit racism came to a unique fruition in the West during the modern period. No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Whoa whoa whoa, what happened to being all about the dictionary definition? Only when it suits your side of an argument? When it doesn't, PBS's definition is the one to go with?

This PBS article is about when racism started. It states that racism exists when those things happen, It did not state the definition of racism. What it shows is what people do when they believe they are superior to people due to race.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

That's the dictionary definition. That doesn't require collective dominance, exclusion, or elimination of another race. Any individual is capable of directing prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism against another race based on the belief that their own race is superior, and they are capable of doing so in nearly any setting.

Also, if that's the definition of racism (and it is), then how can you honestly tell me that it didn't exist before the middle ages in Europe? Do you really believe that nobody in the thousands of years of human existence prior to this period thought that their people were superior to other peoples? Holy shit, the Jews have been referring to themselves as God's chosen since well before the middle ages. Ancient empires weren't enslaving the survivors of conquered nations throughout recorded history because they believed that those conquered people were their fucking equals.

The only reason that we might not qualify ancient tribalism as "racism" is because the concept of "race" as we understand it today, was invented by Europeans during the Atlantic slave trading era. Unfortunately, this doesn't absolve your PBS explanation from being bullshit, considering that the middle ages also predate this defining of pseudo-scientific racial differences. If Egyptians enslaving their neighbors wasn't racist, then crusaders watching The Passion and then trying to genocide Jewish people also wasn't racism.

Sorry, no, this PBS "explanation" flies directly in the face of the dictionary definition that you're often touting.

 

[Mickiel]

Racism gets more active and relevant in groups. The more people we have, the more racism we will experience. Notice;

The Origins of Racism

Also reference;

http://www.rightsmatter.org/curriculum/links/roots_of_racism.pdf

 

[Pogo]

All of this is incorrect. The picture is not Anthony Johnson. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in America. In 1654, there were no photographers in Virginia,

Seven Lies, Half-Truths, and Irrelevancies People Trot Out About Slavery—Debunked

Massachusetts Bay Colony was the first slave-holding colony in New England. The first slaves were brought to the colony in the early 17th century.

The exact date slaves first entered Massachusetts is unknown but many sources suggest Samuel Maverick was the first slaveholder in the colony after he arrived in early Boston in 1624 with two slaves.

According to the book Bound for America: The Forced Migration of Africans to the New World, the first slaves imported directly from Africa to Massachusetts arrived in 1634.

A few years later, in December of 1638, a slave ship named Desire brought Boston’s first shipment of slaves from Barbados, whom had been exchanged for enslaved Pequot Indians from New England.

In 1641, Governor John Winthrop, a slave owner himself, helped write the first law legalizing slavery in North America, the Massachusetts Bodies of Liberty, which the General Court passed on December 10, 1641.

Slavery in Massachusetts

All of this happened before 1654.

Blacks did not make slavery legal in he United States.

Racial classifications were not created until the 15-1600's, so black Egyptians did not invent racism. And blacks did not create the system of racism as it is in America.



.

And blacks did not create the system of racism as it is in America.

No it was Southern White Democrats that created the racism of today, and the Democrats today still see only the skin color, genitalia, wealth, or education of the individual to pander to, thus keeping RACISM as their modus operandi.

"Southern White Democrats" did not even exist until a third of the way through the nineteenth century, by which time the concept of racism, and the transAtlantic human trafficking business it was invented to serve, had already been going on for more than three hundred years.

Once AGAIN for the intellectually slowfooted ---- racism is not a political ideology. It doesn't require a political party or a political philosophy of any kind. It is a social construct.

 

[Pogo]

What? And lose all this devastating writing?

Let's face it. It's all about time zones. Unless you can force the earth to spin backward I'll always be ahead of you.

You obviously arent as far as history goes

Again, it's not a point about "slavery" and it's not really a point about "intercontinental slavery". It's a point about racism and how race got set up as an excuse to justify --- not slavery but racial slavery. Prior to the Atlantic slave trade there was certainly slavery practiced worldwide, but it wasn't race-based. Slaves were enslaved because they were captured, not because they were a specific race. And in time they were set free.

Race-based slavery differs in that it uses race itself as a basis and continues that rationale for the slaves' life, and their descendants' lives as well. In the former model the slave was looked on as subservient but not intrinsically "inferior" whereas in the transAtlantic model the slave was considered a slave because of his own birth -- something that could never change.

And that theory --- that one race is inferior to another --- is HOW that transAtlantic trade justified itself to the inevitable resistance from moral forces. Hence, racism is created, and that's my answer to the OP title.

I can't really break it down any simpler than that unless Google Translate comes up with an option for "Tennesseean".

What makes you think the atlantic slave trade was race based and no others were? How many Nations sold their inhabitants for fruit, pogo?
Racism is older than the 16th century.
Maybe you would make more sense if your "history" didnt read like a 9th grade dropout

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

 

[TNHarley]

You obviously arent as far as history goes

Again, it's not a point about "slavery" and it's not really a point about "intercontinental slavery". It's a point about racism and how race got set up as an excuse to justify --- not slavery but racial slavery. Prior to the Atlantic slave trade there was certainly slavery practiced worldwide, but it wasn't race-based. Slaves were enslaved because they were captured, not because they were a specific race. And in time they were set free.

Race-based slavery differs in that it uses race itself as a basis and continues that rationale for the slaves' life, and their descendants' lives as well. In the former model the slave was looked on as subservient but not intrinsically "inferior" whereas in the transAtlantic model the slave was considered a slave because of his own birth -- something that could never change.

And that theory --- that one race is inferior to another --- is HOW that transAtlantic trade justified itself to the inevitable resistance from moral forces. Hence, racism is created, and that's my answer to the OP title.

I can't really break it down any simpler than that unless Google Translate comes up with an option for "Tennesseean".

What makes you think the atlantic slave trade was race based and no others were? How many Nations sold their inhabitants for fruit, pogo?
Racism is older than the 16th century.
Maybe you would make more sense if your "history" didnt read like a 9th grade dropout

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

 

[Mickiel]

History is ripe with racism, because its full of people.

 

[Pogo]

Again, it's not a point about "slavery" and it's not really a point about "intercontinental slavery". It's a point about racism and how race got set up as an excuse to justify --- not slavery but racial slavery. Prior to the Atlantic slave trade there was certainly slavery practiced worldwide, but it wasn't race-based. Slaves were enslaved because they were captured, not because they were a specific race. And in time they were set free.

Race-based slavery differs in that it uses race itself as a basis and continues that rationale for the slaves' life, and their descendants' lives as well. In the former model the slave was looked on as subservient but not intrinsically "inferior" whereas in the transAtlantic model the slave was considered a slave because of his own birth -- something that could never change.

And that theory --- that one race is inferior to another --- is HOW that transAtlantic trade justified itself to the inevitable resistance from moral forces. Hence, racism is created, and that's my answer to the OP title.

I can't really break it down any simpler than that unless Google Translate comes up with an option for "Tennesseean".

What makes you think the atlantic slave trade was race based and no others were? How many Nations sold their inhabitants for fruit, pogo?
Racism is older than the 16th century.
Maybe you would make more sense if your "history" didnt read like a 9th grade dropout

When you come up with a historical example of an institution of slavery based on race that predates the transAtlantic one, you get back to me Snuggles.

Romans. Gee, that was easy.... lol
IMO, slavery based on religion (islam christianity) or any certain feature is the same as basing it on race. Probably doesnt have the feelz like race does, though.

There clearly and certainly has been religious bigotry for millennia, as well as infighting, persecutions and wars aplenty. But again, that's not the topic --- the topic is, again, racism.

And while posting the single word "Romans" is easy to do, it doesn't make for an answer.

You right. You obvioisly have no idea of ancient history. Or evem history older than a few centuries. I will try to remember to explain it when im not on my phone tomorrow

One thing I've always noticed about this site --- when somebody's confronted with the reality that they can't defend the point they thought they had, they insist on going "humma humma humma" instead of simply saying "you're right".

 

[Taz]

Black people were the first to complain about racism so they must have invented it.