What did people in the middle ages think of race?
I'm aware of aristotle's and hippocrate's takes on race and Ibn khaldun's takes. But what about medieval europeans?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
What did people in the middle ages think of race? I'm aware of aristotle's and hippocrate's takes on race and Ibn khaldun's takes.
white people as a unifying concept did not exist until mutts created this as a cope for losing their unique european ethnic identities
next time you see a Stankowski at your work, ask him to speak polish.
White as a concept was founded by europeans, not americans.
Yeah because no knowledge of genetics or darwinian evolution existed. The closest thing is humoral theory and hereditarinistic ideas.
True but they had some limited contact with the mongols, muslims and some of africa: mainly ethiopia.
What
>White as a concept was founded by europeans, not americans.
nah. no European ever talked about whiteness except as a physical descriptor of skin color. it had no embedded meaning of identity which is how it's used nowadays.
A roman on an expedition in Germania wouldn't say he's fighting "whites" - he would call his enemies Gauls, Germans, Allamani - but not "white".
Bach wasn't creating for "white race" - he was creating for Germans.
Chopin wasn't creating for "white people" - he was creating for Poles.
The concept of "white race" is in fact more racist than "Black person" because it completely destroys all identity we as "white people" as separate ethnic groups have had. There is no unity among "white people" and anyone who says that is incredibly racist against white people or incredibly ignorant of their history. I'm a Scot, not a fricking "white person"
"White person" destroys any culture or heritage individual European identities have had. In that sense it's literally no different to calling a japanese person "Asian" or a man from kenya a "Black person".
It's americanification and commodification of idenitity of the lowest order. It's the most despicable thing in the world because it DESTROYS rather than preserves history.
>It's the most despicable thing in the world because it DESTROYS rather than preserves history.
And this is why I said initially that
>next time you see a Stankowski at your work, ask him to speak polish.
There is no need to speak Polish any more, or preserve your language and culture. Because skin color defines you now. How convenient for the israelites who want to wipe out your identity.
You're from Germany? Good, you're a white person now. Make sure to stop speaking German btw (there are actual supreme court cases about this)
this
a "white person" is a serf of the anglo empire with pig like skin complexion.
essentially that norf guy.
Robert boyle (irish) and carl linaeus (swedish) are the earliest thinkers i can think of who use white as criteria for european. I don't oppose germany for germans or poland for the polish, nobody has ever thought that.
> no unity
Europeans fit into a genetic cluster which we call white
Tf are you on about? Do you think calling a german white just snaps his language out of existence?
>Robert boyle (irish) and carl linaeus (swedish) are the earliest thinkers i can think of who use white as criteria for european.
My point is more subtle - skin color is only a single feature (and a completely tiny one at that) out of a myriad of features which define an ethnicity. If you think Irishness is defined by the color of skin, then you are a moron.
>muh genetics
post-hoc rationalisation made by israelites to justify the "whiteness" concept
Thank you.
The problem is that I'm a Scot-Irish mutt and I despise "white culture". It's clearly artificial. Whenever someone speaks of "white culture" in the US they mean "let's grab a six pack and watch baseball" because that's what white people do? How banal.
That's literally white identity for you. It's a trap created by israelites to destroy identity - but dumbfrick whites think it preserves it.
What preserves your identity is the language your ancestors spoke, it's their religion and their customs. Not looking like the average white trash or listening to "white music"
Race isn't skin color, europeans have other traits that make them distinct from the rest of the world. Why did you just shove it off? Europeans founded white to mean european in early taxonomy, not americans.
YES, genetics
> DA israeliteS WANT WHITE PEOPLE TO ORGANIZE
you're moronic
moron it's not about culture, how arbitary. It's about race, it's a biological criteria not some socially constructed one. Do you think white Black folk exist then?
Shut the frick up and stop pandering to Euros. They aren't going to consider you EVROPEAN no matter how much you do this shit. All you need to say is "As Americans, our identity is American and is tied to it's historical culture". But let me guess
>AMERIKA NEBER DID HAB NO KULTURE
>All you need to say is "As Americans, our identity is American and is tied to it's historical culture".
What the frick is American culture? Can you tell me?
Europeans are right in calling us mutts - we literally forgot our anscestors' ways of life. There is no Polish, no Irish, no German. We're all "american" now. But what does that mean? It means we drive trucks and take out a mortgage at 30.
Here's the redpill. Europeans are mutts too because of the 18th and 19th centuries. Countless rich regional identities, dialects, and cultures were eradicated by standardization and homogeneity. America is just an extension of that.
All of these dialects (in the case of Occitan it was an entirely different language with its own family of dialects) got eradicated in order to become ripoff Parisians.
Do you seriously think race is culture? Fricking moron
Americans (at least originally) descend directly from Europeans who conquered America... so they are Europeans. Unless you are mixed or black or Asian or whatever, I don't understand this hostility towards Europe lol.
A based American at last
I am crying tears of joy
yeah man umbrella terms are LITERALLY genocide
especially when they're used in a unifying sense to fight against ideologues who are naturally hostile to the groups that fall under that umbrella term
you figured it all out bro, congratulations
We clearly don't know that the biggest redpill is that the israelites made up white identity actually.
I'll remember that when we're terrorized further by racial foreigners for being white and stoically say "i'm not white! I'm scottish!"
>especially when they're used in a unifying sense to fight against ideologues who are naturally hostile to the groups that fall under that umbrella term
You're literally falling for fool's gold.
Think about it this way - you are trying to "unify" with other "white people" - and yet in this supposed unity, you have given up everything that you had, namely the real gold. What does it mean to be Italian, Polish, German, Irish? What do your surnames mean?
Your surname is McGilvray and yet you can't read your Grandfather's gravestone. But you united with other "whites" to fight the israelites? (who created the "white people" concept in the first place)
The ethnic-based approach is superior to any post-hoc genetic bullshit (which didn't exist until a couple of decades ago anyway).
There are no white people just like there are no asians. There are individual ethnic identities - and "whites" are the biggest fools who forgot all that made them unique to become mindless consumerists.
israelite didn't create anything you fricking tard i already cited two white men who wrote about white people.
Jesus frick are you this dense? You're like a leftist where you think calling people white wipes away their language or culture or something. Do you think people are malleable and can change at a whim like that?
Look, shitlibs hate you for being white and you won't do shit about it pussy.
>israelite didn't create anything you fricking tard i already cited two white men who wrote about white people.
How did those "white men" refer to themselves. Did they call themselves "white" or "british"?
This is absolutely True and I never denied it. But this "unity" was usually justified by a greater goal. For instance Napoleon's reforms basically wiped out non-Parisian French dialects. But what was the cost - they created a French National Identity and were able to conquer Europe.
We are similar in that we wiped out our individual European identities - but what was the cost? We literally didn't gain anything. The wiping out of our identities is not for some higher goal - it was literally to create a lowest common denominator of identity that is easily tricked by consumerism. There were literally laws which prohibited people from learning German in this country.
Yeah that's the thing with nation building. In any case, I would feel kind of sad being an Occitan and having my own distinct culture erased. Or being a Catalan, with no connection to French culture, and still being a knock-off frog. America would've been more successful if they still had some sort of greater European identity, rather than trying to deviate from that.
>America would've been more successful if they still had some sort of greater European identity, rather than trying to deviate from that.
It was kinda like that. We had "alternative" assimiliation - ie you had to become a "english" - ie learn the language and become protestant. But then there was Maryland, so the whole thing went sideways with catholics.
The point is - combining into a greater EXISTING identity is okay in my book (ie English Anglo-Saxon). Inventing some nebulous term like "white people" is preposterous and ludicrous.
Yeah I agree. Or at least you can have different distinct groups of people, but if they all work together that is all fine. The problem with American immigration is simply how much of it there was. Outside of insane invasions and migrations, (usually during the early middle ages) during medieval and early-modern Europe it was fairly contained. Immigration happened, small groups of Italians might immigrate to Germany and assimilate for example, but it was never in such large numbers that it would cause this crazy shit we see with Maryland "Italians" for instance.
>The problem with American immigration is simply how much of it there was.
And that's the problem. We are now entering the "hispanics are also white" phase. If this doesn't prove the meaninglessness of the term, than I don't know what is.
Some day in 2100, if US ever survives till then, we will discover that Black folk have been white all along.
"White" is used as a shorthand term for European Caucasian, contrasted with the mongoloid, the Black, and the abbo.
In modern usage, the term "white" is important because it indicates a category of person who, at the very least, has the capability of being a productive member of Western society.
You can still be proud of your haggis-eating, sheep-fricking ancestors while still supporting white solidarity you homosexual.
>You can still be proud of your haggis-eating, sheep-fricking ancestors while still supporting white solidarity you homosexual.
No. I can't. I can't be in solidarity with a person just because of his skin color. I can't be in solidarity with a person whose surnam is "Dombrowski" but who doesn't know a single word of Polish. I can't respect anyone who doesn't at least try to preserve what generations of his ancestors tried preserving.
And then there are people like you who expect that this average Joe mutt is going to "preserve" white identity when he didn't preserve his own anscestors' teachings.
I'm not a white identarian for basically the reason you described (although I am biased towards whites). That said, it did have some uses historically, that no longer really work today. When you are a colonist and you are surrounded by other colonists from all over Europe, you are surrounded by savage natives in a hostile environment, then you do have something very strong binding all of you together.
>I'm not a white identarian for basically the reason you described (although I am biased towards whites).
I'm also more biased towards "whites" obviously. But i just think that wiping out such an important foundation as ethnicity/lnaguage/culture creates fertile ground for creation of alternative identities. I'm white because I can afford Airpods. I'm white becasue I don't dress like a Black person.
That's not identity - that's McDonalds tier consumerist view of identity.
>When you are a colonist and you are surrounded by other colonists from all over Europe, you are surrounded by savage natives in a hostile environment, then you do have something very strong binding all of you together.
From what I know, most colonists stuck to each other based on ethnicity language and religion rather than skin color. If you were a catholic you wouldn't go live to New Amsterdam - you'd go to Maryland.
>From what I know, most colonists stuck to each other based on ethnicity language and religion rather than skin color. If you were a catholic you wouldn't go live to New Amsterdam - you'd go to Maryland.
Yeah that's true. I guess I'm just describing circumstances that happened out of necessity, but that were probably not the norm. I'm not really describing stable, peaceful colonial life.
You're here in America which means your ancestors chose to forge a new identity in a new land. WASPs or heritage Americans or whatever you want to call them have been a clear cultural identity for generations. In the past, we used to have immigration moratoriums so that the paddy's and fredo's could integrate into the dominant WASP/American culture. Your attitude is completely defeatist and counterproductive. How many years of majority WASP rule in the US would be good enough for you to consider it a distinct "race" or culture? It was over 300 years.
You know things are bad when morons on ‘our side’ just parrot leftist talking point under a guise of ‘based’, holy shit.
These morons can’t get resist getting off high off the scent of their own farts, everything has to always be chasing hot takes, going “actually Whiteness really isn’t real sweaty :^)” literally just links into and reaffirms leftoid talking points of race not being real in general, but I guess something like this is too rhetorically complex to understand.
Some people here are so stupid that they're anti-white
Arabs are caucasoids and therefore do not look radically different
Proper mongoloids were rare, since as the Mongols pushed west vassals made up a larger and larger part of the army
As for Ethiopia 99% of those who knew existed heard of it in legends and tales and thought they looked Arabic
Arabs do look different, considerable variation exists undetneath the caucasoid category. Yes but they still had contact with true mongols at some point of time.
Race was created by British colonialists for slave designations
White was for euro slaves. It’s a term for stupid goyim. Notice you’ll never see a high class person call themselves “white”
Darwin was a dumbfrick and got BTFO’d by Aristotelian biologists in his day. You only know about him because the slave ranchers want you to
I guess you don't know but here you go
Here's aristotle on race:
The peoples of cold countries generally, and particularly those of Europe, are full of spirit, but deficient in skill and intelligence; and this is why they continue to remain comparatively free, but attain no political development and show no capacity for governing others. The peoples of Asia are endowed with skill and intelligence, but are deficient in spirit; and this is why they continue to be peoples of subjects and slaves. The Greek stock,64 intermediate in geographical position,65 unites the qualities of both sets of peoples. It possesses both spirit and intelligence: the one quality makes it continue free; the other enables it to attain the highest political development, and to show a capacity for governing every other people—if only it could once achieve political unity. “
Also, are you denying evolution? Do you think natural selection and mendelian inheritence is fake?
Ya I’ve read all through Aristotle and if you did too you’d know race is not the foundation of identity in a human
Darwin and Spencer were dumbfricks because he thought notions of “genetics” could account for identity in humans. Genes are matter, which doesn’t account for form. Darcy Thompson and morphogenesis implies there is Euclidean geometry in skeletons and plants that contract and expand through time, which implies “natural selection” is 1/4th of the story and is limited in its scope, which implies issues for one form evolving into another
you're moronic. they're have been many instances where race was a factor and was brought up waaaaayyyyy before america was founded. learn to read spic
They didn’t believe in your “race realism” if that’s what you’re thinking, chud
Krishna said racemixing is against God
>krishna
>God
>converts to hindi
>goes to hell
They wuz black.
Socrates wuz black.
Pharaohs wuz black.
Shakespeer wuz black.
Mozart wuz black.
Black folk were black
but are blacks Black folk?
and are Black folk white?
Jesus was black
The chinese were black
EVERYONE IS A Black person!
Medieval Europeans only lived with and saw white people. Some of the guys who were high class and therefore educated knew about other races but didn't care at all.
“Ethiopian” originated from the greek term “burnt-face.”
they loved race mixing and diversity, often they would have mixed race children with travelers from abroad.
According to the BBC many royals were black with many more noble women being BLACKED.
The had nearly 0 contacts with other races, they didn't even think about it
I'm gonna guess and say mostly the same as the Greeks and Romans.
The one thing you learn about medieval people is that they love Jesus and they love the Greeks and Romans
It's always Julius Caesar this and Alexander the Great that.
I'd say they were casually aware of other races not really encountered by the greeks and romans (take this statue of st maurice from 1250) but they hadn't really interacted with them much to form opinions on them. I'd guess most Europeans went their whole lives without ever seeing a black guy.
You're the only guy to give the right answer.
Most contact was between armies, travelers or some kind of politician. Other than that, no direct contact existed just like today for most of the world excluding globohomosexual NATO nations.
>But what about medieval europeans?
not real history
real history was taken from us
Of course. Where do you think we get the concept of barbarian?
You never heard of all those European wars? Even today Europeans are convinced the white dudes 3 hours drive away are a different race of people. They are so racist even Belgium wants to civil war because some white people speak French and the white people two towns over speak who gives a frick. Most racist fricks to ever live honestly. Makes me kek every time.
>You think being surrounded by slightly different phenotypes of white people is bad, you should see what a city full of Black folk and hispanics looks like.
They thought that every ethnicity was a race. They thought of race like we think of ethnicity (ie the french race, italian race, etc). In the broader sense, they thought that Europeans descended from Japheth and Saracens+Jews descended from Shem. They didn't see themselves as belonging to some sort of greater European collective, but to Christendom. That said, the concept of a unified European identity grew out of Catholic Christendom.
They were medieval europeans, anon. The antiquity is a lie.
>Aristotle’s view on race
Aristotle also just assumed women had less teeth than men so I don’t know if he’s the genius we should listen to about everything.
It was so universally understood that Black folk were subhuman that there was no need for a debate on 'race'.
Saying Black folk are subhuman in ancient times would be like saying 1+1=2 today. It was such a self-evident truth that it was taken for granted.
>Black folk
You realize all of the ancient world was composed into literal castes of slaves right
The Barbary Muslim pirates kidnapped Europeans from ships in North Africa’s coastal waters (Barbary Coast). They also attacked and pillaged the Atlantic coastal fishing villages and town in Europe, enslaving the inhabitants. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit. Muslim slave-raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland.
Like many great empires that came before it, the Ottoman Empire was based on slavery, but unlike most examples of slavery, in the Ottoman Empire, slaves were white.
Europe was compromised a long time ago.