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

[BeBMan]

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.)

Not sure what you mean by "trying to confuse", I simply disagree with your POV.

If different appearance is the only key to id racism - would you also say the medieval/early modern prejudice of a woman possibly being a witch because of red hair is an example of racism?

And what do you mean by "traditionally accepted "racial" lines?" You quoted Wiki's "Ham" example earlier, but it isn't at all clear. Another Wiki article says "black" isn't even mentioned originally there, though it was later interpreted that way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Origin_of_the_.22Curse_of_Ham.22

[The Mad Monk]

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

What I think about that is irrelevant. A theory has been put forward, I have suggested a means for testing that theory. Are you incapable of following through?

[Aeson]

If different appearance is the only key to id racism - would you also say the medieval/early modern prejudice of a woman possibly being a witch because of red hair is an example of racism?

Your statement promotes a logical fallacy. If prejudice based on different appearance is the only key to id racism (which I did not say, I specified geography and "along traditionally accepted "racial" lines" as well), it still does not follow that all prejudices based on appearance would qualify as racism.

And what do you mean by "traditionally accepted "racial" lines?" You quoted Wiki's "Ham" example earlier, but it isn't at all clear. Another Wiki article says "black" isn't even mentioned originally there, though it was later interpreted that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_o...urse_of_Ham.22

By "traditionally accepted "racial" lines" I am simply talking about the general concept of black and white, which is the topic of this thread and my statements.

As for the story of Ham, your point about what it initially said or was interpreted as is inconsequential. The question is how it was used prior to 1400's. Specifically if it was ever used to explain dark skin prior to that date, as that is the argument.

And it clearly was used to explain the dark skin of some peoples long before 1400's.

[Aeson]

Not sure what you mean by "trying to confuse", I simply disagree with your POV.

"For example I wouldn't call persecution on religious grounds per se "racism"."
"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."

I said so based on those types of strawman arguments. Clearly persecution on religious grounds is not racism. Antisemitism may or may not be racism depending on how you define "race" and whether it is religious or ethnically charged. However, neither of those arguments applies to whether prejudice based on skin color is racism at any specific date, or if prejudice based on skin color happened before certain dates.

Your arguments were thus only to obfuscate or distract from the actual issue being discussed.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that chauvinism is the basic root of racism and that chauvinism has been around a very, very, very long time.

[BeBMan]

Your statement promotes a logical fallacy. If prejudice based on different appearance is the only key to id racism (which I did not say, I specified geography and "along traditionally accepted "racial" lines" as well), it still does not follow that all prejudices based on appearance would qualify as racism.


By "traditionally accepted "racial" lines" I am simply talking about the general concept of black and white, which is the topic of this thread and my statements.

As for the story of Ham, your point about what it initially said or was interpreted as is inconsequential. The question is how it was used prior to 1400's. Specifically if it was ever used to explain dark skin prior to that date, as that is the argument.

And it clearly was used to explain the dark skin of some peoples long before 1400's.

What a load of nonsense (and that goes to your other post to). First off, since you appear to been keen to judge other posts, even other people's intentions I'm sure you're curious to hear my version: You don't know much about the issue beyond stuff you can get from Wiki, have misunderstood the story of Ham, and the whole boring **** about "I didn't say X" "strawman" etc. is only "trying to" avoid criticism on your posts. BTW, several of your replies contain stuff that noone disagreed with, and noone came back whining with "I didn't say that" about that. In short, you're worse than Hitler.

There may be actually premodern instances of racism, but the Ham thing you presented is not at all a good example for this. So far you're doing a poor job to make your case.

The story clearly originated in a religious context without skin color being a factor. And what you pleasantly ignore when it comes to its later usage is that the case for it being about skin color to justify ill-treatment/slavery/whatever there is still - at best - vague.

"Explaining" skin color is not racism, even when the "explanation" is absurd by modern standards. Even when the "curse" is used to justify slavery it remains doubtful whether skin color plays the major role: in a religious environment, behaviour described as "sinful" is much more important. If it was about skin color, how would it justify the existance of non-black slaves then, which were common? Or are you arguing that this kind of justification was limited to black people/slaves in Islamic use? Then please post something that supports it.

Otoh that something described as "sin" is the determining factor for discrimination here also explains how the same story can be used to justify serfdom in medieval Europe, unless someone wants to argue that this was about black people too. To my knowledge both Islam and Christianity say that in general people are equal to god, so skin color is generally not much of a problem - but on religious grounds "sin" would be. Wiki's article speaks the first time of a "racialized version" of the story for the justification of slave trade from the 17th century onwards, at a time when religion does not have the same role like it had in the middle ages. This is also the time when the terminology of "races" gets more important, so it is really no surprise.

[Aeson]

You're hilarious. You've referenced wiki twice now and then condemned it as a source of information in the same breath. You claim I don't understand how the story of Ham was used because you assume my knowledge is solely based on the source you yourself are using. All the while you are arguing against your own source about how the story was used before the 1400's.

As for your argument about serfdom, it's yet another strawman. The use of the story by one group of people does not change the use of the story by another group of people. Your own source clearly states that Arabs were using the story to justify slavery of blacks by the 7th century. All your hemming and hawing about how this isn't racism because another group of people at a different time were using the story differently is patently absurd. To illustrate how absurd an argument it is, to be consistent you would have to use it to claim that the story of Ham being used to justify slavery wasn't racism at any point in history.

Your only real argument you've made that actually touches on the issue of whether or not there was racism pre-1400's is a semantic one where you claim that because the term race was not used there could be nothing that qualified as racism. It's a stupid argument of course, but at least it's trying to argue the point at hand. It's extremely absurd though, and is analogous to claiming that the continents of the Americas didn't exist because we hadn't named them the Americas yet.

[molly bloom]

So you agree that the idea that the Sahara causes black/white racism/etc is not supportable.

JM

I certainly doubt that the drying up of the previously fertile areas of the Sahara was directly responsible for racism. The Greeks (and to some extent, the Romans) had their own notions of cultural or racial superiority (the Greeks to non-Greek cultures, or those from the East, the Romans to Celts to some degree, whom they regarded as being insufficiently stoical), but they don't necessarily seem to have depended on skin colour. Some Greeks admired Egyptian/African culture and located a home of the gods or wisdom there, and although black Africans are depicted in both Roman and Greek art it doesn't appear to have a particularly racist bias. I do seem to recall an erotic Roman mural featuring a particularly well-endowed African though, but this may be an exception.

[QUOTE] [That black/white racism was nothing special /QUOTE]

There does seem to be a cultural bias against those (white-skinned people) with darker complexions- certainly if things like the 'Song Of Solomon' is anything to go by,

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

but this is probably a bias against those who would have to perform manual labour in the sun, so is in that respect more of a class bias than anything else.

In Mediaeval times, the map produced in Spain which depicted Mansa Musa shows him as just another monarch, with no (pejorative)weight seemingly attached to his skin colour.