12-01-2002, 10:25 AM
The romans were certainly not racists in any form we would recognize.<br>
<br>
"Racism" is hard to define. But we would be dangerously naive if we stopped at thinking that it is a western phenomena. Actually primitive societies were/are even more harsh and violent when it comes to defining who is IN and who is OUT. Skin color is only one possibile parameter. It could also be nose shape, height, build,... Mankind has always been very inventive in finding ways to define who should not be allowed to enter a group. "Racism" based on physical attributes? If physical attributes weren't enough to make distinctions then mankind invented costumes!<br>
<br>
Men want/need to belong and want/need to be exclusive. Hence the the necessity to define who is to be excluded. The need to be exclusive probably comes from some perception of threat (few resources). But this is another story.<br>
<br>
Personal consideration:<br>
Probably one of the reasons Christianity and even more so Islam were so successful was that anyone could participate and all are brothers. But Islam was more revolutionary and rigorous on this point than the superficial Christian Europeans, at least until recently when other social forces brought secular concepts into play (separation state from relgion, egalitarianism, democracy...).<br>
<br>
I believe that modern european racism started about 500 years ago, but embryonic forms can be found during the crusades. I am tempted to say that it can be recognized in its present form by the time the Catholic Spaniards and Portuguese took control of Central and Southern America. Maybe the Christians had to further perfect that type of mind set to sustain the re-conquest of Spain and by the time Columbus made his journey, the ideology was ready.<br>
<br>
But in trying to remain open to the possibility of making new connections one should then ask what went thru the minds of the Islamic slave traders that sold the slaves to the racist europeans. I think the deep african animistic blacks were guilty not of being black, but of being 100% pagan. They had no status. The Islamic attitude towards Christians and Jews was certainly more tollerant because the Jews were the first people to worship the true God (Jews = people of the book) and even the later Christians were on the right track.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
"Racism" is hard to define. But we would be dangerously naive if we stopped at thinking that it is a western phenomena. Actually primitive societies were/are even more harsh and violent when it comes to defining who is IN and who is OUT. Skin color is only one possibile parameter. It could also be nose shape, height, build,... Mankind has always been very inventive in finding ways to define who should not be allowed to enter a group. "Racism" based on physical attributes? If physical attributes weren't enough to make distinctions then mankind invented costumes!<br>
<br>
Men want/need to belong and want/need to be exclusive. Hence the the necessity to define who is to be excluded. The need to be exclusive probably comes from some perception of threat (few resources). But this is another story.<br>
<br>
Personal consideration:<br>
Probably one of the reasons Christianity and even more so Islam were so successful was that anyone could participate and all are brothers. But Islam was more revolutionary and rigorous on this point than the superficial Christian Europeans, at least until recently when other social forces brought secular concepts into play (separation state from relgion, egalitarianism, democracy...).<br>
<br>
I believe that modern european racism started about 500 years ago, but embryonic forms can be found during the crusades. I am tempted to say that it can be recognized in its present form by the time the Catholic Spaniards and Portuguese took control of Central and Southern America. Maybe the Christians had to further perfect that type of mind set to sustain the re-conquest of Spain and by the time Columbus made his journey, the ideology was ready.<br>
<br>
But in trying to remain open to the possibility of making new connections one should then ask what went thru the minds of the Islamic slave traders that sold the slaves to the racist europeans. I think the deep african animistic blacks were guilty not of being black, but of being 100% pagan. They had no status. The Islamic attitude towards Christians and Jews was certainly more tollerant because the Jews were the first people to worship the true God (Jews = people of the book) and even the later Christians were on the right track.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
