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

[molly bloom]

I said compared to even 1970 US.

A racist play in the early 16th century showed less racism than progressive productions of the 70s.

JM

Well, Shakespeare's England lacked the whole later history of the transatlantic slave trade, 18th & 19th & 20th Century Christian rationalisation for slavery, Social Darwinism and the theories of people like Gobineau and Chamberlain. That doesn't mean that race or skin colour or ethnicity wasn't an issue- just look at Marlowe's 'The Jew Of Malta' and Shakespeare's 'The Merchant Of Venice'.
What has a claim to be England's first novel (by its first woman playwright too) 'Oroonoko' has a black African protagonist:

Oroonoko is the story of an African prince who deeply loves the beautiful Imoinda. Unfortunately, his grandfather, the king, wants Imoinda also. Imoinda is eventually sold as a slave and is taken to Suriname which is under British rule. Oroonoko's tribe is a supplier for the slave trade. One day an English ship arrives and the captain invites prince Oroonoko to come aboard for a meal and drinks. After dinner, the captain takes advantage of Oroonoko's trust and takes Oroonoko and his men prisoners. The ship then sets sail. When they arrive at their destination, Prince Oroonoko is sold to a British gentleman named Trefry who likes and admires the prince. As is the practice with all slaves, Oroonoko is renamed. His slave name is Caesar. Oroonoko soon finds out that Imoinda is a slave on the same plantation, but her slave name is now Clemene. They get back together and soon Imoinda finds out that she is pregnant. Oroonoko tries to free his family because he does not want his children born into slavery. His request is denied. He next leads a slave revolt but he is betrayed and is badly beaten when he is caught. Finally, he decides that he would rather see his family die quickly from his own hand than die the slow death of slavery so he kills Clemene and the unborn child. He is about to kill himself but decides to first have his revenge on those who would not give him his freedom. Eventually he is caught and suffers a cruel and inhuman death.

Aphra Behn (1640 - 1689)

As for treating the Irish differently, that was because they were by and large Roman Catholics.

[molly bloom]

I noted the only racial references are in Iago's speech when he's trying to defame Othello. Black ram mounting his ewe.

So the Duke by mentioning Othello's skin colour isn't mentioning his race. How do you work that one out ?

You're stretching things, Molly Bloom. Othello was not about race.

It's not only about race, but racial difference and attraction run through the play's language and the characters' thoughts and speeches.

All the way through the play there is a constant reference to the contrast between light and dark and the affection that Othello and Desdemona feel for each other despite being physically and culturally different. Othello mentions that Desdemona was first attracted to him when he would tell of his 'exotic' background and adventures...

Paul Robeson on playing Othello:

" In the Venice of that time [Othello] was in practically the same position as a coloured man in America today [1930]. He was a general, and while he could be valuable as a fighter he was tolerated, just as a negro who could save New York from a disaster would become a great man overnight. So soon, however, as Othello wanted a white woman, Desdemona, everything was changed, just as New York would be indignant if their coloured man married a white woman."

'My Fight for Fame. How Shakespeare Paved My Way to Stardom'

Othello himself points out that whereas before he had a good name, 'it is now begrimed and black as mine own face'. Emilia calls him 'the blacker devil'. Contrast this with Othello's own reference to Desdemona's skin, 'whiter than snow' and how he describes her as 'a pearl, that a base Indian might throw away' .

Does that line imply Othello was about an age disparity?

Are there as many age-related references or images in the text of 'Othello' ? Why don't'cha count 'em and see.

[molly bloom]

Blacks lived as far north as York in Roman Britain.

I know.

And also in Stratford Upon Avon...

A 1,700-year-old skeleton shows that people of African descent have lived in Warwickshire for far longer than was previously thought, experts say.

The skeleton of an African man was discovered buried in Tiddington Road, Stratford-upon-Avon, in 2009.

Archaeologists said they now believed the man may have been a Roman soldier who chose to retire in Stratford after serving in an African unit.

Investigations into the man's background are continuing.

Malin Holst, of York Osteoarchaeology Ltd, said he had identified elements of the mature African male skeleton in bones unearthed from a Roman-period cemetery.

Stuart Palmer, from Archaeology Warwickshire, said: "African skeletons have previously been found in large Romano-British towns like York and African units are known to have formed part of the Hadrian's Wall garrison, but we had no reason to expect any in Warwickshire and certainly not in a community as small as Roman Stratford."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-12280213

There's also a legacy of sorts from Anglo-Saxon times- I seem to recall reading of the skeletal remains of an African child being found at an Anglo-Saxon burial site. I think some of the Norse/Vikings in the British Isles & Ireland may also have brought back Africans whom they described as 'blamenn' or blue men.

[Jon Miller]

Well, Shakespeare's England lacked the whole later history of the transatlantic slave trade, 18th & 19th & 20th Century Christian rationalisation for slavery, Social Darwinism and the theories of people like Gobineau and Chamberlain. That doesn't mean that race or skin colour or ethnicity wasn't an issue- just look at Marlowe's 'The Jew Of Malta' and Shakespeare's 'The Merchant Of Venice'.
What has a claim to be England's first novel (by its first woman playwright too) 'Oroonoko' has a black African protagonist:



Aphra Behn (1640 - 1689)

As for treating the Irish differently, that was because they were by and large Roman Catholics.

So you agree that the idea that the Sahara causes black/white racism/etc is not supportable. That black/white racism was nothing special (not beyond any other sort of racism, which could be for the neighboring country/town/etc) until the effects (which you and I have named in part) unique to the situation arose.

JM

[Whoha]

Wealthy people are more risk averse? I doubt it. If they risk a piece of their wealth and it doesn't work out, they can still live the good life.

Rich people with lots of cheap labor are the ones that seem to be risk averse. Rich people that have to deal with filthy commoners demanding and getting higher wages tend to invest in the future.

And, of course, investments don't necessarily require funding from local sources. As you might already know a lot of the funding for building railroads in the U.S. came from Europe. If a wealthy planter decides to play it safe with his investments someone else can take the riskier ones.

Absolutely, the other areas on planet earth that had barriers, natural or otherwise, to slavery provided the lions share of all capital investment and innovation.

The reason economy of the South did not recover from the Civil War was British and French mercantilism, not the oppressive influence of the North. At the onset of the war the South had a bumper crop of cotton. The warehouses of Europe were full of cotton until late 1862. European investors began looking for alternate sources of cotton and tobacco. By this time Egypt had essentially become a colony of the British ermpire. 1863 was the worst year for the European textile industry, but by 1864 cotton from Egypt and Turkey largely made up for the lack of cotton from North America. By the end of the war, though the completion of the Suez canal was still 5 years away, a rail portage system was in place increasing the access of cotton from India. Throughout the late 19th century because of the enormous investment made in the canal by British and French investors France and the UK heavily subsidized shipping passing through the canal making Indian cotton so cheap that American cotton could not compete. In fact it was the sales of cotton to northern textile manufacturers that kept the economy of the South from collapsing completely.

So they made a ton of investments in the rest of the world following the end of the slave plantation based economy throughout the new world? I am fundamentally in agreement that the writing was on the wall for slavery, and that misinvestment represents the lions share of the south's economic woes.

[The Mad Monk]

Expected output over lifetime PLUS expected output of all descendants.

How can you compute that when you cannot possibly know the number of descendants?

Does this also work for chickens?

[Al B. Sure!]

How can you compute that when you cannot possibly know the number of descendants?

You can't. Which is partially the point.

But the enslavement of descendants is an important distinction between slavery and free labor. Only a single cash outlay (along with the 'wages' of nourishment) could purchase potentially exponential numbers of slaves.

[The Mad Monk]

...and exponential numbers of chickens.

[giblets]

For an asset to have infinite value the revenue stream would have to grow at a faster rate than the interest rate- human populations don't grow much faster than 3% a year which would be lower than antebellum interest rates. I'm guessing that chickens, unlike slaves, provide revenue that is pretty close to the cost of raising them.

[The Mad Monk]

My point is that the price of a chicken is not based on the expected income from its eggs and meat and the eggs and meat of all its decendents, in spite of our thorough economic knowledge of all things chicken.

[Al B. Sure!]

What exactly is your point, gribbler? Slavery did not play any role in the lack of industrialization in the South? What caused that lack of industrialization then?

[giblets]

What exactly is your point, gribbler? Slavery did not play any role in the lack of industrialization in the South? What caused that lack of industrialization then?

Given the large population of free whites who were also mostly employed in agriculture it's kind of obvious that agriculture was simply a more profitable use of resources in the south. Given some agricultural advantages the south had over the north (such as the south's ability to grow cotton) it's entirely plausible that comparative advantage made the south specialize in agriculture.

[The Mad Monk]

If that is the case, we should look for examples of this effect in other parts of the world where this agricultural discrepancy existed but slavery didn't.

[The Mad Monk]

No takers?

[giblets]

You don't think some countries without slavery have had certain regions specialize in agriculture?