I've heard that an Englishman would view an African man the same way he would view a Frenchman.
He belongs to a different kingdom. The Zimbabwean is as alien as the German. There is no conception of "race" under the confines of a modern definition. There are no Europeans until the later renaissance, when the age of exploration contextualized the globe for the White man. There were simply English Scottish German French Italian Polish Spanish Turkish Russian... Et cetera
Totally different mind frame regarding race back then.
>>602257 Because race wasn't a thing until anthropologists made it a thing in a last ditch effort to help support the idea of slavery in post-colonial times. The Caribbean was ground zero for a lot of this hate, and Haiti to this day is an example of that.
Why do most people have a negative outlook on Haiti? >You can answer that how you like, but it started when they over through the French and killed every white person on the island to end slavery. France would go on to make Haiti pay reparations, despite losing the war, and plunged the new country into suffocating debt they have never recovered from. Oh and they were blackballed from world trade for a fucking long ass time...even now, research where all the earthquake relief money went....
"The negroes possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. There is complete security in their country. Neither traveler nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence."
"The people of Timbuktu are of a peaceful nature. They have a custom of almost continuously walking about the city in the evening (except for those that sell gold), between 10 PM and 1 AM, playing musical instruments and dancing. The citizens have at their service many slaves, both men and women."
"I went on...to Gawgaw, which is a large city on the Niger, and one of the finest towns in the Negrolands. It is also one of their biggest and best-provisioned towns, with rice in plenty, milk, and fish, and there is a species of cucumber there called "inani" which has no equal. The buying and selling of its inhabitants is done with cowry-shells, and the same is the case at Mali. I stayed there about a month, and then set out in the direction of Tagadda by land with a large caravan of merchants from Ghadamas."
"I met the qadi of Mali, Abd ar-Rahman, who came to see me; he is black, a pilgrim, and a man of fine character. I met also the interpreter Dugha, who is one of the principal men among the blacks. All these persons sent me hospitality-gifts of food and treated me with the utmost generosity--may God reward them for their kindnesses!"
"They (the blacks) do not confiscate the property of any white man who dies in their country, even if it be uncounted wealth. On the contrary, they give it into the charge of some trustworthy person among the whites, until the rightful heir takes possession of it. They are careful to observe the hours of prayer, and assiduous in attending them in congregations, and in bringing up their children to them."
>>602250 Not really. Blacks and arabs coexisted since the pre islamic. One of our legendary heroes is even half black.
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. Remember, one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."
"Blacks are physically stronger than no matter what other people. A single one of them can lift stones of greater weight and carry burdens such as several Whites could not lift nor carry between them. ... They are brave, strong, and generous as witness their nobility and general lack of wickedness" - Al Jahiz
Plenty of research and articles to back up the claim. A lot of time and effort went into social sciences back then to prove the idea of white superiority. Slaves come in all colors, but when business was booming in the new world, it was the Africans doing the work and the whites profiting. Why would you want to give that up?
Hispaniola was the most profitable island in the Caribbean, and the French - although shorthanded- got their asses kicked by a bunch of slaves and lost out on a shit ton of money...money they would make them pay back to the tune of 150 million gold francs...about what, 20 billion today? There were years that 80% of Haitian income was given to the French and the interest rates were fucking awful.
that debt wasn't cleared until 2009 when they just got the okay to stop paying it.
>>602554 >Race and its ideology about human differences arose out of the context of African slavery. But many peoples throughout history have been enslaved without the imposition of racial ideology. When we look at 17th century colonial America before the enactment of laws legitimizing slavery only for Africans and their descendants (after 1660), several facts become clear.
>1). The first people that the English tried to enslave and place on plantations were the Irish with whom they had had hostile relations since the 13th century.
>2) Some Englishmen had proposed laws enslaving the poor in England and in the colonies to force them to work indefinitely.
>3) Most of the slaves on English plantations in Barbados and Jamaica were Irish and Indians.
>4) Many historians point out that African servants and bonded indentured white servants were treated much the same way. They often joined together, as in the case of Bacon's Rebellion (1676) to oppose the strict and oppressive laws of the colonial government.
>In the latter part of the 17th century the demand for labor grew enormously. It had become clear that neither Irishmen nor Indians made good slaves. More than that, the real threats to social order were the poor freed whites who demanded lands and privileges that the upper class colonial governments refused. Some colonial leaders argued that turning to African labor provided a buffer against the masses of poor whites.
>Until the 18th century the image of Africans was generally positive. They were farmers and cattle-breeders; they had industries, arts and crafts, governments and commerce. In addition, Africans had immunities to Old World diseases. They were better laborers and they had nowhere to escape to once transplanted to the New World. The colonists themselves came to believe that they could not survive without Africans.
>When some Englishmen entered slave trading directly, it became clear that many of the English public had misgivings about slave-trading and re-creating slavery on English soil. It was an era when the ideals of equality, justice, democracy, and human rights were becoming dominant features of Western political philosophy. Those involved in the trade rationalized their actions by arguing that the Africans were heathens after all, and it was a Christian duty to save their souls. By the early part of the 18th century, the institution was fully established for Africans and their descendants. Large numbers of slaves flooded the southern colonies and even some northern ones. Sometimes they outnumbered whites, and the laws governing slavery became increasingly harsher.
>Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.
>From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of "race." The term "race," which had been a classificatory term like "type," or "kind," but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century, and crystallized into a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans.
>By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity.
>Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for "race" and "races" was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings.
>The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.
>What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that "negroes" were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether.
>American intellectuals appropriated, and rigidified, the categories of human groups established by European scholars during the eighteenth century, but ignored Blumenbach's caution that human groups blend insensibly into one another, so that it is impossible to place precise boundaries around them.
>When Dr. Samuel Morton in the 1830s initiated the field of craniometry, the first school of American anthropology, proponents of race ideology received the most powerful scientific support yet. Measuring the insides of crania collected from many populations, he offered "evidence" that the Negro had a smaller brain than whites, with Indians in-between. Morton is also famous for his involvement in a major scientific controversy over creation.
>The very existence of a scientific debate over whether blacks and whites were products of a single creation, or of multiple creations, especially in a society dominated by Biblical explanations, seems anomalous. It indicates that the differences between "races" had been so magnified and exaggerated that popular consciousness had already widely accepted the idea of blacks being a different and inferior species of humans. Justice Taney's decision reflected this, declaring, "the negro is a different order of being." Thus slave-owners' rights to their "property" were upheld in law by appeal to the newly invented identity of peoples from Africa.
>Scientists collaborated in confirming popular beliefs, and publications appeared on a regular basis providing the "proof" that comforted the white public. That some social leaders were conscious of their role in giving credibility to the invented myths is manifest in statements such as that found in the Charleston Medical Journal after Dr. Morton's death. It states, "We can only say that we of the South should consider him as our benefactor, for aiding most materially in giving to the negro his true position as an inferior race" (emphasis added). George Gliddon, co-editor of a famous scientific book Types of Mankind, (1854) which argued that Negroes were closer to apes than to humans and ranked all other groups between whites and Negroes, sent a copy of the book to a famous southern politician, saying that he was sure the south would appreciate the powerful support that this book gave for its "peculiar institution" (slavery). Like another famous tome (The Bell Curve, 1995) this was an 800-page book whose first edition sold out immediately; it went through nine other editions before the end of the century. What it said about the inferiority of blacks became widely known, even by those who could not read it.
>During discussions in the U.S. Senate on the future of "the negro" after slavery, James Henry Hammond proclaimed in 1858 "somebody has to be the mudsills of society, to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life." Negroes were destined to be the mudsills. This was to be their place, one consciously created for them by a society whose cultural values now made it impossible to assimilate them. In the many decades since the Civil War, white society made giant strides to "keep the negro in his place." Public policies and the customs and practices of millions of Americans expressed this racial worldview throughout the twentieth century.
>These are some of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the racial worldview in North America. Race ideology was a mechanism justifying what had already been established as unequal social groups; it was from its inception, and is today, about who should have access to privilege, power, status, and wealth, and who should not. As a useful political ideology for conquerors, it spread into colonial situations around the world. It was promulgated in the latter half of the 19th century by some Europeans against other Europeans and reached its most extreme development in the twentieth century Nazi holocaust.
>All anthropologists should understand that "race" has no intrinsic relationship to human biological diversity, that such diversity is a natural product of primarily evolutionary forces while "race" is a social invention.
>>602580 None of your posts disprove racial science or prove that it was invented to justify slavery. This is extremely common in leftist anti-racist discourse. They never attempt to coherently disprove the science of race, they just say "racist pseudo-science!" and move on without actually showing why it's allegedly pseudo-scientific.
>>602499 The African heart can pump significan't more than an average white person. Although their brain size is slightly smaller, their stronger cardiovascular system means they can take into account more factors on the fly, such as in combat or in sports.
>>602640 Yes actually, if you looked at the context of that guys quote, it was talking about how blacks were superior to arabs, who were white in comparison
>Al-Jāḥiẓ also wrote a book entitled Risalat mufakharat al-Sudan 'ala al-bidan ("Treatise on the Superiority of Blacks over Whites"), in which he stated that blacks
... have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and have governed them. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish King of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but you, White people, have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (Negroes) revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes and making Oballah a bath of blood.
>>602170 They were just... there. Sure they looked different, but I have seen many images of "Moors" done where they have little difference in their appearance other than skin color and hair texture. They aren't shown as apes or lesser beings like they were later on and [unfortunately still] today.
>>602767 False equivalency. Lions still existed in parts of Europe during ancient and even medieval times. The imagery of lions was spread from ancient Greece down to the romans and to medieval kingdoms from there. There was also lions in North Africa and the middle East until the last hundred years, so that made knowledge of lions pretty widespread in Europe as well
>>602867 No, it would mean there were rabbits and swords in Medieval Europe, and depictions of Maurice would only mean that:
a) European artists and clergy knew there existed people who had black skin (and curly hair and thick lips and noses). They also thought there were other weird shit in the world, but on this point they had Roman sources and reality on their side.
b) Medieval armor looked the way Maurice wore them, not that black people in Roman times wore Medieval knightly armor.
>>602870 That doesn't look like something the average person would've owned. It wouldve been expensive and imported from Egypt. I think an important distinction to make is the upper class' knowledge of Africans vs the lower class' knowledge of Africans. Surely the educated upper class would be aware of blacks in some vague sense, but the lower class would have no way of knowing, at least until the 16th-17th century, and even then blacks were very uncommon
Islam will never admit it, but they see blacks as generally venal and untrustworthy. Yes, many blacks are muslims, many of them to just rebel against Christianity as the "white mans religion" when in fact they convert to a religion where, behind closed doors, they use the word "black" synonymously with the word "slave."
It's the same shit when women convert to Islam. If you think Islam hates blacks, holy shit, just read the Koran for the wacky adventures of Moe and his thoughts on women. I will never understand how a woman, especially a fucking "soul sista, rivet rosie" type would even contemplate converting to the most patriarichal, chauvanistic religion on the planet (maybe in living history) and then turn around and say Moe cared about women's rights.
>It wouldve been expensive and imported from Egypt.
No, it would've been made in Greece. There's several of these in museums. Black people, or Aethiopians as the Greeks and Romans called them, were present in small numbers and they were typically sub-priests for various mystery cults because they were considered exotic and possibly magical by people.
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White" - Mohammed
>>602931 Nope. If they made any in Greece they would've been copies of Egyptian originals. Stop trying to make it seem like blacks were common in ancient Greece. Greeks knew of blacks only through their contact with egyptians
What exactly are we arguing about here? Ethiopians were common enough in the Levant in Roman times for them to even be in the Bible. Some were probably traders, some were servants. The Ethiopian mentioned in Acts is a eunuch. It's perfectly possible that Greeks and Romans from the Italian peninsula travelled to the Levant and Egypt and saw sub-Saharan Africans, albeit East Africans. Then they would go back and tell traveller's tales. - I saw one guy wearing 3 earrings in one ear and a ring in his nose! Weird - Then I saw a guy with black skin and really curly hair but with white teeth and a red tongue! Even weirder - Then I saw a woman with her hair tied up in some kind of scarf and tattoos all over her arms! Weirdest of all They wouldn't have viewed sub-Saharan Africans as different in kind from other people with unfamiliar colours, hair, clothes etc.
>>603099 >>Racist niggs Why not? Old form of racism was invented by tribal nations even in Stone Age. Destroying a tribe-nation Neanderthals and a tribe-nation Mammoth was typical extremist proto-racism.
>>602735 >At the same time, it's implied (both in the Antar legend as well as in Islamic accounts) that the Arabs looked down on the Blacks and saw them as inferior. but then bilal was black, which is why arab girls love BBC and arab men whine that BBC takes their women
Marco Polo said that Blacks were ugly as fuck, literally the ugliest in the planet, but besides that they describe them to be like anybody else, they had rice, drank some weird wine, rode camels to war, and so on. He described the ones of eastern Africa, tho.
A potentially interesting thread, completely ruined.
>>603607 In ancient times, attitudes towards blacks were variable and many times positive. Also, the Greeks, Romans and their successors in physiognomy, the medieval Muslims believed the peoples north of their climatic zone were just as "inferior" as the peoples south of it.
>>602990 >What exactly are we arguing about here? Dishonest historical revisionism to justify emotionally charged agendas.
>Ethiopians were common enough in the Levant in Roman I am positive you can not prove this. The question then is, why do you believe so ardently in something not based in fact?
>The Ethiopian mentioned in Acts is a eunuch. "So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[a] [a]That is, from the southern Nile region" New Internationale Version
The southern Nile is not necessarily Ethiopia. It's a vague region related to Egypt. Your one example is guesswork related to fringe Egypt.
Certain people want to make the modern political programme of multiculturalism more palatable so they are trying to rewrite history to suggest as if it's always been this way. People always try to pull this propaganda shit with their pet issues. If they want to booster Capitalism then suddenly Capitalism wasn't developed around the 1600s (at very early estimates) but has always been a thing and is in fact the natural state of man. If they hate women then all societies have always been patriarchal. If they are a Chinese nationalist then China secretly invented everything first.
>>603684 You're being silly. Not everyone who argues or disagrees with you is medievalpoc or believes "POC" were half the population.
Also society A or B being multicultural (you really mean multiracial, that's what bothers you) shouldn't have normative implications.
After all, it was generations of Nordicists Northern Europeans who tried to use "miscegenation" as one of the causes of the fall of ancient societies. The few Afrocentrists/leftists/etc. who argue similarly but from a "multicultural" perspective are a drop in the ocean by comparison.
>>603720 >Also society A or B being multicultural shouldn't have normative implications. It shouldn't but it does. People propagandize because they are politically threatened by a racially homogeneous Europe.
>After all, it was generations of Nordicists Northern Europeans You're doing it right here. Because these people who I politically have a problem with... history is suddenly this way. No, it doesn't work like that. History doesn't change because of who you have a problem with.
>(you really mean multiracial, that's what bothers you) I'm bothered by the fact that you can look at color video of the ancient yonder days of 1960 in most European countries and see with your own eyes how non-multicultural even someplace like London is. It's a NEW THING. This is verifiably true with your own eyes and I can't stand that people will go to such lengths to lie about this.
Look at an Eastern European country like Poland or Moldova for example. Still probably 1,000 times more multicultural than what it was 600 years ago. Try to find any blacks or arabs. The idea that 99.9% of people in the medieval even knew humans with such divergent phenotypes even existed let alone had a common opinion is a joke.
>>603761 >You're doing it right here. Because these people who I politically have a problem with... history is suddenly this way
Nope, you misunderstood. I was saying that the same interpretations Afrocentrists and leftists bring up were brought up by people we'd consider racist today for generations upon generations (though it isn't like there was some unanimous agreement but it was historically important) with much more intensity but just as much cherrypicking than anyone on Tumblr does today. It tied into my whole "shouldn't have normative implications" point.
>Look at an Eastern European country like Poland or Moldova for example
There were more Jews and gypsies relative to their total population and both were part of multiethnic states. The nation state in Europe has brought a homogeneity that never existed before.
>>603761 Hold on, I take my word on one thing. Post Mongol invasion people in the East probably heard or saw that Mongols or whatever they were calling them had weird fucked up faces (from the European perspective). Before something like that though, people are not going to have a clue.
Keep in mind this is before any mass media. Most can't even read. They couldn't even get their own history right. If you look at Medieval depictions of their own past or the bible ethnicity, technology, flora, and fauna are all fucked up. They had no sense that their immediate surrounding villages were not how the world is everywhere and has always been.
>>602727 They still used some tribal names though, so the Swiss were often called the Almaynes and the French the Frankish, Bretons, Picardians, Gascons. In fact I'd dare say France had at least six races living within it's borders.
>>602923 >Moe cared about women's rights. He kinda did. Of course, this is compared to before, when they were burying babies alive in the desert sand for being born girls, so you can't go downhill from there. Still, it was an improvement.
>>604725 Nobody has those critiques. People dislike them as they are often factually incorrect, have poor etiquette (most of their posts consist of memes "WEE WUZ KINGZ" "Kek. OK Ahmed"), are very obnoxious, and act as if they no the secret truth unlike people who actually study things.
>>604778 >Most people on 4chan (aside from the underage/shitposting boards) dislike /pol/ due to its idiocy. appeal to authority >>604792 Why would he follow some SJWs command? this isn't twitter, SJWfriend
>>604812 Did you not read your own post? >Most people on 4chan (aside from the underage/shitposting boards) dislike /pol/ due to its idiocy. You implied the majority of 4chan disagrees with /pol/. We don't.
I am not white, I live aroubd whites and I do not discriminate on the basis of skin color, is it then so hard a concept to have this be the same back then? Are you all racists looking for excuses to justify your racism?
>>604884 Maybe north western euope was an exception as it was poor for a long time but what I meant is that since the romans and probably before them there were huge multicultural and multiracial societies which functioned well.
I wonder what percentage of /pol/ are 'muh heritage' Americans.
>>604884 Medieval France had a couple of different regional cultures, around 1500 the Gascons for example were scarcely considered French, the Bretons were and odd occurrence too and they probably thought it quite a feat the Basque people could walk on their hind legs. In Provence you see people disowning their sons because they spoke 'ile de France French instead of the local language. Flanders you say? Absolute barbarians.
>>604887 Evolve are are inspired by? That's a big difference.
>>604897 Romans were multicultural by the standards of their time, but not so much by our standards. Conquered people couls become citizens, but they would almost always remain on the bottom rung. (Empire was a little more accepting than republic, oddly enough)
>>602209 I remember reading ibn Khaldun saying they were fun, loud, and good workers but were licentious, and would steal. He ascribed it to their climate, for a similar reason he said Egyptians don't plan ahead because Egypt is too hot while Moroccans are apparently very level headed and will plan ahead because the altitude is higher. There was also the Zanj rebellion that must have been scary and 1001 nights has two kings cucked by black guys and more black bulls later.
The Arabs of pre and early Islam were a little racist but not too much. They weren't considered beautiful and tended to be slaves but that didn't stop some mostly half blacks from becoming prominent. Antar ibn Shaddad was a Jahiliya hero that resembled Arthur. He was a slave but had a noble father, he fought, got to marry his pretty light skin cousin and get money. Some of the companions of Muhammad were half black and did okay in life. Zaid got to marry Zaynab who was noble, rich, beautiful and light skinned but later divorced. Bilal was respected. Later Muslim African kings would always claim to be descended from him.
>>602226 There are quite a few, Egyptians for example are mostly in between but you see some that are very white or very black. Plus Muslims African countries.
Historically most blacks were women for harems. They would thus be mixed with other colors. The men that would come would be castrated or mix in too. Really Islamic societies were kind of like the Portuguese, racist sure but not as much as others and we can still mix. Apparently Ethiopian/Abyssinian women were highly prized, I've heard some people say they're nice looking generally in these times as well. Of course those Circassian women were hgher on the list. I think even today in the gulf, Eastern European prostitutes fetch higher prices and Africans at the bottom, under Asians.
>>604897 I may have used the wrong word when i said evolve. Before professional armies began, armies were mainly just peasents who supplied their own weapons. Normally, they used farming tools, which were on hand. In combat, they saw which tools worked best, and reshaped them slightly to work better in combat. (Sorry for poor spelling, on cell phone.)
>>604889 lets see: >originally claim "Most people on 4chan (aside from the underage/shitposting boards) dislike /pol/ due to its idiocy." >when arguing "most of 4chan is shitposting or underage." which directly contradicts your first claim >when backpedaling "Most of 4chan *(excluding shitpost underage*) dislikes /pol/" presumably "shitposting and underage" is included in this group since you did not mention them only a group of posters known as "shitpost underage" "Most of 4chan (this time it is *including* shitposting and underage, else I'd have said) is shitposting and underage." which contradicts your last statement because you mentioned "shitposting and underage" were in the anti-/pol/ group
>Does that clear it up now? Can you put 1 and 1 together? finishing with an ad hominem and a personal, like a true SJW >>604892 So you live in an area devoid of the "multiculturalism" you believe in?
>>604920 >Before professional armies began, armies were mainly just peasents who supplied their own weapons. Normally, they used farming tools, which were on hand. In combat, they saw which tools worked best, and reshaped them slightly to work better in combat.
I am afraid that is not really correct.
For the majority of medieval history the spear reigned supreme and I am unaware of any agricultural uses for it.
Bardiches and Dane axes are polearms but they were designed with war in mind and are not really related to woodworking axes. Once you get to the late middle ages you start seeing things like halberds and bills. The later is often said to have evolved out of the agricultural bill but there isn't really evidence for some form of intermediary step between purely agricultural tool to weapon, sure someone could have looked at the general shape of a bill and thought it might make a good weapon.
>>602170 It depends on the country. The west african empires trade a lot with the muzzies and the christians. From most accustomed to least: Andalusians, Iberians, Silicians South French and Italians.
Anyone from Aquitaine outwards would be pretty scared about them.
Nobles, of course, are weirdos and would enslave them just because they were exotic (same applied to African kings and well, nobility in general. Weird little shits)
Outside of Iberia, to the common peasant?
Demons. Actual fucking demons. The average farmer would flip the fuck out. City Dwellers and Freemen may have seen them before but would still be superstitious as fuck.
If you were black and happened to land there by yourself you'd probably be lynched. Or maybe expelled just in case killing you may curse the village. You best bet would be to find protection from the nobles, assuming the nobles don't freak out too.
>>602209 Islam spent most of it's time conquering africa so they are quite used to them. Ethiopia iirc has a holy land for harboring Muhammad himself during a bad campaign.
>>602940 Islam is an ethnic religion mate. To adopt Islam is to adopt Arab culture.
>>604097 >It'd be like a Jew comparing Jesus to Moses to prove a point against Christianity. Moses: Here are the 10 commandments. Obey them, and god will love you. Disobey them and perish. Now God’s people will go to Israel, God’s land. I will die leading God’s people to the promised land Jesus: Obeying the 10 commandments is not enough to be holy. Even thinking things which go against the 10 commandments is sinful. Now I will go to die in Jerusalem, the center of Israel to fulfill god’s commandments. Mohammed: Worship a rock in Mecca. Pray toward this rock 5 times a day when you take breaks from killing non believers. I will die—I mean, miraculously ascend into heaven after marrying twelve women and one 8-year old child.
>>604984 I wasn't referring to medieval history specifically, but the history of weapons in general. Spears are bows were used for hunting before they were used for warfare. They simply proved effective, and were used for that from then on. Although i admit, i am only going of something i read in a book, i'm no expert. I may have simply misunderstood the concept it was trying to convey
>>604097 >That being said many biblical figures were warriors >>Soloman lol, nope >…8"But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me. 9'Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10'He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'…
>>604799 That's not how they presented themselves.
Jesus wasn't spreading "Christianity". He was spreading the "true" Jew religion, stating that the Jews of the day were doing it wrong.
Likewise, Mohamed didn't present himself has prophet as the prophet of a new religion. He stated that Christians hadn't really understood what Jesus meant, and that the Jews were wrong in not acknowledging Jesus.
Both guys presented themselves as the last in a long, long line of prophets, not as heralds of new faiths altogether.
>>605076 Not ashamed, just unconcerned. Do you really, honestly have nothing to be proud of besides minor biological circumstance? Classification by race is fucking moronic. Socioeconomic demographics have a far greater influence on IQ, political inclination, and decision-making.
>>604949 His first statement was that most people on 4chan, aside from those boards dominated by the underage/shitposters, dislike /pol/.
Saying 4chan is mostly made up of those isn't a condraction. It's like:
Most of A minus B isn't C. "But A group is C!" There is no contradiction, because the claim wasnt' that most of A isn't C.
(A=4chan, B=underage/shirposters, C=people who like /pol/)
And his last statements weren't ad hominem, while your statement "finishing with an ad hominem and a personal, like a true SJW" was.
Honestly, I don't feel strongly about /pol/ but I find it's goes a bit downhill every time politically correctness issues are trendy, because that board attracts the kind of people that feel the need to shitpost their opinions that they can't have validated elsewhere.
>>605178 Saint maurice right? Saw a history channel documantary on him. Not sure if it is true or not, but they said that they aren't necessarily sure he was black, the church seemed to have depicted him as black because of his name. (Nothing to do with /pol/)
>>605178 >According to the hagiographical material, Maurice was born in AD 250 in Thebes, an ancient city in Egypt near the site of the 20th-century Aswan Dam. He was brought up in the region of Thebes (Luxor—Egypt) and became a soldier in the Roman army.
Yet another southern egyptians must = subsahran blacks.
Every fucking post by the multiculturalist historical revisionists in this thread is the same. Cherry pick the most fringe examples you can find (usually something/someone from Egypt), pretend that this one extreme example is indicative of common behavior. When possible, just lie. Oh yeah, and let's always pretend Northern Africa is exactly the same thing as Sub-Saharan Africa because they are both called Africa on modern maps and that means they are the same.
Here I'll do your bullshit for you: Saint Augustine was also a well known black man! And everyone in Europe knew him.
>>605269 Protip: In the late 1400s European sailing technology starts to really level up culminating in Columbus being able to navigate across the Atlantic to discover the "new world". At this same time it becomes easier to go farther down the African coast for European explorers/traders and European contact with Sub-Saharan Africa becomes much easier.
Pay very close attention to the dates of art posted here. One of the tricks historical revisionists use is to get very sloppy with them. An art piece can come centuries after an oral legend and modern (post 1492) sensibilities can change and project on to older legends. Like how Othello is very often portrayed as black nowadays when original is was a moor.
>>605258 >multiculturalist historical revisionists did you come up with that term on your own big boy?
The only historical revision I see is "whites" asserting their false notions on history, when you see shit like pic related, it's just laughable, completely laughable and utterly wrong that it's to the point blacks don't care because it's the only way whites feel any kind of relevancy in history.
>WE WUZ GREEKS N ROMANS N CELTS N GERMANICS, NIGGERS WEREN'T SHIT
lmao, continue to live your fantasy if that's what keeps you sane
Then again I think black slaves were actual thing on renaissance courts, mostly for the show-off factor - "Look, I can afford myself black(exotic) slave". As such they may have existed, in very limited quantity in medieval europe. And by limited I mean several dozens in medieval history.
Black slavery was more attractive thing when Caribbean indians have proven to be unable to work too hard on sugarcane plantations(aka died out).
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. See >>602985
You know fucking nothing about art history, or history in general. You are only concerned with it only insofar as it confirms your repugnant prejudices, and you willfully ignore everything that goes against them.
they didn't view them as savages or animals as long as they were christian, they might have been surprised by their dark skin and wooly hair, but it would be a modern bias to assume this means they have been listening to racist memes
this is a man from a tribe in papua new guinea who has never seen a white man, first thing he does is reach out to touch him
>>605357 You seem to be asserting that Saint Maurice being depicted as black in any art piece any time before 1950 must be evidence that he was in fact black despite the fact that he's actually Egyptian if he even existed at all.
I am saying after 1450 or so certain elites in Europe might have started to learn what black man is from sailors (primarily salve traders) and started depicting famous figures as black because why the fuck not. This is true of not just this example but many things.
For example, I just checked the date of this piece in the wiki. Sure enough >between circa 1517 and circa 1523 Early modern. Not medieval.
People always saw other people skin colour. People always had(changing) stereotypes about people of other races.
The point is that if you were black person on European society that was thrown there for whatever reason you could've normally function in it as long as you adopted the culture. Case in point Pushkin's grandfather.
It is kinda similar to the way people saw nationalism before French revolution. It certainly existed, but it was different and nowhere near as influential(in historical terms) back then.
>>602893 >I think an important distinction to make is the upper class' knowledge of Africans vs the lower class' knowledge of Africans. not really. for all but the last 200-400 years of human history 'knowledge' has been the monopoly of the elite. "the greeks" didn't have sophisticated philospohy and understanding of the natural world, merely some of them did. 'phylo the farmer' didn't know shit about Plato or Trigonometry. Most ruis we have were state projects or rich people's houses. All literature was written by the Elite.
As far as I can tell, they really didn't think of them as anything other than people. Hell, many of the early voyages during the Age of Exploration were to find a rumored Black Christian king in Africa.
>>605358 >You know fucking nothing about art history, or history in general. You are only concerned with it only insofar as it confirms your repugnant prejudices, and you willfully ignore everything that goes against them.
It's fucking hilarious how much ironic projection is going on here. You got me so wrong but reveal your propagandist extreme political agenda with this post. I am a socialist and despise /pol/. Sorry about your stereotypes bud. But not everyone that objects to your dishonest multicultural agenda fits cleanly into a box they told you they would fit into in your high school classes. While I've definitely gotten more conservative/racist due to the rise of SJW I still always default to the left position in history if there is such a position.
Multiculturalism (in your/the modern sense) was not a thing in medieval Europe. Just fucking accept it. Someone brought up gypsies in this thread. It's actually a great example of how full of shit you are because THERE IS ACTUAL PROOF OF GYPSIES so we know they were a thing in the medieval. People talk about them. A lot. You don't need to resort to this desperate cherry picking. The same can not remotely be said of blacks in Europe. The difference in the cultural canon is so fucking obvious.
>>605445 William Adams, aka Anjin Miura aka the protagonist of Shogun was one of the first white men ever to set foot on Japan. When he did he was eventually treated with respect and even gained elite status that would not have been afforded to an actual Japanese of non noble birth. Eventually he had a local wife and child. Despite this years later foreign barbarians were banned from Japan and Christians like Anjin were brutally hunted down for being a dangerous alien culture element.
When a person is an extreme novelty they are often treated nicely because the host culture sees them as an interesting guest and has no preconceptions. When they start meeting foreign ethnicities en masse things change quickly.
The day Europeans started seeing lots of blacks is the day racism started. The idea that this was manufactured independent of European contact with Sub-Saharan Africa by.. what?.. Satan? is ridiculous. Because the overwhelming majority had no clue what a black man was if someone ran into one on the fringes of society they would get along fine. When it becames common place common perceptions formed and old prejudices against local ethnicites (just read what the ancient Greeks thought of local non-Greeks) transferred over into prejudices against races.
>>602387 >>605348 I read Holy War by Nigel Cliff some months ago. In the beginning of Portugal's slave trade on the Guinea they imported slaves to work in Portugal, but when the slave trade got a bit intense, some portuguese king forbid slaves being brought to Portugal. Also, there were some african nobles that went to Portugal to study, see how the country was or diplomatic missions.
>>605750 Millions of people just within the Medieval period alone came from far and wide to venerate the Black Virgin, or Black Madonna as she's known. Even today Bishops pay homage to her. What's your point?
I don't care how fucking socialist you are, you are denying FACTS.
You're the one who seems to think that I'm pushing "multicultural propaganda" when all I'm doing is posting pictures of art and saying black people existed in Europe before the modern era. I have said NOTHING about them being common, I have said NOTHING about multiculturalism, and I have said NOTHING about how accepted or despised they were in antiquity.
There is TONS of textual and artistic evidence for Aethiopians being present in ancient Greece and Rome. There were obviously black people living in ancient Egypt, is is really so bizarre to think that they might have ventured across the Mediterranean as slaves, merchants, soldiers, or priests? The fucking Iliad mentions them fighting alongside the Trojans, led by their king Memnon. There is graffiti at Pompei's Lupanar that talks about fucking black girls. Sextus Empiricus mentions people having fetishes for black women. Philodemus wrote a poem to an Aethiopian with black skin whose hair "was curlier than parlsey." Ptolemy called them savages on par with the Scythians. Justinian sent envoys to Abyssinia. People fucking knew they existed.
How much longer are you going to deny broadly accepted historical consensus that black people existed in the Mediterranean world in antiquity?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.