CDZ The Beginning of Racism?

[Asclepias]

To pin it[slavery] on Aristotle [3rd centuryBC] is way beyond absurd!!

Why should I believe you that its absurd?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Slaves in Babylon: 18th century BC

Information about slaves in early societies relates mainly to their legal status, which is essentially that of an object - part of the owner's valuable property. The Code of Hammurabi, fromBabylon in the 18th century BC, gives chilling details

Read more:HISTORY OF SLAVERY

You must be the one that is illiterate. I never said Aristotle started slavery. Are you brain dead? You do realize that racism and slavery was only an issue later on in mans journey and have nothing to do with each other? You also seem to not realize that Babylon is hardly the beginning of mankind. You must have attended a public school and stopped your education at that point.

?
You stated that he essentially started racism. Slavery is the apex of racism and this clearly predates Aristotle. How can you not see the connection here?

Who told you racism was a component of ancient slavery? People enslaved whoever back then with no regard to race. BTW I didnt state he did start racism. I asked if it was possible that he along with the other Greeks started it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Remember, this thread is in the Clean Debate Zone.

• "Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

 

[Asclepias]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

You keep saying slavery. I said racism. There are dictionaries available if you dont know the difference.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

You keep saying slavery. I said racism. There are dictionaries available if you dont know the difference.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history, slavery and racism before Greece.

 

[Asclepias]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

You keep saying slavery. I said racism. There are dictionaries available if you dont know the difference.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history, slavery and racism before Greece.

Yet you seem to be unable to point out any racism prior to this statement by Aristotle. Why is that?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

You keep saying slavery. I said racism. There are dictionaries available if you dont know the difference.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history, slavery and racism before Greece.

Yet you seem to be unable to point out any racism prior to this statement by Aristotle. Why is that?

Slavery and the origins of racism

by Lance Selfa

IT IS commonly assumed that racism is as old as human society itself. As long as human beings have been around, the argument goes, they have always hated or feared people of a different nation or skin color. In other words, racism is just part of human nature.

 

[Asclepias]

I asked if it was possible that he[Aristotle] along with the other Greeks started it.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history and slavery before Greece.

You keep saying slavery. I said racism. There are dictionaries available if you dont know the difference.

a liberal will be so illiterate as to not know there was much human history, slavery and racism before Greece.

Yet you seem to be unable to point out any racism prior to this statement by Aristotle. Why is that?

Slavery and the origins of racism

by Lance Selfa

IT IS commonly assumed that racism is as old as human society itself. As long as human beings have been around, the argument goes, they have always hated or feared people of a different nation or skin color. In other words, racism is just part of human nature.

Assumptions dont mean much. I asked for proof. It was once assumed that man originated in Europe but that turned out to be a gigantic hoax. Also nationalism is not the same as racism.

 

[norwegen]

racism is part of human nature, you will never stop it.

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

 

[irosie91]

racism is part of human nature, you will never stop it.

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

 

[norwegen]

racism is part of human nature, you will never stop it.

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Indentured servants felt more solidarity with black slaves at one time than they did with other whites. Social and cultural differences seem to be the impetus for sorting peoples by skin color even in the quote by Aristotle in the OP. Even for Aristotle, biological classifications came later.

 

[Asclepias]

racism is part of human nature, you will never stop it.

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Do you have an example of those ancient writings and do they suggest a fundamental difference you can attribute to racism?

 

[irosie91]

racism is part of human nature, you will never stop it.

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Do you have an example of those ancient writings and do they suggest a fundamental difference you can attribute to racism?

"I am black but pretty"-------song of songs

Miriam complains that Moses married a "cushite"----ie
a person with the complexion of an Ethiopian

"NUBIANS" were the stored up persons collected by
"ishmaelites" to ship to Egypt as slaves

Koran-----I cannot name the verses----muhummad bad
mouths "raisin heads" an allusion to the color and
texture of sub-Saharan hair-------and kinda attributes
their dark complexion to something very negative.
ABED in Arabic ----somewhere along the line became
synonymous with person of sub-Saharan origin---it means
"slave"

I do know that BRAHMINS are supposed to be
ARYANS-------and are supposed to be differentiated
from the natives of the Indus valley-----by complexion---
The darkest colored people I have ever encountered---
"dravidians" I do believe that color was a social
marker in ancient india-----but I am not sure------Krishna
is blue (something for you druids out there)

Uhm...... in ancient---I think it was crete-----women
stayed out of the sun all their lives just to maintain
a very fair complexion-------

I am a casual reader. --------I have read casually incessantly
all my life. ---------specifically preferring old stuff (in
translation). issue of skin color shows up lots in old
stuff which makes it difficult for me to believe that
the issues did not hit Europe until the 1600s----slavery
specifically of subsaharans ------goes back MILLENIA,
Europeans did not invent it

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trying to pinpoint the first example of racism or democracy seems an utterly meaningless task. Civilization is shaped by the battle between freedom and govt. That is the issue, not idiotic games about the first example of democracy or racism or socialism.

 

[Asclepias]

I doubt that. If that was true everyone would be racist.

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Do you have an example of those ancient writings and do they suggest a fundamental difference you can attribute to racism?

"I am black but pretty"-------song of songs

Miriam complains that Moses married a "cushite"----ie
a person with the complexion of an Ethiopian

"NUBIANS" were the stored up persons collected by
"ishmaelites" to ship to Egypt as slaves

Koran-----I cannot name the verses----muhummad bad
mouths "raisin heads" an allusion to the color and
texture of sub-Saharan hair-------and kinda attributes
their dark complexion to something very negative.
ABED in Arabic ----somewhere along the line became
synonymous with person of sub-Saharan origin---it means
"slave"

I do know that BRAHMINS are supposed to be
ARYANS-------and are supposed to be differentiated
from the natives of the Indus valley-----by complexion---
The darkest colored people I have ever encountered---
"dravidians" I do believe that color was a social
marker in ancient india-----but I am not sure------Krishna
is blue (something for you druids out there)

Uhm...... in ancient---I think it was crete-----women
stayed out of the sun all their lives just to maintain
a very fair complexion-------

I am a casual reader. --------I have read casually incessantly
all my life. ---------specifically preferring old stuff (in
translation). issue of skin color shows up lots in old
stuff which makes it difficult for me to believe that
the issues did not hit Europe until the 1600s----slavery
specifically of subsaharans ------goes back MILLENIA,
Europeans did not invent it

Never heard of that song but I am guessing it after Aristotles comments?

Miram was either Black or mixed so I think that was a cultural issue not a race issue. Why would god turn Miram white as punishment if she was already white?

Nubians were the people to the south of Egypt that actually ruled Egypt and also enslaved them while in power. They were Black just like the Egyptians so thats not a racial issue either.

Koran was written after Aristotle made his remarks. Besides like I pointed out before slavery and racism are 2 different things.

I have met and talked with Dravidians and even though disguised in a caste system, this may be another example of ancient racism. Thanks for reminding me.

I dont consider someone staying out of the sun racism. Why do you consider fair to be an accurate description of white skin? I know plenty of dark Black women that are fair.

Slavery in the past was not based on race. I am talking specifically about racism.

 

[Asclepias]

Trying to pinpoint the first example of racism or democracy seems an utterly meaningless task. Civilization is shaped by the battle between freedom and govt. That is the issue, not idiotic games about the first example of democracy or racism or socialism.

Its meaningless to you. I dont mind that. Dont think you can dictate to me what is meaningless or not. Like I always say, If the subject offends you dont participate. However, your thoughts on the import of anyone elses questions are irrelevant.

 

[Asclepias]

Trying to pinpoint the first example of racism or democracy seems an utterly meaningless task. Civilization is shaped by the battle between freedom and govt. That is the issue, not idiotic games about the first example of democracy or racism or socialism.

Its meaningless to you. I dont mind that. Dont think you can dictate to me what is meaningless or not. Like I always say, If the subject offends you dont participate. However, your thoughts on the import of anyone elses questions are irrelevant.

dear, why not tell us why you think its important or admit you lack the IQ as a typival liberal to be here. Thanks

Because thats not the question in my OP. You keep forgetting you lack the power to give me 2 options or insist that I do anything other than address the OP.

 

[irosie91]

No.

Racism is part of the human condition but that does not mean all people are inclined to be racist - just that it will exists in any large and multicultural society. Racism is not new and didn't start with a single society. That simply does not makes sense.

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Do you have an example of those ancient writings and do they suggest a fundamental difference you can attribute to racism?

"I am black but pretty"-------song of songs

Miriam complains that Moses married a "cushite"----ie
a person with the complexion of an Ethiopian

"NUBIANS" were the stored up persons collected by
"ishmaelites" to ship to Egypt as slaves

Koran-----I cannot name the verses----muhummad bad
mouths "raisin heads" an allusion to the color and
texture of sub-Saharan hair-------and kinda attributes
their dark complexion to something very negative.
ABED in Arabic ----somewhere along the line became
synonymous with person of sub-Saharan origin---it means
"slave"

I do know that BRAHMINS are supposed to be
ARYANS-------and are supposed to be differentiated
from the natives of the Indus valley-----by complexion---
The darkest colored people I have ever encountered---
"dravidians" I do believe that color was a social
marker in ancient india-----but I am not sure------Krishna
is blue (something for you druids out there)

Uhm...... in ancient---I think it was crete-----women
stayed out of the sun all their lives just to maintain
a very fair complexion-------

I am a casual reader. --------I have read casually incessantly
all my life. ---------specifically preferring old stuff (in
translation). issue of skin color shows up lots in old
stuff which makes it difficult for me to believe that
the issues did not hit Europe until the 1600s----slavery
specifically of subsaharans ------goes back MILLENIA,
Europeans did not invent it

Never heard of that song but I am guessing it after Aristotles comments?

Miram was either Black or mixed so I think that was a cultural issue not a race issue. Why would god turn Miram white as punishment if she was already white?

Nubians were the people to the south of Egypt that actually ruled Egypt. They were Black just like the Egyptians so thats not a racial issue either.

Koran was written after Aristotle made his remarks. Besides like I pointed out before slavery and racism are 2 different things.

I have met and talked with Dravidians and even though disguised in a caste system, this may be another example of ancient racism. Thanks for reminding me.

I dont consider someone staying out of the sun racism. Why do you consider fair to be an accurate description of white skin? I know plenty of dark Black women that are fair.

Slavery in the past was not based on race. I am talking specifically about racism.

you get more and more confused Miriam is the sister of
moses--------she complained that her brother married a CUSHITE which in Hebrew means an ETHIOPIAN---which in those days meant a person of dark complexion-----and still does in Hebrew slangy. Her skin turning all white---was a euphemism for her contracting LEPROSY-----which was supposed to be a heavenly thing------as a response for her negative comment about her sister-in-law-------uhm sheessh I forgot her name Moses said ---uhm
ana r'fah na la" <<<< very poetic -----it means "I beg you ---cure her" so she got ok -------or maybe aaron said it----
I forgot

 

[Asclepias]

This seems intuitively sensible, but yet I wonder. In America, for example, seventeenth-century Europeans had little regard for a biological concept of race, perceiving peoples in terms of social rank rather than pigmentation. Sorting identities into white, red, and black was more a product of colonization than a precondition for it. The Europeans enjoyed ecological, technological, and organizational advantages over Indians and Africans, which was all that mattered in their domination of them.

Class distinctions, such as between common planters and great planters, could be obscured by making skin color a key marker for identity. Whites - rich, poor, and middling - found a shared identity in the psychology of race that held them to be superior to blacks. Racial solidarity gave whites a sense of equality with each other, despite inequalities in economic circumstances.

you present a very interesting theory------but I tend to doubt its veracity. The issue of skin color shows up even in ancient writings. You did narrow the discussion to
"EUROPEANS" ------which makes your discussion a bit
plausible-----but 17th century? ----nope---by then the
issue of skin color must have infected Europeans a lot more than you suggest. What are we calling "Europeans"???

Do you have an example of those ancient writings and do they suggest a fundamental difference you can attribute to racism?

"I am black but pretty"-------song of songs

Miriam complains that Moses married a "cushite"----ie
a person with the complexion of an Ethiopian

"NUBIANS" were the stored up persons collected by
"ishmaelites" to ship to Egypt as slaves

Koran-----I cannot name the verses----muhummad bad
mouths "raisin heads" an allusion to the color and
texture of sub-Saharan hair-------and kinda attributes
their dark complexion to something very negative.
ABED in Arabic ----somewhere along the line became
synonymous with person of sub-Saharan origin---it means
"slave"

I do know that BRAHMINS are supposed to be
ARYANS-------and are supposed to be differentiated
from the natives of the Indus valley-----by complexion---
The darkest colored people I have ever encountered---
"dravidians" I do believe that color was a social
marker in ancient india-----but I am not sure------Krishna
is blue (something for you druids out there)

Uhm...... in ancient---I think it was crete-----women
stayed out of the sun all their lives just to maintain
a very fair complexion-------

I am a casual reader. --------I have read casually incessantly
all my life. ---------specifically preferring old stuff (in
translation). issue of skin color shows up lots in old
stuff which makes it difficult for me to believe that
the issues did not hit Europe until the 1600s----slavery
specifically of subsaharans ------goes back MILLENIA,
Europeans did not invent it

Never heard of that song but I am guessing it after Aristotles comments?

Miram was either Black or mixed so I think that was a cultural issue not a race issue. Why would god turn Miram white as punishment if she was already white?

Nubians were the people to the south of Egypt that actually ruled Egypt. They were Black just like the Egyptians so thats not a racial issue either.

Koran was written after Aristotle made his remarks. Besides like I pointed out before slavery and racism are 2 different things.

I have met and talked with Dravidians and even though disguised in a caste system, this may be another example of ancient racism. Thanks for reminding me.

I dont consider someone staying out of the sun racism. Why do you consider fair to be an accurate description of white skin? I know plenty of dark Black women that are fair.

Slavery in the past was not based on race. I am talking specifically about racism.

you get more and more confused Miriam is the sister of
moses--------she complained that her brother married a CUSHITE which in Hebrew means an ETHIOPIAN---which in those days meant a person of dark complexion-----and still does in Hebrew slangy. Her skin turning all white---was a euphemism for her contracting LEPROSY-----which was supposed to be a heavenly thing------as a response for her negative comment about her sister-in-law-------uhm sheessh I forgot her name Moses said ---uhm
ana r'fah na la" <<<< very poetic -----it means "I beg you ---cure her" so she got ok -------or maybe aaron said it----
I forgot

The Hebrews were Black. The term Aethiopia came from the Greeks. I though everyone knew that? You appear to be the one that is confused. Who told you god decided it was a euphemism? Can you point out in the bible where it says he was going to turn her skin white but it was only a euphemism?

"Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,"

 

[Asclepias]

Trying to pinpoint the first example of racism or democracy seems an utterly meaningless task. Civilization is shaped by the battle between freedom and govt. That is the issue, not idiotic games about the first example of democracy or racism or socialism.

Its meaningless to you. I dont mind that. Dont think you can dictate to me what is meaningless or not. Like I always say, If the subject offends you dont participate. However, your thoughts on the import of anyone elses questions are irrelevant.

dear, why not tell us why you think its important or admit you lack the IQ as a typival liberal to be here. Thanks

you will always be dumb if you waste precious time on worthless stuff. Do you understand?

You must speak from experience. What you think is dumb is highly important to others. When you can prove you are someone of importance then I might consider you actually know what is dumb and what is not.

dear, why not tell us why you think its important to pinpoint first racism or first democracy or admit you lack the IQ as a typical liberal to be here. Thanks

Because thats not up for discussion. Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension?