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

[Al B. Sure!]

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.

The curse of Ham with respect to Africans came later, from what I've read. Wikipedia says:

The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the middle ages, but became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.

[Aeson]

The curse of Ham with respect to Africans came later, from what I've read. Wikipedia says:

Amazingly enough, Europeans aren't the only people who have ever lived on this earth.

[BeBMan]

Deserts don't discriminate people, people discriminate people.

[Dinner]

I prefer desserts to deserts.

[BeBMan]

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.

Yes, though racism was later specifically related to the assertion that others are biologically inferior (and derived from there also in other aspects), so not only "different" in appearance, which is rather a 19th century development. There was certainly xenophobia etc. before, but not so much racism as the ideology it became later...

For example ca. 1800 it was often thought that Africa didn't have the same level of civilization, but would arrive there sooner or later out of its own. The typical 19th century-style racist would deny that this is even possible.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, though racism was later specifically related to the assertion that others are biologically inferior (and derived from there also in other aspects), so not only "different" in appearance, which is rather a 19th century development. There was certainly xenophobia etc. before, but not so much racism as the ideology it became later...

For example ca. 1800 it was often thought that Africa didn't have the same level of civilization, but would arrive there sooner or later out of its own. The typical 19th century-style racist would deny that this is even possible.

Yes but implicit in the White Man's Burden concept which developed in the late 19th century was that Africans could be 'civilized', they just needed white help.

[Aeson]

Yes, though racism was later specifically related to the assertion that others are biologically inferior (and derived from there also in other aspects), so not only "different" in appearance, which is rather a 19th century development. There was certainly xenophobia etc. before, but not so much racism as the ideology it became later...

For example ca. 1800 it was often thought that Africa didn't have the same level of civilization, but would arrive there sooner or later out of its own. The typical 19th century-style racist would deny that this is even possible.

Racism isn't just an assertion that others are biologically inferior. It has many other forms. Even in the 19th century it wasn't some perfectly homogeneous ideology.

Also, "biologically inferior" was just another way of ignorant people saying they looked different or came from a different culture. Any real understanding of biology refutes the idea of race completely.

[BeBMan]

Racism isn't just an assertion that others are biologically inferior. It has many other forms. Even in the 19th century it wasn't some perfectly homogeneous ideology.

Indeed, it never was, but "racism" needs to have at least some idea of "races" however absurd it may be. I doubt that was really present for example during the middle ages, when the line was primarily religious.

[Az]

Xenophobia, ethno-cultural chauvinism, slavery, and various mixtures of those are as ancient as the human civilization itself. It was manifested in pretty much all ancient cultures in one form or another. The scale of this in terms of Europe and Africa is just correlated to the scale of success that the Europeans were experiencing in their offence against New World, and all of the other major civilizations on the planet.

This is not a value judgement, and Europeans acted like every other civilization would have acted under these conditions. The same thing happened with Meiji Japan and its pacific neighbors, and the same thing would have happened to any other country/ethno-cultural entity that would enter a period of dominance and prosperity.

The cultural judgement was sometimes deserved and sometimes not. Were the Egyptians correct in labeling pretty much all of the world a bunch of barbarians? no, but they were one of the most advanced civilizations of their time. Question lies often in the balance of whether you should assign a culture's failures to each and every one of its members, or absolve the culture of all responsibility to their fate all together. I think none of the extremes is correct, and it should be assessed on a person-to-person basis.

[Aeson]

Indeed, it never was, but "racism" needs to have at least some idea of "races" however absurd it may be. I doubt that was really present for example during the middle ages, when the line was primarily religious.

All "race" means is "different looking people", often roughly aligned to geography but never exclusively so. There's no scientific basis to it. Just because people call it "race" now doesn't mean it's a new concept. It's just putting a new term to a very old concept.

[BeBMan]

Of course there's no scientific basis for it, but those who are into this probably think races are something important. If you have no idea or concept of races with inherent differences at all it makes IMO not much sense to call it racism. For example I wouldn't call persecution on religious grounds per se "racism".

Personally I think "xenophobia" makes more sense then. I agree that's not always that clear-cut, but otherwise any form of discrimination, persecution based on whatever differences etc. could be racism.

Also racism often enough hits people which are not looking differently. Jews look not different in general to most "westerners" , for example. Antisemitism may have a lot of roots (religious, economic, others), but one of the key factors in the last 100 years was not that they look differently, but the racist claim that those have certain inherent traits. All the nose- and head-measuring nonsense was a consequence of that (since they hope to get this as "proof" for inferiority/evilness/whatever), not vice versa.

[BlackCat]

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.

Probably this and Al is a bit selective in his quoting - it's actually quite interesting what is written.

[Aeson]

Of course there's no scientific basis for it, but those who are into this probably think races are something important. If you have no idea or concept of races with inherent differences at all it makes IMO not much sense to call it racism. For example I wouldn't call persecution on religious grounds per se "racism".

Personally I think "xenophobia" makes more sense then. I agree that's not always that clear-cut, but otherwise any form of discrimination, persecution based on whatever differences etc. could be racism.

No. I am speaking directly to prejudice and perceived divisions upon traditionally accepted "racial" lines. They may not have called (dark skinned) Africans a different "race", yet the prejudice against them was based on the exact same reason (dark skin, different facial features) which "set them apart" in their eyes. "Race" being a made up fantasy to explain perceived differences, I don't think it's a stretch to refer to prejudice based on some of those exact same perceived differences as "racism", even previous to the term "race" being adopted. It's the same thing, different label.

You're the one who's trying to confuse the issue with religion and nationality. (I would agree it's often the exact same type of prejudice, especially in regards to nationality. But also seen clearly in regards to Jews. Essentially boiling down to "they're different than us" leading to "they're inferior to us or not as deserving as us". But that wasn't my argument in this thread.)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Racism emerged during 200 years of slavery of dark-skinned people from Africa.

I think you'll find it was around a lot earlier than that.

[Jon Miller]

It is a story which came about due to racism, but do you think that 'Othello' could be a story from 200 or even 80 years ago in the American South?

I think the 16th century english/etc aristocrats were about as racist towards the turks or even the irish as they were towards dark-skinned people from Africa.

JM