Did the Sahara cause Black-white racism and affect how we view race?

[Al B. Sure!]

I have a theory that I'm curious if any academics have explored.

We know today that clearly defined races are a social construct and race is along a spectrum. There is no real scientific or even layman apparent dividing line between, specifically, white and Black. Instead we have a progression of complexion and changing facial features, the result of populations moving and mixing with those around them.

But over most of Western history, there was an apparent dividing line. The difference between a European and a Congolese or Yoruba was obvious, the difference in skin-tone and facial features striking. Race did not seem to be a spectrum.

This was because of the sparsely-populated Sahara separating the Mediterranean basin from the rest of Africa and prohibiting much mixture. In between, we have the Tuareg who would defy traditional Black/white racial classifications, but their numbers have always been small and not well-known. Had this desert not existed, the mixture that occurred among the relatively small population of Tuaregs, would have occurred with much larger populations of Berbers and sub-Saharan Africans. Human variety would have been more obviously on a spectrum.

Thoughts?


Thanks

[gribbler]

Racism emerged during 200 years of slavery of dark-skinned people from Africa. It was convenient to have slaves that could easily be identified as such by their physical features and they thought enslaving people from lands that weren't Christian was acceptable. If they were raped by their white masters the off-spring, who were half white half black, were still seen as black and held as property. They obviously created a "spectrum" and ignored it.

[Hauldren Collider]

Notably, the whites did not enslave the Africans--Africans enslaved Africans then traded them to whites. There was no African identity, if you were of a different tribe you might as well have not been human. Europeans did not have much influence other than commercially on the continent of Africa until after the slave trade had long since been abolished.

(not hugely relevant but I felt like pointing out that common misconception)

[Al B. Sure!]

Notably, the whites did not enslave the Africans--Africans enslaved Africans then traded them to whites. There was no African identity, if you were of a different tribe you might as well have not been human. Europeans did not have much influence other than commercially on the continent of Africa until after the slave trade had long since been abolished.

(not hugely relevant but I felt like pointing out that common misconception)

Wrong, HC. Despite pre-existing slavery and even slave exportation to North Africa, the trans-Atlantic slave trade increased demand for slaves significantly, beyond what had been occurring, which obviously had widespread effects.

And do not forget that Europeans traded firearms to the Africans which had enormous effects in West Africa.

Yes, the interaction was commercial but it changed West African society greatly.

[gribbler]

Oh sure, all the Europeans did was massively increase the demand for slaves

x-post

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh sure, all the Europeans did was massively increase the demand for slaves

x-post

Moving tens of millions of people out of a region and flooding it with firearms is clearly just commercial influence.

Africa's contemporary history may have been different had its rulers and traders demanded capital goods for use in building the economy rather than trinkets and booze. As it was, the slave trade arrested economic development in Africa. The loss in human resources had dire consequences for labour dependent agricultural economies. Any possibility that the internal dynamics of African society could have led to the development of capitalism and industrialisation was blocked by the slave trade. The few existing manufacturing activities were either destroyed or denied conditions for growth. Cheap European textiles, for instance, undermined local cloth production. Samuel Johnson wrote in the late nineteenth century about Yorubaland: "Before the period of intercourse with Europeans, all articles made of iron and steel, from weapons of war to pins and needles, were of home manufacture; but the cheaper and more finished articles of European make, especially cutlery, though less durable are fast displacing home-made wares." The predominance of the slave trade prevented the emergence of business classes that could have spearheaded the internal exploitation of the resources of their societies. The slave trade drew African societies into the international economy but as fodder for western economic development.

But yes, Africans were complicit. Europeans rarely ventured beyond the coasts but slaves were captured by African slavers as far as central Africa.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wrong, HC. Despite pre-existing slavery and even slave exportation to North Africa, the trans-Atlantic slave trade increased demand for slaves significantly, beyond what had been occurring, which obviously had widespread effects.

And do not forget that Europeans traded firearms to the Africans which had enormous effects in West Africa.

Yes, the interaction was commercial but it changed West African society greatly.

I was not denying any of this. Merely pointing out that the Europeans were not involved in the actual initial enslavement.

[gribbler]

What are you quoting? It claims that the slave trade prevented industrialization without explaining how it did that. Why would selling laborers stop industrialization? Lots of workers left Europe for America by choice and Europe still developed.

[Elok]

I think black-white racism was caused by the European need for cheap, disease-resistant labor from a location convenient to their New World interests.

[Dinner]

Africans were the imperialists third best choice for new world labor. They tried native Americans but they'd just ran off or died, they tried to get white indentured servants to do it but after word got out no one would sign up, so Africans were the last option left available.

[Berzerker]

I have a theory that I'm curious if any academics have explored.

We know today that clearly defined races are a social construct and race is along a spectrum. There is no real scientific or even layman apparent dividing line between, specifically, white and Black. Instead we have a progression of complexion and changing facial features, the result of populations moving and mixing with those around them.

But over most of Western history, there was an apparent dividing line. The difference between a European and a Congolese or Yoruba was obvious, the difference in skin-tone and facial features striking. Race did not seem to be a spectrum.

This was because of the sparsely-populated Sahara separating the Mediterranean basin from the rest of Africa and prohibiting much mixture. In between, we have the Tuareg who would defy traditional Black/white racial classifications, but their numbers have always been small and not well-known. Had this desert not existed, the mixture that occurred among the relatively small population of Tuaregs, would have occurred with much larger populations of Berbers and sub-Saharan Africans. Human variety would have been more obviously on a spectrum.

Thoughts?


Thanks

duh

[Berzerker]

the same theory has been proposed for the founding of Dynastic Egypt and connections to the Dogon

[gribbler]

duh

Duh? It's probably wrong so how can it be duh?

[Berzerker]

it aint wrong, the Sahara drying up around ~3500 BC separated the European megalith culture in Iberia and Malta eg from their African neighbors to the south while driving Saharan populations to bordering river valleys like the Nile and Niger Rivers.

but "duh" was meant to be dismissive of the lad for reinventing the wheel

[gribbler]

it aint wrong, the Sahara drying up around ~3500 BC separated the European megalith culture in Iberia and Malta eg from their African neighbors to the south while driving Saharan populations to bordering river valleys like the Nile and Niger Rivers.

Of course the Sahara is a geographic barrier, I thought his main point was that this was supposedly the source of black-white racism. If he was only saying the Sahara divides people, then he would deserve a "duh".

[SlowwHand]

Racism emerged during 200 years of slavery of dark-skinned people from Africa. It was convenient to have slaves that could easily be identified as such by their physical features and they thought enslaving people from lands that weren't Christian was acceptable. If they were raped by their white masters the off-spring, who were half white half black, were still seen as black and held as property. They obviously created a "spectrum" and ignored it.

Ridiculous. You actually believe, and I haven't read past this post yet, that slavery is a 200 year institution? I always thought you were more well-read than that statement would indicate.

[gribbler]

Ridiculous. You actually believe, and I haven't read past this post yet, that slavery is a 200 year institution? I always thought you were more well-read than that statement would indicate.

In British North America (and later the United States) or the entire world?

[Berzerker]

Of course the Sahara is a geographic barrier, I thought his main point was that this was supposedly the source of black-white racism. If he was only saying the Sahara divides people, then he would deserve a "duh".

I can see how it helped create the divide, certainly with more genetic flow between these regions race wouldn't be nearly so relevant today

[SlowwHand]

In British North America (and later the United States) or the entire world?

In North America. I'm not talking about the Pyramids here.

[gribbler]

I can see how it helped create the divide, certainly with more genetic flow between these regions race wouldn't be nearly so relevant today

There was a significant amount of "genetic flow" after the atlantic slave trade started and that didn't seem to stymy racism.

[Berzerker]

Why would a slave trade based largely on racial differences stymy racism?

and you make our point, the Atlantic slave trade bypassed that barrier of sand increasing gene flow... Given some time racial differences between populations will decrease and so will racism. Its happening here in the USofA.

[gribbler]

Why would a slave trade based largely on racial differences stymy racism?

and you make our point, the Atlantic slave trade bypassed that barrier of sand increasing gene flow... Given some time racial differences between populations will decrease and so will racism. Its happening here in the USofA.

No, I did not make your point. The fact that some black people are part white is not the reason racism finally became unacceptable and went into decline in the last fifty years, centuries after the "genetic flow" started.

[SlowwHand]

Why do all of you people insist on concentrating solely on Blacks when it comes to slavery in North America?

[Al B. Sure!]

Why do all of you people insist on concentrating solely on Blacks when it comes to slavery in North America?

[gribbler]

Why do all of you people insist on concentrating solely on Blacks when it comes to slavery in North America?

What other slavery has an effect on contemporary American society of a comparable magnitude? What other slavery required a bloody civil war in order to end it?

[SlowwHand]

Al, you're a prime person to be asking. Google American Indians and slavery. Company Stores, not far behind. Maybe read a little about Chinese and the railroads being built.
Not really much difference in any of them, especially and conclusively, American Indians.

[Jon Miller]

I tend to agree with gibber's first post.

You did not see such 'white black' racism pre1400.

Basically, europeans started to think that those in the neighboring country were people just like them. Freedom also started to come to the peasent. It was economically advantageous to continue to have slave labor (in the colonies especially) and so they they had to create the lie that africans were not really persons in hte same way as them.

Tons of slaves were never common in europe or shipped there.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Slavery was more an inter-clan thing than an inter-racial thing before the atlantic slave trade.

[Aeson]

There was less opportunity for racism to be expressed before the majority of the populations would have had any contact with each other, but to pretend racism didn't exist before 1400's is pretty silly. The biblical story of Ham for instance was used for millenia to explain the difference in skin color and even to justify having black slaves. It was used in other ways too of course, but it's very clear that the concept of despising someone for the color of their skin was not a recent invention.

[Al B. Sure!]

Slavery was more an inter-clan thing than an inter-racial thing before the atlantic slave trade.

I think Arabs only enslaved non-Arabs.