Did racism exist in the West before the late 15th century?

[syncrolecyne]

Did Ancient and Medieval people in the 'West' (Ancient Near East, Greece, Rome, Medieval Christianity, Islamate) have any real concept of 'race' or act in a racist way ever?

It seems that racism really doesn't appear in any context until the 'discovery' of the America's in the late 15th century, the subsequent emergence of the transatlantic African slave trade, and the persecutions and expulsions of Jews and Muslims from Iberia at the same time - when even 'coverted' Jews and Muslims become suspect because of their 'unclean' blood.

Were these events the catalysts of racism? Were there any 'racists' before this period in history? I know some groups such as the Hellenic era Greeks and the Ancient Israelites come across as xenophobic in some writings - but they don't seem to have the same racialistic views as modern peoples (Ruth was a non-Jewish woman who converted and became a Hebrew heroine, King Solomon married a Ethiopian queen, etc). Romans and early Christians also didn't seem to discriminate on any 'racial' basis. Essentially, was 'racism' invented at the beginning of the modern era?

[woolly]

I'd be prepared to bet that the Cro-Magnon's told racist jokes about the Nethanderals. Of course, find a cite for that might be difficult.

[sirjamesp]

Saxons were treated as second class people following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066. Does that count?

[MEBuckner]

The concept of "race" as a "biological subdivision" of the human species--a kind of sub-species of Homo sapiens--does indeed date back only to the early modern period; therefore, the concept of "inferior" and "superior" "races" did not exist before then. People certainly persecuted each other based on a variety of distinctions, real and imagined--Greek vs. barbarian, Jew vs. gentile, lord vs. commoner, True Believer vs. infidel, orthodox vs. heretic, etc., etc.--but the specific kind of stupidity called "racism" is a fairly recent innovation. (I don't know if skin color per se was ever a basis for bigotry before the early modern era.) One effect of the European long-range voyages of discovery was that you suddenly got guys from say, England, coming into contact with people from Nigeria or China. If you travel overland, then as soon as you cross the English Channel, you're in a foreign land, full of people with outlandish customs who don't talk right and eat strange foods and may (depending on what era you're in) be heretics who follow a "false religion" (or at least an erroneous version of the true religion), but they don't look that different from the good, normal people back home. (Naturally, the Frenchmen are thinking all the same things about our English traveler in return.) Travelling south, people's languages and customs gradually change; so do their physical appearance--by the time you get to southern Italy, people are noticeably darker than they are in Leeds or Normandy. But there's no sharp cut off--people in northern Italy can be quite fair-skinned; people to the south tend to be a bit darker skinned; travelling around the Mediterranean, people are apt to be fairly swarthy. On the other side of the Mediterranean, people are still "Mediterranean", but now you begin to encounter more darkly-featured people from deeper in the African continent--if you join a caravan crossing the Sahara, you'll reach lands where everyone is a quite dark shade of brown. But looking back on your journey, it's clear that humans belong to a smooth spectrum of physical types, not several distinct "races". Similar results will obtain for a journey across Eurasia to China.

Getting on a ship and sailing directly from Northern Europe to Africa or China, though, is like walking into a hotel where there happens to be a convention of the North American Professional Jockeys Association and a re-union of the past players of the Harlem Globetrotters--you walk from one meeting hall to the next, and you'd be tempted to say humans belong to two "races", the "shorts" and the "talls". But of course, if you look around on an ordinary street, humans come in a variety of heights, and can't possibly be divided into distinct groups based on that.

[syncrolecyne]

Originally posted by sirjamesp
Saxons were treated as second class people following the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066. Does that count?

I don't know. I have always wondered how long the 'Saxon-Norman' division really lasted after 1066, and whether much of it in the popular imagination came from sources like Sir Walter Scott and other 19th century accounts. And weren't the Saxons only one tribe among several in England? We never hear about the Normans and Jutes, Angles, or Danes. Anyway, I suppose the barriers between them were mainly cultural, and perhaps rooted in competing feudal loyalties.

Did the Normans really believe - at least for a time - that the Saxons were of inferior "blood" or anything resembling a "Race"?


I am not an expert in British history, but I know for instance when the Germanic peoples invaded parts of the Roman Empire they remained ethnically separate for some time, due to religious beliefs (which Roman Christians found heretical), and differences in law (Germanic personal law versus Roman civil law). But after the initial friction, intermarriage and absorption rapidly occured.

[SuaSponte]

I'd be shocked if it didn't. As MEBuckner correctly pointed out, the concepts of race and racism, as we understand them today, are fairly recent in origin.
But grouping people according to appearance is not - indeed, I've read of recent studies (sorry, no cite) where this behavior appears to be ingrained. It doesn't have to be done on the basis of skin color or other attributes normally associated with ethnicity, but they are plainly apparent distinctions upon which grouping of person can, and almost definitely were, made in the past.

Part of the issue is that, until quite recently, there wasn't much interaction between notably distinct racial groupings. The Roman empire may be a bit of an exception, but even there, the overwhelming majority of Romans probably never saw a Nubian, except perhaps in the gladiator arena.

Sua

[december]

My guess would be that the West deserves credit for creating the concept that racism is a bad thing -- something to be eradicated. The use of the pejorative word "racism" is one way that the West fights against racism.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the West deserves credit for initiating and promoting worldwide the concept that slavery is evil. AFAIK certain Christian groups in the US and England were the first ever in the world to take this moral stand.

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by december
AFAIK certain Christian groups in the US and England were the first ever in the world to take this moral stand. True - and in fact the British were the first to outlaw slavery, which was banned throughout the Empire in 1833 (and had been banned in England since 1722!).

[sirjamesp]

Or 1772, even.

Though they were still trading until 1807, mind you.

[Spoke]

I have to disagree with MEBuckner. I think the conept of race, and the evils of racism have been around for a looooong time.

Check out this Biblical passage, from Numbers chapter 12, verse 1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=NUM+12:1&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on):

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

And then there's this passage from Jeremiah chapter 13, verse 23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+13:23&language=english&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on):

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

[tomndebb]

My guess would be that the West deserves credit for creating the concept that racism is a bad thing -- something to be eradicated. Well, that was nice of them--as they created the concept to begin with.

As MEBuckner mentioned, humans have always had an "us vs them" attitude in the world. This is actually liable to have stemmed from pre-human "attitudes." As SuaSponte pointed out, it appears that there are some innate reactions to "others"--and similar reactions have been observed among the great apes.

Certainly, throughout history, we have example after example of groups expressing the idea that they are "better" than their neighbors or that they have some natural superiority to all other peoples. The Chinese, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, all left writings to that effect. When the Portuguese first began exploring and trading on the West Coast of Africa, they reported with dismay that the kingdoms with whom they were trading looked down on them as barbaric.

However, the Chinese, the Egyptians and the Romans each suffered "barbarian" invasions and each eventually embraced and absorbed the invaders. There is also ample evidence throughout history that "foreign" or "alien" individuals could be accepted into a society based on personal merit.

There are numerous examples in Europe, from the period at the very cusp of the advent of racism, of black Africans marrying into white groups without any shame or stigma. (It may have been a novelty effect overwhelming general xenophobia, but it definitely happened.)

It was not until Linnaeus began putting all life into boxes that people began to write philosophical and proto-scientific texts explaining that specific groups throughout the entire world were "higher" or "lower". That was a Western European invention.

The Chinese had texts detailing the superiority of the Chinese, but they had no texts rating other peoples by imagined qualities. The same is true of the Romans.

Only in the Western European-controlled Americas did the notion arise that a person could be singled out for slavery simply by their appearance. Prior to the Atlantic slave trade, slaves were simply war captives. Once the Atlantic slave trade got going, laws were passed to inhibit the freeing of slaves because of their "low" status and, in some places, laws were passed that permitted the re-enslavement of persons based on their appearance.

Xenophobia? The world is filled with it.
Racism? That is a European invention.

[gobear]

The Chinese had texts detailing the superiority of the Chinese, but they had no texts rating other peoples by imagined qualities.

hate to contradict you, Tom, but the Asians were way ahead of the europeans in this respect.

In China, the Han racial majority has always discriminated against the ethnic minorities of the West and South.

Moreover, Chinese records dating back to the Tang dynasty refer to the Japanese as "barbarian dwarves." The Tang also called the Silla Kingdom (modern-day Korea) "stinking garlic-eaters."

Now you could make a case that scientific racism was invented by the Europeans, but onl;y because they made the first formal ethnographic studies of alien peoples, not because they invented the racial slur.

[tomndebb]

Regarding Aaron, Miriam, and Moses, their complaint against the Cushite woman appears to be that Moses had married outside the chosen people, not that he had married into any particular "lower" group.

As to the passage in Jeremiah, certainly people have long recognized that there are different colors among peoples. The Greek story of Phaeton notes that when he allowed the sun chariot to get out of control, the Egyptians were toasted dark. However, there is no general statement among the Greeks that Ethiopians are of a lesser "race" of men than any other--they were simply noticeably darker. Jeremiah does not speak against the Cushites, only noting that they cannot change their skin color.

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Regarding Aaron, Miriam, and Moses, their complaint against the Cushite woman appears to be that Moses had married outside the chosen people, not that he had married into any particular "lower" group. Doesn't the very idea of a "chosen" people imply that other groups are lower?

[tomndebb]

No. In the Jewish tradition, the Jews are chosen to hold forth God's rules to the world. It is an obligation, not an honor.

[tomndebb]

And if anyone insists on viewing "chosen" as an elevating term, it merely corroborates what I had originally explained: all groups see themselves as the best. It took Western European "Enlightenment" thought to express a new idea that people could be rated on some scale other than "us vs them."

[Collounsbury]

Quick note as I'm buried.

Originally posted by SuaSponte

Part of the issue is that, until quite recently, there wasn't much interaction between notably distinct racial groupings. The Roman empire may be a bit of an exception, but even there, the overwhelming majority of Romans probably never saw a Nubian, except perhaps in the gladiator arena.


I disagree.

(a) North Africa -- Roman settled as you recall during the Empire -- had indigenous 'Eithiopian' -- meaning black/really dark skinned pops which had no relation with slave trade. Apparently of neolithic origin.
(b) Trade with North East Africa and Yemen was fairly intense.

While there certainly weren't millions of people moving about, especially on the North African sector there is an opportunity.

The problem really is a matter of organizing theories.

In this manner gobear missed the point on the Han: to my understanding the issue in China is as elsewhere, ethnocentrism but no fixed barriers. Assimilation to the ethnicity was possible, and no hard barriers were extent. However, this is very 2nd hand so I am pretending no expertise here in re China.

[LonesomePolecat]

You have to make a distinction between racism as mere ethnocentric prejudice and racism as an explicit political ideology. Ethnic prejudice is a common human trait and shows up just about everywhere. Racism as a political ideology evolved in the wake of Western imperialism as a moral rationalization for the West's global domination and as a means of keeping the lower classes divided and blind to their common interests.

Another thing you have to consider is that the Left believes "racism" to be the most horrid sin anyone could possibly commit and so believes that the West is somehow the most horrible civilization which ever existed. Anyone with common sense can see that conquering and/or enslaving someone because they belong to another religion or tribe can hardly be better than enslaving them because they belong to another race. Still another problem is that most discussions of slavery are only about legally or socially recognized forms of slavery and generally ignore informal or de facto forms of bondage such as child labor or debt slavery. This has the effect of making it seem that only blacks have ever been slaves in the modern West when in fact many whites have been exploited and brutalized as badly as any black slave.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by LonesomePolecat
You have to make a distinction between racism as mere ethnocentric prejudice and racism as an explicit political ideology. Ethnic prejudice is a common human trait and shows up just about everywhere. Racism as a political ideology evolved in the wake of Western imperialism as a moral rationalization for the West's global domination and as a means of keeping the lower classes divided and blind to their common interests.


I would argue that it is rather more complicated than that, having its origins instead in the interaction of rise of scientific thinking tied to some issues you raise. However, I haven't the time.


Another thing you have to consider is that the Left believes "racism" to be the most horrid sin anyone could possibly commit and so believes that the West is somehow the most horrible civilization which ever existed.


There are those in the academic left who write that way. They are simple minded fools. Or axe grinders.

However,

Anyone with common sense can see that conquering and/or enslaving someone because they belong to another religion or tribe can hardly be better than enslaving them because they belong to another race.


The greater problem and the nastiness arise from the consequences, not the initial act.

Most slave systems (See Patternson's global survey) tended to integrative, that is the slave, or his or her immediate descendants eventually were integrated into the "new" society. The Americas' system was a stark departure. Once in, no exit -- with very few exceptions, and those declined with time.

Contrast this with the Islamic system where freeng slaves was considered a 'good work' and the ideology of Umm Walid, mother of my child ensured a relatively high first generation rate of freeing for women. (Specific injunction actually, but the ideology which supported the legal principle is important.


Still another problem is that most discussions of slavery are only about legally or socially recognized forms of slavery and generally ignore informal or de facto forms of bondage such as child labor or debt slavery.


Are vastly different, see once more the majesterial analysis of Patterson, _Slavery and Social Death_ examining such issues.

The social meaning, the avenues closed off are quite important. Lack of punishment, actual legal sanctioning of killing a slave by its proper owner, for example, versus the 'bonded laborers' retention of basic social rights. Abused to be sure, but the basic social contract and thus ability to aspire to improved place was there.

That is a key difference, one which a pure single generation economic analysis misses. Multi-generation, especially in re the Americas system reveals the starkly different aggregate difference. I note aggregate because one can always find exceptions to the rule.


This has the effect of making it seem that only blacks have ever been slaves in the modern West when in fact many whites have been exploited and brutalized as badly as any black slave.

On an individual basis, surely, however this verges on gross dishonesty when one considers the macro-level differences.

There is no legitimate reason to make this argument, to counter the West is evil rubbish one need not use an alternate form of distortion.

[SuaSponte]

Collounsbury, I knew that someone would make that objection to my comment about the Roman empire, but I stand by it. Trade and settlement connections with nations of different races did not cause large-scale interaction between the average Roman and the average Yemeni, Ethiopian, etc. That was the point I was trying to make.

One way of addressing this question is to look at what the Romans wrote about Ethiopians and the like. Anyone know?

Sua

[Collounsbury]

See Snowdon (sp) -- historian publishing through the 1980s as I recall. Has some characterizations. There are writings on the 'burnt' Libyans or Eithopians of Libya, meaning the dark part of North African pops. As I recall they ran the gamut of ick to interesting, with the usual dose of ethnocentrism.

Sorry Sua, while I think you've a point, I don't think that contact is the driver for racism --as opposed to ethnocentrism.

Racism seems fairly clearly to be a byproduct --call it a polluting waste product-- of changes in thinking which lead to the Sci. Revolution.

[gobear]

In this manner gobear missed the point on the Han: to my understanding the issue in China is as elsewhere, ethnocentrism but no fixed barriers. Assimilation to the ethnicity was possible, and no hard barriers were extent.

Missed the point, my foot. Tom said that the Chinese had no texts rating other peoples by imagined qualities, and I showed that he was in error on this point. I was not addressing legal prohibitions on racial intermarriage.

In that matter, although there were strong prejudices against intermarriage, the Chinese did not enact formal legal barriers against it. However the Qing dynasty (1644-1911)did forbid intermarriage between the Manchu ruling class and their Han subjects.

[december]

Does anyone know when the words racist and racism came into common usage. I don't remember them from my youth in the 1950s. Bigot was the word of choice IIRC. And discrimination lost its non-pejorative sense about that time.

[tomndebb]

Merriam-Webster says that racism was coined/cited initially in 1936.

I haven't found a reference to when it became common.

[Helen's Eidolon]

To answer some questions about the Roman empire: (I am in a Roman history class currently, I think what I am saying is correct, but of course someone who is more knoeldgeable may come along and correct me)

We don't know what they thought about race. Why? Because they never mention it in their writings. At all. Severus, a Roman emperor in the Late Empire (193-211 CE), was born in Africa. His skin colour is never mentioned, but in a portrait we have of him, he is very dark-skinned in contrast to his wife, and does indeed have some of the facial characteristics of black people.

I'd say that they had no notion of race in the way we mean.

The Egyptians, as well, I would argue had no concept of race. A a certain point, the Kushites (Nubians) took over the rule, and race was never mentioned.

[Spoke]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Regarding Aaron, Miriam, and Moses, their complaint against the Cushite woman appears to be that Moses had married outside the chosen people, not that he had married into any particular "lower" group.

Biblical passages suggest that the Jews in the Mosaic period considered all other peoples to be "lower."

The first reference I can find to the Jews as a "chosen" people is Deuteronomy chapter 7, verse 6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+7:6&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on):

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
(My emphasis.)

So it seems the Jews of the time did not just consider themselves separate from other peoples, but above other peoples. The Ethiopians were just one of many such peoples. However, the passages from Numbers and Jeremiah make it pretty clear that they were regarded as a distinct "race."

Maybe the disagreement in this thread is a semantic one. Some folks seem to be defining "racism" to mean the use of a sliding scale to measure the relative merits of different races. If that is the definition, then racism may well be of recent coinage.

However, if racism is defined to mean recognition of distinct ethnic groups combined with bigotry against those groups, then I think the cited Biblical passages indicate that racism has been with us for a while.

As to the passage in Jeremiah, certainly people have long recognized that there are different colors among peoples...Jeremiah does not speak against the Cushites, only noting that they cannot change their skin color.

I included the passage from Jeremiah not as a stand-alone example of racism, but to demonstrate that the ancient Jews regarded the "Ethiopians" ("Cushites" in some translations from the original Hebrew) to be an ethnically distinct people, whom the Jews classified on the basis of their physical appearance. In other words, they were a recognized "race" of people.

[tomndebb]

Biblical passages suggest that the Jews in the Mosaic period considered all other peoples to be "lower."Which conforms to the general observation that all groups--Chinese, Japanese, Romans, Greeks, Ibos, Navajos, Normans, Saxons, and everyone else--considered themselves to be the best of all people and, certainly, better than their neighbors. I included the passage from Jeremiah not as a stand-alone example of racism, but to demonstrate that the ancient Jews regarded the "Ethiopians" ("Cushites" in some translations from the original Hebrew) to be an ethnically distinct people, whom the Jews classified on the basis of their physical appearance. In other words, they were a recognized "race" of people.They clearly recognized that they were of a different color.

When I first encountered the notion that racism (as opposed to xenophobia or the exaltation of one's own group) might be a later development in human thought, I did not immediately accept that idea. The Greek story of Phaeton, the reference in Jeremiah that identified the Cushite by skin color, and a Roman reference that I cannot now recall that made specific reference to dark-skinned Nubians seemed to indicate that people were very much aware of "race."

However, reviewing all the places in literature where these ideas have been expressed, I noticed a particular feature: the only distinction made is that of skin color. There is no reference to the people of different colors being smarter or more stupid, no references to them being stronger or weaker, no references to them being more highly civilized or being incapable of achieving civilization within their own society.

In other words, once one gets past the standard feature that "We are the best" embraced by all cultures, there is no evidence prior to the seventeenth century that any group's color is associated with any attribute other than that color.

The association of physical features with characteristics other than those physical features (which would be how I would generally identify racism) is lacking prior to the earliest attempts to put scientific labels on groups.

- - -

One further piece of evidence (that is, to my mind, strongly suggestive, but I will not offer it as proof): the word race in English picked up a new meaning in that same period.
Prior to the effort of Linnaeus and his followers to extend their system of categories beyond plants and animals and to set up separate categories within the human species, the word race was a reference to a people with a perceived or mythological common ancestor. Romans descending from Romulus, Jews descending from Abraham, Irish descending from Milesius, etc. While it identified a group, it was clear that people married into such groups and that others were adopted ino such groups. They were perceived as extended families subject to the normal modifications to familial descent. They were not considered as separate people except as they chose to hold themselves in a coherent body.

After Linnaeus and company began their attempts at scientific pigeon-holing, the word race was borrowed to describe the new categories that were based on physical appearance and physical location.

The lack of that meaning prior to Linnaeus suggests (to me) that the concept was not one that needed to be expressed, since it did not exist.

His skin colour is never mentioned, but in a portrait we have of him, he is very dark-skinned in contrast to his wifeGiven my position in this discussion, I would love to use this point to bolster my argument, but it should be noted that during various periods, Roman art tended to express male virility using dark skin and female beauty using pale skin. (If his facial features demonstrate a kinship with Ethiopians or Nubians, that may be significant, but I suspect that the skin tones in his portrait are less relevant.)

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by LaurAnge
We don't know what they thought about race. Why? Because they never mention it in their writings. At all.


See Snowdon. Wrote on classical perceptions. Race per se not mentioned, physical differences are, but the general impression is that they were not given the same meaning or importance.


I'd say that they had no notion of race in the way we mean.


Quite right.


The Egyptians, as well, I would argue had no concept of race. A a certain point, the Kushites (Nubians) took over the rule, and race was never mentioned.

Precisely, spoke is misreading the past statements, ethnic difference is not operative in the saem way as race.

[Spoke]

So then Tom, if race was not an issue to the ancient Jews, why didn't the writer use the generic term "gentile" to refer to the non-Jewish wife of Moses? Why did the writer state specifically that Miriam and Aaron spoke against her because she was an Ethiopian?

This suggests to me that her race was a matter of some concern, and that she was not simply being scorned for her "non-Jewishness."

[tomndebb]

My comment was certainly not that worthy of repetition.
Please delete the second post, thanks.

[Second copy of the post deleted. -- MEB]

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by spoke-
So then Tom, if race was not an issue to the ancient Jews, why didn't the writer use the generic term "gentile" to refer to the non-Jewish wife of Moses? Why did the writer state specifically that Miriam and Aaron spoke against her because she was an Ethiopian?

This suggests to me that her race was a matter of some concern, and that she was not simply being scorned for her "non-Jewishness."


I suppose the real questions are the following:

(a) What precisely you mean by race in the context of the usage: that is is skin color the organizing category for viewing Ethiopians.
(b) on what basis do you suppose "Ethiopian" is a race as opposed to an ethnic designation -- that is difference noted of course, but skin color ascribed as the causation of that difference.
(c) An understanding of when the texts use ethnic designations and when they do not.

It may be that Ethiopians qua Ethiopians (not as the "race" of dark people) were disliked by Miriam and Aaron. There seems no in context reason to presume that Ethiopians were considered as a race in the modern meaning.

[tomndebb]

why didn't the writer use the generic term "gentile" to refer to the non-Jewish wife of Moses? I dunno. Because the story is better told with concrete terms than with generic terms? If the story read "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the gentile woman whom he had married: for he had married a gentile woman." it would have been rather vague. On the other hand, any Israelite who heard the story would recognize that a Cushite was a gentile, but naming her country of origin makes the story more easily visualized by the audience.

I can't prove the point, but the fact that various Cushites are mentioned in different stories* and are either praised or scorned according to their actions, not according to their origins, suggests to me that the Jews did not hold any special contempt for Cushites.
(And there is still the whole problematic notion that it is not clear that the Cushites were, actually, Ethiopians. When the Cushites come against the Israelites as an army, it is as an Egyptian army, not as an Ethiopian one. I do not know why the translators of the KJV chose to translate Cush as Ethiopia, but the translation does not seem to be supportable. The inhabitants of the Upper Nile may tend to be darker than those of the Lower Nile, but, as has been pointed out, no ancient author claims that they are a different "race.")

* 2 Samuel 18
2 Kings 19
2 Chronicles 12
2 Chronicles 14
2 Chronicles 16
2 Chronicles 21
Isaiah 20
Isaiah 37
Jeremiah 13
Jeremiah 38 - 39

[Spoke]

The passages from Numbers and from Jeremiah, viewed together, suggest that the ancient Jews did view the "Ethiopians" (or "Cushites") as a distinct race, with distinctive physical features. It takes a lot of spinning to ignore that, I think.

The verse from Numbers implies that the Jews (or some of them, anyway) took a dim view of Ethiopians.

And speaking of ancient racism, isn't the caste system of India regarded as a vestigial relic of an ancient system of Aparteid? And aren't the castes still at least somewhat distinguishable by the tone of their skin? (Though the differences may have been muted over the centuries...)

So why this need to view racism as a recent development (relatively speaking)? Seems to me that it has always been with us, in varying forms.

[W.G.H.]

I am unsure if there was a specific time in which "scientific racism" originated, however I would not be surprised if it existed in ancient times.

Regardless, the seeds of racism - human pride - have been around for some time now.

[Spoke]

I can't prove the point, but the fact that various Cushites are mentioned in different stories* and are either praised or scorned according to their actions, not according to their origins, suggests to me that the Jews did not hold any special contempt for Cushites.

I could show you plenty of stories from American culture which depict blacks in a morally neutral light. Does that mean there is no racism in America?

The story in Numbers seems to me to be a tale of ancient racism. But hey, it's no big surprise that different people can interpret the Bible differently.

And there is still the whole problematic notion that it is not clear that the Cushites were, actually, Ethiopians.

I'm not sure why that is particularly problematic with respect to the discussion at hand. Whether they were from Cush or from Ethiopia, it is clear that the Jews regarded them as a physically distinctive group.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by spoke-
The passages from Numbers and from Jeremiah, viewed together, suggest that the ancient Jews did view the "Ethiopians" (or "Cushites") as a distinct race, with distinctive physical features. It takes a lot of spinning to ignore that, I think.



You think, I rather agree with Tom. Putting two (translated) passages together out of context, above all in

I note further one has to define race, what one is actually talking about. Israelites viewing dark skinned curly haired people as a single entity?


The verse from Numbers implies that the Jews (or some of them, anyway) took a dim view of Ethiopians.


You're putting a whole lot on an ambiguous phrasing, in translation.

To have an answer we need to see if mention of Ethiopian or Cushite occurs in a different pattern than other ethnic ex-Israelite mentions, whether there were more pejortative usages in re the same in the original Hebrew. This is not the sort of thing one can analyze by putting translated passages next to each other.


And speaking of ancient racism, isn't the caste system of India regarded as a vestigial relic of an ancient system of Aparteid? And aren't the castes still at least somewhat distinguishable by the tone of their skin? (Though the differences may have been muted over the centuries...)


Racism? I don't know enough about the history of the caste system over time to comment much, but insofar as the caste system appears internal to the religion and is found in southern areas where skin color differences are not an issue, I'd say that on its face no.

However, one would need t consult some in depth and rigorous scholarly studies on the caste system and its genesis(es).

One needs to approach these things in a non-superficial manner.


So why this need to view racism as a recent development (relatively speaking)? Seems to me that it has always been with us, in varying forms.

Need? No need, it is intellectual rigor as opposed sloppines or superficiality. You appear to badly misunderstanding the issue, which is not whether there has been ugly in versus out group discrimination throughout history, but the nature of such discrimination. A wide literature exists on this, quite convincing and analytically rigorous --rather more so than putting two translated passages next to each other.

[tomndebb]

a distinct race, with distinctive physical features
And no other collective attributes.

No one has claimed that people were unable to recognize physical differences between groups. (I have made the point, myself, at least twice in this thread.)

No one has claimed that the whole world lived in perfect harmony prior to the seventeenth century. (I have made this point, as well.)

The issue regarding racism is whether there was any set of beliefs in which an entire group of people was generally described in ways that associated their appearance with evaluations of their worth.

In the Indian caste system, for example, it is possible to recognize some members of certain ethnic groups who are more likely to belong to specific castes in certain situations. However, there is no general categorization of caste purely by appearance. (In fact, there is evidence that people have been able to change caste at different times, through history.)

No references to the Cushites in the bible describe the Cushites as having any specific qualities. Hating a group that is not one's own (particularly when one is at war with them) hardly counts as prima facie evidence of a "racial" identification. There are plenty of slurs passed around among the Germans, French, British, Spanish, and Italians, yet no one would consider their antipathy as "racial."

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by spoke-
I could show you plenty of stories from American culture which depict blacks in a morally neutral light. Does that mean there is no racism in America?


No because one can point to clear signs of pervasive non-morally neutral feelings in re American and blacks.

You have an ambiguous phrase.


I'm not sure why that is particularly problematic with respect to the discussion at hand. Whether they were from Cush or from Ethiopia, it is clear that the Jews regarded them as a physically distinctive group.


Wonderful, that's not the point nor has it been. The question is the extent to which phsyical difference qua physical difference was attached to having certain values, immutable ones, versus the generic "us best, you guys suck" which exists seperately from the actual physical attributes.

Racism, as Tom and I have referred to it, refers not to the generic us versus them but to the particular compartmenting of prejudice and its organization along quasi-scientific grounds.

Unfortunately this gets into the history of science which rather goes beyond the capacity of a board to really explicate. There are some good works on this... and I can't think of a full cite off the top of my head. will ahve to come back for that.

[Spoke]

Collousbury, the Hebrew word translated as "Ethiopian" or "Cushite" in the verse from Numbers is the same as the Hebrew word translated as "Ethiopian" or "Cushite" in the verse from Jeremiah.

But not being one for "superficial" analysis, you knew that, didn't you?

Besides which, there is other evidence that the objection to the wife of Moses was based upon the color of her skin.

Look at how Miriam was punished for speaking out against the woman:

And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

Numbers 12:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=NUM+12:1-2&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on). (My emphasis.)

It appears to me that God is indulging in a little ironic punishment, turning Miriam "white as snow" to punish her for speaking against the black wife of Moses. (Why else would the author use the "white as snow" imagery?)

It gets harder to ignore the racial element of the story, no? But if you're determined to ignore it, I suppose you can find a way.

[eponymous]

Originally posted by spoke-

And speaking of ancient racism, isn't the caste system of India regarded as a vestigial relic of an ancient system of Aparteid? And aren't the castes still at least somewhat distinguishable by the tone of their skin? (Though the differences may have been muted over the centuries...)

I'm not an expert on the history of India, so those more knowledgeable please correct as needed.

My understanding is that elements of the caste system were initially based on an individuals' occupation and was brought/introduced into Southern Asia (India) by people speaking Sanskrit (sometimes these people are refered to as "Arayans"). There's some debate as to whether this group of people displaced the native peoples (who spoke Dravadian languages), forcing them to migrate into Central and Southern India; or whether the original inhabitants migrating into Central and Southern India prior to the arrival of the Aryans.

While in general, those speaking Dravidian languages tend to be a bit darker complected than those speaking Indo-Eurpean based languages (due to their geographic location in Southern India), it is not the case that a person's "race" can be generally discerned by the caste they belong to. There are light and dark-skinned Brahmins as well as light and dark skinned "Untouchables." Again, the key to the caste system was a person's (and latter the family's) occupation.

Also, there was quite a bit of assimilation that took place amongst the Indo-Eurpean/Dravidian speaking peoples. The caste system evolved cojointly along with the development and evolution of Hinduism, making the caste system a fairly rigid social hierarchy.

[Spoke]

And here's a little background on India's caste system (http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm).

From the site:...The basic castes are called "varn.as," or "colors."...

...Associated with each varn.a there is a traditional color. These sound suspiciously like skin colors; and, indeed, there is an expectation in India that higher caste people will have lighter skin -- although there are plenty of exceptions. This all probably goes back to the original invasion of the Arya, who came from Central Asia and so were undoubtedly light skinned. The people already in India were quite dark, even as today many people in India seem positively black.

So, as I suggested earlier, the caste system appears to be a relic of an ancient system of Apartheid, with the original racial distinctions having been muted over time by, er, "cross-pollination."

There is nothing new under the sun. Racism has been with us for ages.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by spoke-
Collousbury, the Hebrew word translated as "Ethiopian" or "Cushite" in the verse from Numbers is the same as the Hebrew word translated as "Ethiopian" or "Cushite" in the verse from Jeremiah.


Huh? Relevance? You seem to have badly if unsurprisingly misread or misunderstood my comments. Reread.


But not being one for "superficial" analysis, you knew that, didn't you?


I'm not a biblical scholar, I could care less, reread my comments to get at what I was actually refering to.

Besides which, there is other evidence that the objection to the wife of Moses was based upon the color of her skin.

Look at how Miriam was punished for speaking out against the woman:



Numbers 12:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=NUM+12:1-2&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on). (My emphasis.)

It appears to me that God is indulging in a little ironic punishment, turning Miriam "white as snow" to punish her for speaking against the black wife of Moses. (Why else would the author use the "white as snow" imagery?)


For the simple reason that the imagery was associated with "leprosy"?


It gets harder to ignore the racial element of the story, no? But if you're determined to ignore it, I suppose you can find a way.

Well, if one wants to read anachronistically without regard to the language and make strained conclusions based on modern associations, I suppose it would look that way.

[tomndebb]

So, as I suggested earlier, the caste system appears to be a relic of an ancient system of Apartheid, with the original racial distinctions having been muted over time by, er, "cross-pollination." Or, given that the colors--white, red, brown, black--are not actually associated with skin color, but can, conceivably, be associated with occupation--white, no manual labor; red, warrior; brown, farmer; black, laborer--they might just as easily represent the division between conqueror and conquered with a structure imposed by occupation. The untouchables do not even have a color.

The Encyclopædia Britannica comments on the varna:The Sanskrit word varna has many connotations including description, selection, classification, and colour. Of these, it is colour that appears to have been the intended meaning of the word as used by the Aryan authors of the Rigveda. The Aryans (arya, “noble,” “distinguished”) were the branch of Indo-European peoples that migrated about 1,500 BCE to northwestern India (the Indus Valley and the Punjab Plain), where they encountered the local, dark-skinned people they called the daha (enemies) or the dasa (servants). It is also likely that the daha included earlier immigrants from Iran. The tendency of some 20th-century writers to reduce the ancient bipolar classification to racial differences on the basis of skin colour is misleading and rightly no longer in vogue.

In any event, there is no Indian literature that describes people as superior or inferior according to their innate appearance.

It is possible that some form of racism (as we would now define it) did occur, but the evidence is lacking.

[tomndebb]

Regarding the use of the words racism and racist: the OED cites three examples from the 1930s, one from the 1940s, three from the 1950s, three from the 1960s, and six from the 1970s.

Of course, one criterion for citation is to display slightly shaded meanings and the OED draws from the entire English-speaking world, so it is possible that a lot of repetitive use in the U.S. in the 1960s could have been missed, but it appears that usage did swell in the 1970s.

[cmkeller]

spoke-

You have mischaracterized the matter of the Miriam's and Aaron's complaint in Numbers. The rest of the chapter sheds more light on the true nature of their complaint. In verse 2, Miriam says, "Is only Moses a prophet? Aren't we prophets too?" G-d's response to this, in verses 6-8, is to illustrate to them the holier nature of Moses's prophecy. In other words, the gist is clearly that Moses is claiming his prophecy to be a reason for some action that Miriam and Aaron never felt required, by virtue of their prophetic nature, to do.

This is an odd context if the complaint that Moses should not have married a Cushite. The traditional Jewish understanding of this passage is that Cushite women were considered extraordinarily beautiful, and that Moses was doing a disservice by taking such a beautiful wife and then, upon becoming a prophet, remaining celibate from her (his sons were born prior to the burning bush incident), as velibacy had not been required of the two of them. G-d's response is that the nature of Moses's prophecy was holier than theirs and thus requires a greater degree of separation from the physical (you might also recall that, in a similar vein, the Bible says that when Moses was on Mount Sinai, he did not eat or drink for forty days. Exodus 34:28).

In any case, Moses's wife, although not born of the Israelite tribe, was certainly well-versed enough in Israelite tradition to have circumcised her son (Exodus 4:24-26). According to Jewish tradition, she, her father, Jethro and their entire family were converts to the faith.

[Collounsbury]

Chaim,

Interesting comments. A few questions/obs.

Originally posted by cmkeller
This is an odd context if the complaint that Moses should not have married a Cushite. The traditional Jewish understanding of this passage is that Cushite women were considered extraordinarily beautiful, and that Moses was doing a disservice by taking such a beautiful wife and then, upon becoming a prophet, remaining celibate from her (his sons were born prior to the burning bush incident), as velibacy had not been required of the two of them.


Very interesting. To my understanding the same 'prejudice' existed among the early Arabs, that is women from the NE Horn were hotties. I have a vague memory of a poetical phrase that bizarrely went along the lines of the bowls of porridge (which women were 'just right.') but I'm hazy on it.

I'm not sure of the time depth of these traditions, but per my understanding it's the ancient poetry that reflects this. Is there Hebraic material which reflects the same?

In any case, an odd parallel. I imagine not a coincidence?

Returning to a point which I think I poorly explained, in re the 'white leprosy' reference. To my understanding the disease which was called leprosy in this time period was held to be characterized by the emergence of white patches on the skin. I can't recall the details, but the gist of it is the white reference is reference not to race but the disease. My memory on this is a bit hazy.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by cmkeller
This is an odd context if the complaint that Moses should not have married a Cushite. The traditional Jewish understanding of this passage is that Cushite women were considered extraordinarily beautiful, and that Moses was doing a disservice by taking such a beautiful wife and then, upon becoming a prophet, remaining celibate from her (his sons were born prior to the burning bush incident), as velibacy had not been required of the two of them.

Well, and plus, she wasn't actually a Cushite. She was from the tribe of Midian. So, why was she called a Cushite? Rashi gives two reasons. First, the words used add up to the same amount as the words for "of beautiful appearance". Also, if someone is beautiful, you'd say, "He is dark skinned" to avert the evil eye.

[Spoke]

...or Moses had two wives, which I believe is also a common explanation.

Frankly (and I mean no offense) the Cushite=beautiful explanation sounds like some spin doctoring to avoid the racial issue. (Not by you, Chaim, but by earlier scholars.) But perhaps I am mistaken. Can you show me another scriptural passage where the word was used with that meaning? Or a passage from other Hebrew writings? If the writer meant "beautiful," why didn't he just say "beautiful?"

In the Torah, Rachel is described as "beautiful." (Genesis 29:17) (And perhaps you can tell us the original Hebrew word used there.) In fact, throughout the Old Testament, the word "beautiful" is used to describe various women. (Deuteronomy 21:11, I Samuel 25:3, II Samuel 11:2, Esther 2:7, Song of Solomon 6:4 and 7:1)

Tom wrote:In any event, there is no Indian literature that describes people as superior or inferior according to their innate appearance.

Tom, I believe you are mistaken about that. Examples:

From the Sama Veda:

Impetuous, bright, have they come forth, unwearied in their speed, like bulls, Driving the black skin far away. May we attain the bridge of bliss, leaving the bridge of woe behind:
The riteless Dasa may we quell! [2:3:1:3:1-2]


The Gods have come to Indu well-descended, beautified with milk, the active crusher of the foe.Active, while being purified, he hath assailed all enemies: they deck the Sage with holy hymns.
Pouring all glories hither, he, effused, hath passed within the jar: Indu on Indra is bestowed.
From the two press-boards is the juice sent, like a car-horse, to the sieve: the steed steps forward to the goal. Impetuous, bright, have they come forth, unwearied in their speed, like bulls, driving the black skin far away. [6:1:1:1-5]

Indra, the strong and lofty hills are powerless to bar thy way None stays that act of thine when thou wouldst fain give wealth to one like me who sings thy praise. Who knows what vital power he wins, drinking beside the flowing juice? This is the fair-cheeked God who, joying in the draught, breaks down the castles in his strength. [4:1:1:4-5]

1. Loud-singing at tbe sacred rite where Soma flows, we priests invoke. With haste, that he may help, as the bard's cherisher. Indra who findeth wealth for you.
2. Whom, fair of cheek, in rapture of the juice, the firm resistless slayers hinder not:
Giver of glorious wealth to him who sings his praise, honouring him who toils and pours. [2:1:1:14]

Who knows what vital power he wins, drinking beside the flowing juice?
This is the fair-cheeked God who, joying in the draught, breaks down the castles in his strength.
As a wild elephant rushes on, this way and that way mad with heat,
None may restrain thee, yet come hither to the draught! Thou, movest mighty in thy power.
When he, the terrible, ne'er o'erthrown, stedfast, made ready for the fight--
When Indra Maghavan lists to his praiser's call, he will not stand aloof, but come. [2:8:2:15:1-3]

From the Rig Veda:

SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away. Fain for help, him the strong whose right hand wields the bolt, him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend. [1:101:1]

His kine their Lord hath shown, e'en Vrtra's slayer, through the black hosts he passed with red attendants. [3:31:21]

Lord of the brave, Indra who rules the people gave freedom to the Gods by might and battle.
Wise singers glorify with chanted praises these his achievements in Vivasvan's dwelling.
Excellent, Conqueror, the victory-giver, the winner of the light and Godlike Waters,
He who hath won this broad earth and this heaven, -in Indra they rejoice who love devotions.
He gained possession of the Sun and Horses, Indra obtained the Cow who feedeth many.
Treasure of gold he won; he smote the Dasyus, and gave protection to the Aryan colour. [3:34:7-9]

He smote away the floods' obstructer, Vrtra; Earth, conscious, lent her aid to speed thy thunder.
Thou sentest forth the waters of the ocean, as Lord through power and might, O daring Hero.
When, Much-invoked! the water's rock thou cleftest, Sarama showed herself and went before thee.
Hymned by Angirases, bursting the cowstalls, much strength thou foundest for us as our leader.
Come, Maghavan, Friend of Man, to aid the singer imploring thee in battle for the sunlight.
Speed him with help in his irypired invokings: down sink the sorcerer, the prayerless Dasyu.
Come to our home resolved to slay the Dasyu: Kutsa longed eagerly to win thy friendship.
Alike in form ye both sate in his dwelling the faithful Lady was in doubt between you.
Thou comest, fain to succour him, with Kutsa,-a goad that masters both the Wind-God's horses,
That, holding the brown steeds like spoil for capture, the sage may on the final day be present.
For Kutsa, with thy thousand, thou at day-break didst hurl down greedy Susna, foe of harvest.
Quickly with Kutsa's friend destroy the Dasyus, and roll the chariot-wheel of Sarya near us.
Thou to the son of Vidathin, Rjisvan, gavest up mighty Mrgaya and Pipru.
Thou smotest down the swarthy fifty thousand, and rentest forts as age consumes a garment. [4:16:7-13]

For fear of thee (Agni) forth fled the dark-hued races, scattered abroad, deserting their possessions [7:5:3]

O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. [9:73:5]

...and on and on. Here is the source (http://galileo.spaceports.com/~samy/white.htm) which draws a connection between these vedic verses and the development of the caste system:This has far reaching implications because we can now see the link (which is no longer weak) between caste-discrimination and early Hindu scripture. Certainly, the castes of India are distinguishable, the high-castes being light coloured (and genetically related to Europeans) and the Sudra low-castes are very dark. These verses reconstruct a scenario wherein the (known) indigenous people, the Dravidians (Sudras) were displaced by people who were stronger in military might and who changed entirely the make-up of the sub-continent, these Aryan people have perpetuated this conflict through the caste-system of Hinduism which has now put the (once great) Dravidian people into subjugation, the same people who are in subjugation now were the ones who built the Harappa civilisation.

Small wonder that Hitler found inspiration in Indian history.

Another interesting article here (http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/hidden.html) regarding "India's 'Hidden Apartheid.'" (The author coincidentally chose the same word as I to describe the caste system.) From the article:Fair-skinned Brahmins, 3.5% of the population, are Indias ruling elite, holding 78% of judicial positions and half parliaments seats. In recent tests, Indian scientists discovered that high-caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins, are genetically closer to Europeans than they are to dark-skinned, Dravidian Indians. Caste became a rigid system whereby Indias fair-skinned ruling class kept lower and swarthier orders in their places as laborers, landless peasants, and servants exploiting them in the name of religion.

The Sikh religion and Islam both reject the Hindu caste system. Millions of low caste Indians found refuge from racial oppression as Sikhs, Muslims, and, more recently, Christians. All three religions have been and remain subject to varying forms of persecution by Indias Hindu majority.

[tomndebb]

spoke-, given that the conquerors were light-skinned and the conquered were dark-skinned, what we find is a way to visibly identify the conquerors and the conquered. Nothing you've cited (or that I found in a quick perusal) indicates that the conquered are evil/stupid/barbaric/whatever because of their dark skin. They are hated because they are the enemy and they are identifiable because they are dark-skinned.


Now, tracking down the author of the piece you quoted did turn up some interesting information. Samata Ullah is all over the net, posting as a Muslim in direct conflict with (and criticism of) Hinduism. (This does not invalidate his observations, but it does indicate a need to be a bit cautious in accepting his translations and interpretations.)

He has contributed far and away the largest number of articles on the Answering Hindutvadism (http://www27.brinkster.com/themutant2/Hindutvadis.htm) web site (including this page (http://www27.brinkster.com/themutant2/Reply/hindutvadism/race_more.htm) the text of which is identical to your link). One of the articles from that site (written by Sanjay Jain, not by Ullah) asserts that racism is actually an Indian phenomenon (http://www27.brinkster.com/themutant2/Reply/hindutvadism/vedic_racism.htm) that was introduced to European thought in the late eighteenth century through translations by William Jones of the Manu Dharma and Manu Smriti.

Not having encountered any of this information, previously, I am not yet prepared to evaluate it. Ullah and Jain claim that the concept was "imported" to Europe. However, a different reading (by someone not as hostile to Hindu India) might indicate that they are simply reading/imposing "racism" back into earlier writings that meant something different and are using the coincidence of the publication of Jones's Manu translations with nineteenth century racist tracts in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of attribution. (One problem with their assertion is that Jones published his work in English in 1794 (with a German translation in 1797), but Linnaeus had already given voice to the idea of race in 1764 and Emmanuel Kant had expounded upon it in 1775.)

If the claims for Vedic racism with a transfer to Europe turns out to be accurate, however, it seems to move back the apparent origin of racist thought to a specific earlier place and time. It does not indicate that racism (as opposed to cultural hubris and xenophobia) is a normal condition for human society.

Certainly, it is an intriguing thesis that I am interested in exploring.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by spoke-
Frankly (and I mean no offense) the Cushite=beautiful explanation sounds like some spin doctoring to avoid the racial issue.


Spin doctoring?

I guess the ancient Arabs poets were spin doctoring also, eh Spoke old man?

Shaking my head at the density of denseness.

If the writer meant "beautiful," why didn't he just say "beautiful?"


You're aware of that thing called a literary device?

I presume that ancient Hebraic writing ressembles Arabic in terms of use of poetic allusion and the like.

And as the axe grinds we turn to relying on Muslims with axes to grind against Hindus for supporting the racism thesis.

[Spoke]

Tom, in an earlier post, you defined the question thusly:The issue regarding racism is whether there was any set of beliefs in which an entire group of people was generally described in ways that associated their appearance with evaluations of their worth.

If that last Vedic verse I cited doesn't meet that test, I'm not sure what would. Here it is again:O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. [9:73:5]

That seems pretty clearly to meet the criteria you laid down. And it most definitely pre-dates the 15th century, the criterion set forth in the OP.

You implicitly acknowledge that cultural hubris and xenophobia are (unfortunately) timeless aspects of human society. I would propose that racism is the unsurprising offshoot of those two tendencies, and is equally timeless. If there is a tribal tendency to despise and feel superior to "the other," then how much easier it is to despise that "other" when "the other" is identifiable by their physical features. Just common sense, I think, to conclude that racism has been around as long as people have been encountering "others" whose features differ from their own. Sad but true.

I maintain (despite the scholarly spin) that both the story from the book of Numbers and the Vedic verses cited support my proposition.

An aside to Collounsbury: I try to be patient, "old man," but I find your posting style very annoying. Are you capable of carrying on a debate without stooping to personal insult? I think I'm not the only poster who has noticed this problem.

I am not relying on a "Muslim with an axe to grind." I am relying on the original Vedic verses, which seem pretty straightforward.

Speaking of primary sources, do you have any in support of your contention that Cushite=beauty? Or are we just supposed to genuflect meekly and accept your word? Please cite us one of your Arabic poems.

Spin doctoring (like racism) is not a new invention. What's more, it is a frequent feature of religious debate. As an example, I could cite you to any number of debates over the New Testament verse which says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. You'll find plenty of scholars who will tell you that, well, a needle isn't really a needle, it's just a low gate, and it's really OK to be rich, and yadda yadda yadda.

It's not hard to imagine that Jewish scholars might want to similarly spin what seems like a straightforward tale of ancient racism. Even you must admit that the reading sounds a bit strained: Miriam and Aaron were upset because the wife of Moses was beautiful? Come on.

At any rate, here's a link the whole Biblical chapter: Numbers 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Numbers+12&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

Readers of this thread can take a look and draw their own conclusions, but to me it looks like a pretty straightforward story:

1. Miriam and Aaron badmouth Moses for having an Ethiopian/Cushite wife.
2. God pays a visit and says (in effect): "Moses is my boy. Don't dis him."
3. God smites the heck out of Miriam.

[tomndebb]

"The swarthy skin that Indra hates" says to me that "our god" hates who we hate. It may have the meaning that Ullah and you impute to it, but it is a single quote taken from a triumphal poem.

To know that the aryans viewed the dasa's skin color as an inherent evil, I would need to see a lot more text in which they indicate that it was the darkness of the skin that made the dasa evil.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Saratoga battleground, wander around and look at the monuments and plaques erected in 1877 on the centennial of the battle. They are filled with derogatory remarks aimed at the British (and their wives!). By 1877, it had been 62 years since we had fought a war with Britain and the people erecting the monuments were descendants of British immigrants, but the monument builders, rather than simply trumpet the American victory, still chose to denigrate the British as a people in their boasts of victory. Given that both sides of the battle were fought by WASPs, it is hard to see how the insults could be racist in nature, yet the people erecting the monuments still called down calumny on the people who were their (ancestors') opponents.

A single claim that one's god hates the appearance of a people whom one has beaten is not nearly sufficient evidence that there was a persistent view that the people were, in and of themselves, evil because of their appearance.

I certainly agree that cultural hubris and xenophobia are common to all societies. Without a sustained belief that specific groups are higher or lower in quality based on their nature and appearance, I do not see an example of racism.

[Spoke]

Tom wrote:Without a sustained belief that specific groups are higher or lower in quality based on their nature and appearance, I do not see an example of racism.

Well, it looks to me like the caste system is the embodiment of just such a sustained belief. The lighter-skinned castes got the good jobs, the darker-skinned castes did the grunt work. Sure sounds like vestigial racism to me.

Even today, light skin is highly valued among Indians. Indian matrimonial ads tout "wheatish" skin as a selling point.

[Estilicon]

Originally posted by sirjamesp
True - and in fact the British were the first to outlaw slavery, which was banned throughout the Empire in 1833 (and had been banned in England since 1722!).


First in europe you mean, In argentina it was banned by the XIII year assembly (1813)

[Collounsbury]

Stooping?

Well, insofar as I’m not concerned about popularity contests but rather coherency, let’s get to the meat of the issue.

(a) In regards to the issue of ‘Cushites’ and beauty you unaccountably speak of spin – in regards to race and racism, which could only be a modern concern – when Chaim noted Hebraic scholarly tradition. Captain Amazing then comes in to note the same thing, citing to a certain Rashi who I take to it is this fellow: Rabbi Shelomo Ben Yitzchak (1040-1105), the famous Rabbinic scholar of Troyes, France. His name is a symbol of excellence in Jewish education and accessibility to Jewish tradition. "Rashi," as he was known, is credited with having produced the most important commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud. Hardly “spin” eh what my boy? I further noted that oddly enough ancient Arabic poetic tradition had similar opinions.

You return with your bizarre assertion that this must be spin, a good thousand years before such concerns could have surfaced. Someone holds the odd a priori presumption that the African girls could not be beautiful in the eye of the Hebes and the Rabs, although the historical (as opposed to anachronistic) rational is obscure to me.

(b) In regards to the Indian caste issue you’ve naively relied on your own reading (in translation) – devoid of historical or other relevant contextual information – to arrive at anachronistic readings, then have shopped around for supporting views, including the cited Muslim character with a clear axe to grind. But balance and historical context be damned, some folks want to find Apartheid before its time. It rather reminds me of the folks who come round with their naïve, a priori etymologies and get all upset when the linguists tear them apart. Now even if your readings are correct – and Tom has without exerting very much effort offered quite plausible alternate readings – one has to ask oneself about current versus ancient attitudes and the degree to which there may be coherence.

Let me look to the Islamic example, which I rather know more about. There we find an ebb and flow of attitudes about skin color. Very little evidence of coherent attitudes about skin color per se, and the degree to which a “race” could be characterized in some manner as a group. Further, it appears that in terms of women – for better or worse an indicator in a world of slavery of underlying attitudes – favored to get busy with and good quality for Umm Walid – making babies you know, shades and nations went in and out of fashion. While writers would attribute vaguely some characteristics to such and such a group (ethnicity? nation? Very unclear.) there’s no sign that there’s much coherence to it all nor that “race” in any sense which resembles modern racial thought was a governing feature. Thus, to examine modern attitudes is to say nothing about ancient ones, NOTHING.

I submit that without substantive examination of the era, that mere comparison of words to which none but Sanskrit or Hindi scholars know the historical attitudes attached thereto, is a bankrupt activity more in line with expressing our own prejudices than serious inquiry. That is spreading ignorance in the place of serious understanding.

So: Axe, grind, grind, grind. Mind, closed, closed.


Post script: Some works I have in the past found thought provoking and helpful in sharpening an understanding of the complexity of skin color in society and in the Islamic world. I've accumated this myself on my own so I can't vouch it as having been vetted by actual scholars, but I trust my own instincts.

On social bounders, ethnicity and race, from a theoretical perspective, helping one ask the right questions and look at things in a critical manner, as opposed to leaping to easy, lazy, superficial conclusions:
Barth, Fredrik. “Enduring and emerging issues in the analysis of ethnicity.” in The Anthropology of Ethnicity Beyond ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’ ed. Vermuelen, Hans, and Govers, Cora., 11-32. Amsterdam: Spinhuis, 1994.
Cohen, Anthony P. ”Boundaries of Consciousness, Consciousness of Boundaries.” in The Anthropology of Ethnicity Beyond ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’ ed. Vermuelen, Hans, and Govers, Cora., 59-79. Amsterdam: Spinhuis, 1994
De Vos, George. “Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accomodation, The Role of Ethnicity in Social History.” in Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accomodation. ed. Lola Romanucci-Ross and George A. De Vos, 15-47. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1995.
De Vos, George and Romanucci, Lola. “Ethnic Identity: A Psychocultural Perspective.” in Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accomodation. ed. Lola Romanucci-Ross and George A. De Vos, 349-379. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1995.
Jenkins, Richard. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations London: Sage, 1997.

On Islamic things:
Ennaji, Mohammed. Soldats, Domestiques et Concubines: l’esclavage au Maroc au xixe siècle. Casablanca, Morocco: Editions EDDIF / ACCT, 1994.
(This one is particularly interesting as it provides a view of an emergent skin color issue in Morocco, but one that is highly unclear. Ran across this brilliant book in a store in Rabat by accident, don’t know it it’s available in the USA.)

Akbar, Muhammad. “The Image of Africans in Arabic Literature: Some Unpublished Manuscripts” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa. v. 2 ed. Willis, John Ralph, 47-74. London: F. Cass, 1985.

Here you can get some access to the evolution of imagery.

Batran, Aziz Abdalla. “The ‘Ulama’ of Fas, M. Isma’il and the Issue of the Haratin of Fas.” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa. v. 2 ed. Willis, John Ralph, 1-15. London: F. Cass, 1985. (Re enslavement of freedmen and other blacks in Fes under M. Ismail.)

Boëtsch, Gilles and Ferrié, Jean-Noël. “L’impossible objet de la raciologie: prologue à une anthropologie physique du Nord de l’Afrique.” Cahiers d’Études africaines 129 33-1, (1993): 5-18.

Boëtsch, Gilles. “Égypte noire et Berbérie blanche: la rencontre manquée de la biologie et de la culture.” Cahiers d’Études africaines 129 33-1, (1993): 73-98.

Camps, G. “Recherche sur les origines des cultivateurs noirs du Sahara” Revue de l’occident musulmane et de la Mediterranée vii (1970) 35

Meyers, Allan R. “Class, Ethnicity and Slavery: the origins of the Moroccan ‘Abid.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 10, 3, (1977): 427-442.

Myers, Allan R. “Slavery and Cultural Assimilation in Morocco.” in Studies in the African Diaspora. Rotberg, R. and Kilson, M. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976

Morsy, Magali. “Moulay Isma’il et l’armée de métier.” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 14, (April-June 1967): 97-122.

(Interesting along with Meyers and Ennaji in re ‘black’ Mamlouk like slavery in North Africa)

Mowafi, Reda. “The Roles and Functions of Slaves” Chap. in Slavery, Slave Trade and Abolition Attempts in Egypt and the Sudan, 1820 - 1882. Stockholm: Esselte Studium, 1981.

Here you can get some charactierizations about how taste in women changed, dark going in and out of fashion.

Pouillon, François. “Simplification ethnique en Afrique du Nord: Maures, Arabes, Berbères (xviiie - xxe siècles.” Cahiers d’Études africaines 129 33-1, (1993): 37-49.

Sundiata, Ibrahim K. “Beyond Race and Color in Islam” Journal of Ethnic Studies 6 (1977) 1-29.

Thomson, Ann. “La classification raciale de l’Afrique du Nord au début du xixe siècle.” Cahiers d’Études africaines 129 (33) 1, (1993): 19-36.

Barbour, Bernard and Jacobs, Michelle. “The Mi`raj: a Legal Treatise on Slavery by Ahmad Baba.” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa. v. 1 ed. Willis, John Ralph, 125- 159. London: Frank Cass, 1985.
Interesting for legal thoughts and some things on how skin color may have worked in.
de Moraes Farias, Paulo Fernando. “Models of the World and Categorical Models: the ‘Enslavable Barbarian’ as a Mobile Classifacatory Label.” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa. v. 1 ed. Willis, John Ralph, 27-44. London: F. Cass, 1985.
Hunwick, John O. “Black Africans in the Islamic World: An Understudied Dimension of the Black Diaspora.” Tarikh 5, no. 4 1978: 20-40.
Hunwick, John O. “Black Slaves in the Mediterranean World: Introduction to a Neglected Aspect of African Diaspora.” in The Human Commodity: Perspectives in the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade. ed. Elisabeth Savage. 5 - 38. London: F Cass, 1992.

Hunwick is to my knowledge the most important writer on this and you can get further characterizations of changing attitudes on skin color in time and place, to the best the documentation supports.

[Collounsbury]

A point I missed:

Originally posted by spoke-
It's not hard to imagine that Jewish scholars might want to similarly spin what seems like a straightforward tale of ancient racism. Even you must admit that the reading sounds a bit strained: Miriam and Aaron were upset because the wife of Moses was beautiful? Come on.


Yes, that's right Spoke old man, a thousand years before such concerns.

In re the beautiful angle, well come on yourself. Leaving aside the stunningly obvious explanation of jealousy, one should inform oneself a bit about the regional culture, concept of evil eye and th like. Too be too praiseworthy is dangerous. Beauty is dangerous.

Again, one has to read with the times, the culture and the history in mind, not one's modern prejudices and presumptions, however legion they may be.


At any rate, here's a link the whole Biblical chapter: Numbers 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Numbers+12&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

Readers of this thread can take a look and draw their own conclusions, but to me it looks like a pretty straightforward story:


I believe we all know what it looks like to you, however degree of interest that holds, the question is what it looks like once one has informed oneself about the usage of the time, the allusions used, the metaphors favored, etc.

If one did not know that the ancient Arabs considered the eyes and other parts of certain animals to be signs of beauty, one would have a hard time understanding many poems for they would seem rather more like insults to a modern, superficial and unlearned reading.

BTW: I think you will find some poetical reference in the Egypt article and also in the Muhammed Akbar article. But it's been a while since I read these, almost a decade for some.

[Tamerlane]

Goddamn you Collounsbury! I was behind on my reading as it is ( I'm always behind ). Now I have new set of articles to track down. Damn you to hell!

;)

By the way, what did you think ( if you've read it ) of Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal? It's been sitting in the trunk of my car for months now - I have yet to get around to it. But I've heard a few criticisms about his biases ( of one sort or another ) creeping into it.

- Tamerlane

[Collounsbury]

Ah bother.

Originally posted by Tamerlane


Goddamn you Collounsbury! I was behind on my reading as it is ( I'm always behind ). Now I have new set of articles to track down. Damn you to hell!

;)

By the way, what did you think ( if you've read it ) of Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal? It's been sitting in the trunk of my car for months now - I have yet to get around to it. But I've heard a few criticisms about his biases ( of one sort or another ) creeping into it.

- Tamerlane


Never heard of it. Fraid my squirrel like mind lost track of this set of obsessions in the early 90s to move on to the genetics issues. As far as I know Hunwick is the man in terms of academic things, but I confess to being self-educated on this meaning that I may very well have missed some substantive works. I guess I'll have to track this down, now that you mentioned it.

[Collounsbury]

Aha

I just found this review.
http://www.africana.com/Reviews/books_71.htm

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. It, however, does sound very much like what Hunwick, Sundiata and Lewis (Bernie) have written back in the 80s. There was also an Israeli scholar who wrote something on just the Ottoman side of the equation but ... must have lost the ref.

Definately a subject not often enough written on. And quite fascinating. I rather noticed the issue living in the MENA region.

[Collounsbury]

Aha

I just found this review.
http://www.africana.com/Reviews/books_71.htm

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. It, however, does sound very much like what Hunwick, Sundiata and Lewis (Bernie) have written back in the 80s. There was also an Israeli scholar who wrote something on just the Ottoman side of the equation but ... must have lost the ref.

Definately a subject not often enough written on. And quite fascinating. I rather noticed the issue living in the MENA region.

Addendum (sorry if this ends up a double, I think I stopped in time:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/04/reviews/010304.04hochsct.html

also gave me a taste. I must read this book. The closing question by the review is silly, the Miraj citation there comes close. Does Segal read Arabic or does he rely on 2ndary sources? Fascinating, I may order this tonight.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Collounsbury

Does Segal read Arabic or does he rely on 2ndary sources?

All secondary sources apparently, at least according to one of those reviews, which is certainly cause to be just a little wary of some of his analysis. Still, even secondary sources can be the basis of valuable insights. Anyway those reviews have stimulated my interest enough to try pulling it out of storage and give it a shot.

Especially the comments about India. I was recently ( last year or so ) reading a slim volume on the rise of the Maratha state in 17th/18th century India. One of things that grabbed my attention was that one of the dominant players ( perhaps THE dominant player from a naval and trade standpoint ) in the local politics of that stretch of western India's coast during the early Maratha/late Mughul period, was a merchant-prince family of Ethiopian origin, known as the [i]Sidi[/b]. Always meant to follow that up. Now it seems I've found a connection :) .

Okay, back to the thread and sorry about the continuing hijack.

- Tamerlane

[nightshadea]

according to donald r dudleys "the civilization of rome" ( published back in 1960) The romans had no sense of racism by skin color

If there was any racism at all it was based on how civilized they thought you were eg " uncivilized barbarians " and wether you accepted romes religion laws ect

Something along the line of calling native americans " uncivilized heathens " foe not accepting the white mans religion laws ect

So it was more along the lines of class and social status and location than skin color

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally posted by Collounsbury

Are vastly different, see once more the majesterial analysis of Patterson, _Slavery and Social Death_ examining such issues.

I read Patterson's book long ago (please do try to understand you're not the only educated person here) and remained unconvinced that there is any important difference between de facto and de jure slavery. The "basic social rights" you're talking about were largely illusory, and to suggest that a 12-year-old white kid being worked to death in a coal mine was somehow better off than a 12-year-old black kid being worked to death in a sugar cane field is nothing short of monstrous.

On an individual basis, surely, however this verges on gross dishonesty when one considers the macro-level differences.
No, what verges on gross dishonesty is your cavalier dismissal of the centuries-long exploitation and brutalization of millions of poor and working class whites in Europe and North America.

[Collounsbury]

Well, then you’ve done some reading. Very nice, now let us think a bit as a bit of reflection often has some value.

Of course, one first must recognize that in any social system there are gradations. Free, Unfree are black and white categories that don’t fully describe reality.

Nonetheless, in the context of the slave systems in which a degree of legally enforced clarity was obtained, you’ve got a real difference in outcomes. The bondsman has some forms of legal redress, if sometimes hard to obtain. The bondsman has freedom of personal action under the law, although his (or her) labor is taken up and bound to an employer by contract. Free to marry as he or she wishes, children born free, free to exercise the general body of civil liberties granted free men & those granted free women as the case allowed (legally speaking, extra-legal pressures etc make this more complicated)

Whatever stigma attached was clearly less – it’s pretty clear from the historical record that the hierarchy in say the South, but more generally in the Americas placed slave below bonded labor, all the more so as slavery became racialized. After 2 or 3 generations the bonded family had largely moved on, replaced by either newcomers or slaves. Slaves, after 2 or 3 generations in the Americas…. Were slaves. Subject to rape, beatings, even extra-judicial killing in full legality should the master or his duly recognized agent so desire; largely they have no legal redress except under circumscribed conditions in theory and in fact usually none, (I recognize this is painting in broad strokes, and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

Now, those comments are largely based on readings on the Americas. The race-barrier in the Americas makes things rather nastier than just about any other slave system – something of a matter of degree over time and place – insofar as there’s no exit 99% of the time for the slave. The bondsman/woman, well there is an exit. I lack the time to root around for cites, but I recall it is generally held bonded labor moved up and out in a generation or two.

The difference in legal situation is clear, stark and undeniable save perhaps to those wishing to muddy waters for extra-factual reasons. Now, in practical matters, obviously life is complicated and sometimes (again in the Americas) slaves had vastly better lives than bonded labor (white, indian or Asian or other. Usually not. Averages. All about averages.

Of course, outside of the Americas (and in the Americas in the early days) things get a lot muddier. Indeed it may very well be accurate to say that once an African or Caucasian (the region not the ‘race’) was taken on into say military service, that his life was probably better than the indebted peasant in Jbel Lebanon. Of course the problem was living that long.

Nonetheless, it strikes me that what we learn from the literature is in general, on average, most people tried to avoid falling to that last rung, to use Patterson’s phrase, ‘social death’ – to cease being a genuine person in society. I’ll accept the weak form economist’s assumption that on average people are grossly rational about choices on which they are informed, and insofar as (a) slavery seems to have been seen as about the last stop on the train and (b) something to be avoided at most any cost short of death (sometimes including death), it strikes me as clear that rational actors were making the judgement we need to characterize: better keep your last shreds of social standing than fall out of society, on average – even in Islamic slave systems on average. Bad odds.

Now where you get this racialized squeal from I don’t know: “Cavalier dismissal of the centuries-long exploitation and brutalization of millions of poor and working class whites in Europe and North America.”??? Oh my.

Well, insofar as my distinction was resting on the issue of slavery more than color (except insofar as the Americas the two become indistinguishable for all practical purposes) I guess if I were writing I might at least take note that my position – if one were to adopt the position there is no difference between slavery and other unfreedoms, which I reject – that the differentiation applies equally to non-white bonded labor, poor, working class or whatever. In Asia, and Africa as well as for that poor opressed class of American and European whites. Perhaps one’s tender concerns extend not so far?

I’m quite aware of the nastiness of the corvée and forms of bonded labor used, for example, in European colonies after the abolition of slavery. But it wasn’t slavery. Forced labor is a bad thing. It is evil, nasty and horrible. But it is not slavery. To confuse the issues is to lose analytical sharpness and miss important differences.

I shall forgo the pleasure of delving into the queer racialization of this all.

[Spoke]

Well, Collie, you've been a busy beaver.

But you're still wrong.

You think there was no racial spinning of religious text a thousand years ago? You think that Rashi lived "a thousand years before such concerns?"

Well, check out the work of Muslim scholar al-Tabari (http://members.tripod.com/~wzzz/TABARI.html) (838-870 A.D.)

As reported here (http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:XTBaILpC9QUC:www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/word/braude01.doc+%22curse+of+ham%22+rashi&hl=en), al-Tabari reported an early version of the notorious "Curse of Ham" myth. (You know the one- Noah's son Ham being supposedly cursed with black skin. The myth later used to justify enslavement of Africans.):At that later point as he discusses the passengers on Noah’s ark, citing trustworthy Muslim sources, Tabari asserts Ham attacked his wife [sexually] in the ark, so Noah prayed that his seed be altered, and he produced the blacks (Arabic 1:196-7, English 1:365). Ham’s blackness is reaffirmed again according to Muslim sources, though in this case the exceptional white offspring is also recognized (Arabic 1:199, English 1:368).

More:

Subsequently he returns to the Noahides. Now the discussion becomes lengthy and detailed, more than a dozen pages in the standard Arabic edition. It begins with the inclusion of the very sort of non-Islamic or questionable authorities he has just been addressing in his previous excursus. However here this aspect is more subtly introduced. Two points relevant to the larger argument are made with these sources. The first is that Ham is the father of the Blacks (Arabic 1:211, English 2:11). The second is that both Canaan son of Ham and Ham himself are to be slaves to his brothers (Arabic 1:212, English 2:12). The source of the first statement is ultimately traced to Wahb b. Munabbih, a Yemenite convert to Islam from Judaism or Christianity who died around 730. Wahb’s role is significant because decades after his death, following the rise of the Abbasids in 750, a significant change took place in the Islamic attitude toward pre-Islamic Christian and Jewish traditions. While initially they had been accepted, now increasingly they were considered of dubious value. Thus in the tenth century Tabari’s attribution of this first point to so problematic a figure raises a question mark. The second statement, dealing with enslavement, confirms this. Immediately after the Noahide genealogy (per Wahb) is presented, a further qualification is introduced, for the ultimate source is the people of the Torah ahl al-tawrah. According to them while Noah was sleeping his genitals became exposed, Ham saw but did not cover. Shem and Japhet by contrast saw and covered. When Noah awoke he knew who had done what and said Cursed be Canaan [Malcun kancan] son of Ham. Slaves will they be to his brothers! may Ham be a slave to his two brothers. may Ham be a slave to them. With the exception that Ham, rather than Canaan, is enslaved, this last account is remarkably close to Genesis 9:20-27 itself.

So we have a Muslim scholar in the 9th century reporting the "Curse of Ham" myth, including the (racist) elements that Ham is cursed with dark skin and that he is doomed to slavery, and we have that Muslim scholar citing among his sources the "people of the Torah."

Still want to argue that Jewish scholars 1000 years ago had no possible concern with racial matters? Then why was dark skin apparently regarded as a curse? Why? Because there was racism then, as now.

And regarding the "Cushite means beautiful" explanation of the passage in Numbers, spare me. If the evil eye was such a concern, why was Rachel described as beautiful? Why were numerous other women in the Old Testament described as "beautiful?" (As cited in my earlier post.)

Occam's razor. I see no reason to believe "Cushite" means anything other than "Cushite." But, as I sated earlier, I am waiting to be proven wrong. Please provide me with primary sources which demonstrate that "Cushite" did not mean "Cushite," but was used as a synonym for beautiful. Can you show me a passage in Hebrew which demonstrates this usage? Or for that matter, a passage in one of the Arabic poems to which you keep alluding? I'll wait.

Meanwhile, this little bit of yours:Someone holds the odd a priori presumption that the African girls could not be beautiful in the eye of the Hebes and the Rabs, although the historical (as opposed to anachronistic) rational is obscure to me.

is simply libel. You will find no such racist assumptions in my posts. But hey, if you can't win the argument, you might as well smear me, eh Collie? You are a sad little man.

Never have I stated that African girls could not have been considered beautiful. Indeed, one would assume that Moses found his Cushite wife beautiful. What I have questioned is whether "Cushite" was used as a synonym for "beautiful," in Hebrew text, even when referring to non-Cushite women. I have yet to see any proof of this - just bald assertions.

I believe the best explanation of the passage from Numbers is the simplest one. When the passage says that Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for marrying a Cushite, it means Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for marrying a Cushite. If you contend otherwise, then the burden is on you to provide the proof. And you have not done so.

Now as for India. I have provided you with cites to primary sources (the Vedic verses) which show clear indications of race-conciousness and racism. You question the translations. Fine, but again the burden is on you. If you contend these are mistranslations, please provide corrected translations to prove it.

You think the source is biased? What of the fact that I provided more than one source? Pray tell, what is the bias of Eric Margolies, the author of this article (http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/hidden.html) on India's ancient system of Apartheid? Is Mr. Margolies a Muslim with an axe to grind, do you suppose? Or is it just barely possible that you, Collie, are the one with the closed mind?

[Spoke]

Oops. Here is the link (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/word/braude01.doc) to Tabari's work on the Curse of Ham.

One other point:

Before the Civil War, the slaveholders in the American South were troubled by the passage in Numbers. (What? Moses had a black wife? And God approved? That can't be right!)

The really funny thing is that Collounsbury is now adopting the same contorted reading of the passage that the slaveholders used to avoid its plain meaning.

[Collounsbury]

My dear old boy Spoke. I’m so happy that you’re indulging me.

Now, let us have some analytical fun.


But you're still wrong.


Ah yes, am I now? Well let us see. This should be very, very fun.


You think there was no racial spinning of religious text a thousand years ago? You think that Rashi lived "a thousand years before such concerns?"


Certainly, I do. Now, before going off on your new claims, let me draw attention to your strange assertion earlier that Rashi was a scholar ‘spinning’ race so as to ‘white-wash’ the racialization of the story – in your view. You apparently thinking he was a modern, “politically correct” scholar. Now, finding this interpretation was wrong, we are spun off on another direction – the meaning of your claim being unclear to me.


Well, check out the work of Muslim scholar al-Tabari (838-870 A.D.)


Yes, let us. Of course, I shall have to reply on more than this one article, which you seem to have badly misunderstood.

al-Tabari reported an early version of the notorious "Curse of Ham" myth. (You know the one- Noah's son Ham being supposedly cursed with black skin. The myth later used to justify enslavement of Africans.)


Indeed, justifying rather later in history as the author noted. But let us delve into that.


So we have a Muslim scholar in the 9th century reporting the "Curse of Ham" myth, including the (racist) elements that Ham is cursed with dark skin and that he is doomed to slavery, and we have that Muslim scholar citing among his sources the "people of the Torah."

Still want to argue that Jewish scholars 1000 years ago had no possible concern with racial matters? Then why was dark skin apparently regarded as a curse? Why? Because there was racism then, as now.


Indeed I do, in the context of your “argument.” First, of course, you will note further on in the article there is indeed some characterization of Hebraic literature on skin color. Forgot to cite that I suppose.

First, let us take our author’s own comments some few lines away:

However in point of literary fact a rabbinic attribution for this universalist explanation was certainly as justified and, perhaps, even more justified than for the racist trope. For in versions of both Targum Yonatan, an Aramaic periphrastic translation of the Bible, and in the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, a closely-related exegetic retelling of the Bible, as well as in other sources all of which probably predate Tabari, a similar story is told. Now let us examine each of these three themes in detail.


Now, moving forward, let’s look at what our author had to say in regards to these myths in their original Hebraic context. (I note by the way that he seems to publishing a book on this very subject so this appears to be a main research interest. I further note how the author brings one’s attention to precisely the linguistic problem which I have been raising throughout, and you have, well how to say it? Ignored by your application of (cough, cough) ‘occam’s razor’ or rather more accurately, argument from ignorance: that is the issue of usage and meaning in its historical context.

The quotes, by the way are from pages 21-25, in order:

Now then, the author notes “Within the Bible itself -- narrowly defined -- there are no references whatsoever to the color of Noah’s sons or grandsons. The Book of Jeremiah, one of the later parts in the original Scripture, does make an oblique reference to the distinctive skin of Kush (13:23), one of Ham’s offspring, but, even in that unique exception, the issue of color is not explicit.”

That is not so important other than to understand that the legend is a later accretion. But let’s get on in time to the Fourth Century CE where he notes “a hint at such concern does surface in early rabbinic literature. Rabbinic authorities, who flourished around the late third to early fourth centuries, have been instanced as the instigators of the first attempts to connect Ham’s behavior to color. “

Now, you’ll note that he is drawing attention to questionable interpretation there.

Now, the sourcing:

Of course the precise date of these statements is difficult to establish since the works in which they appear -- the Palestinian Talmud Tractate Taanit, the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin, and Genesis Rabbah, -- were actually redacted centuries later, probably before the rise of Islam.


Fine, I can’t comment on this at all. Any of our scholars/students of Hebrew and Talmudic tradition are welcome to comment, I would love to deepen my understanding of the argument.

Of note he adds:

Whether in Talmud, the largely legal corpus, or Midrash, the largely homiletic-exegetic corpus, the statements themselves represent aggadah, that is speculation and exploration, often fanciful and both allusive and illusive, on the meaning of Scripture. On their own terms the early midrashic and talmudic statements are obscure and ambiguous.


Very well, we are really very much in the realm of the interpretation which resembles in structure and in fact the problem of the wife.


The key phrases are two and they appear in three different passages. In the earlier sources (Palestinian Talmud and Genesis Rabbah) Ham violated the commandment of sexual abstinence while at sea during the Flood in Noah's Ark and was punished by Ham yatsah mefuham (emphasis added) literally, "Ham came out coaled". In the other (Babylonian Talmud), the same act is punished by being “smitten on his skin” – laqah be-'oro.


Now, the footnote that goes with this points to the issue of translations here, I leave the readers to track it down as it goes into Hebraic scholarship which has little meaning to me.


A version of this story is to be found in the earliest Muslim account extant, Ibn Hisham’s version of Wahb – the significant difference is that this Arabic version ambiguously adds the possibility that slavery was the consequence of this violation. The third instance (also Genesis Rabbah) repeats the same Ham… mefuham pun but introduces it in a different context. Here the punishment is linked to what Ham and Canaan did to Noah in his tent. Noah explains to Ham that because of this terrible act “your seed shall be ugly and coaled" – umefuham.

And so we close out the base of the problem: the naïve argument of course stops there. Luckily the author Spoke has so kindly provided us, if rather inadvertently one supposes, goes on to delve into this, to illustrate my points really regarding understanding these texts. (I’ve tried to mark up the text to replicate the author’s coding in the original, apologies for any missed items.)

Let’s take a look, picking up where we left off:

Twice the rabbis employ the same punning phrase Ham… mefuham, "Ham came out coaled" whose true sense should best be conveyed by a parallel pun in English: Burt came out burnt, Cyndi came out singed, Colin got coaled. What precisely these puns mean is unclear. Is the burning allegorical or literal? Is being mefuham the equivalent of the English expression "getting burnt" or does it actually mean "came forth black-skinned", as modern translations claim?
[emphasis added in plain bold]

Et voilà, voici le vrai problème. Here’s the real issue! Now kindly enough our author delves into this in a substantive manner.


The weight of evidence suggests an allegorical rather than skin-color interpretation. First, we have a near contemporary illustration that appears in a Greek Bible, dating from no later than the sixth century, originating in Syria. The illustrations in this manuscript, the so-called Vienna Genesis, have been recognized as revealing significant rabbinic influences. Indeed that very passage in Genesis Rabbah has been cited as the source for its depiction of Ham, accompanied by his filial help-mate Canaan. However in this illustration neither Ham nor Canaan are "black-skinned", though both appear shame-faced, that is allegorically, in the American slang usage, burnt.


Now, we get into an illustration of the problem of naïve, anachronistic, uninformed readings pretending to some ‘occam’s razor’ – without the proper data, one is simply reading modern ideas onto different frameworks. Nothing startling in this, you find most serious historical inquiry deeply concerned with getting the meanings right, our man here is doing what scholars do.

So, he further builds his case:

Second, a later Jewish source, perhaps Iraqi or Yemenite, dating from about the ninth century, reinforces the interpretation that neither Ham nor most of his descendants became black-skinned. This source is Pirke de Rabbenu ha-Kadosh. It explains that line from the Babylonian Talmudic tractate of Sanhedrin, laqah be-'oro, "smitten on his skin". Now if mefuham was in fact universally accepted as meaning that Ham became black-skinned then "smitten on his skin" should have been similarly understood, but that is not evident here, rather a different gloss appears, that “Kush came out of him [Ham]” – yatsah mi-menu Kush. In one part of the Islamic world, that interpretation had gained such acceptance that by the sixteenthth century a Yemenite Jewish scribe actually wrote this gloss into the text of Sanhedrin itself, laqah be-oro ve yatsah mimenu Kush she meshuneh be-oro, “he was smitten on his skin and Kush who is different in his skin came out of him”. This notion of black skin being different appears as well in that just cited commentary, Rabbenu ha-Kadosh. If both sources had regarded all Hamites as black then the skin of Kush alone could hardly be singled out as the mark of difference. In other words to the extent that these expressions were understood as signifying color-identity, they may apply to only one of Ham's four sons. By the way, in the Ashkenazi manuscript tradition of the Talmud this interpolation did not occur, although it did appear in the late eleventh-early twelfth century authoritative commentary of Rashi of Troyes. Indeed one manuscript of Sanhedrin omitted the entire section in which Ham's misbehavior appears altogether.


So, here we are. I’ve omitted the rather lengthy footnotes. Note 22 to the final paragraph has some interest insofar as he tells us Rashi hasn’t been translated on this matter, sadly, abut also notes other sources distinguished Kush’s skin color as ‘peculiar,’ apparently different from Ham.

A rather ambiguous history, and hardly one allows one to argue that “race” was playing a large role in Jewish thought such that what we are lead to understand via Chaim (and by extension Captain Amazing since he seemed to be backing Chaim up) in re Rashi’s gloss of Cushite was some sort of ‘spinning’ – for what? Deny a curse on blackness? Why would he if there is some race prejudice, but no evident counter commentary? Why would Rashi be somehow engaging in “political correctness” before its time, as opposed to reporting a standard tradition? It rather escapes one as to why Rashi would “spin” in such a manner, above all in the context of what we learn above in re Rashi.


And regarding the "Cushite means beautiful" explanation of the passage in Numbers, spare me. If the evil eye was such a concern, why was Rachel described as beautiful? Why were numerous other women in the Old Testament described as "beautiful?" (As cited in my earlier post.)


Why should I spare you? Your faulty logic and exceedingly, even painfully poor reasoning rather needs to be corrected.

Primo, you have utterly misunderstood the nature of my comments, which has become something of a habit. It may be easier to argument against the straw man, but it simply makes you look silly.

The “Cushite” as beautiful (metaphor) is something being reported by Chaim coming from Rashi and others. That is simply poetics. The discursive style of Semitic poetry is not Ango-Saxon prose you know, my dear learned fellow. It strikes me as absurd and amusingly ignorant to ask “why”? Why does poetry use allusions?

Your question which the evil eye issue was raised in response to was the possible rationale for our two complainers to complain about his wife’s beauty. My response was (a) jealousy and (b) the specific cultural concerns – evil eye, being too beautiful, etc. That is to say, one can rather easily find reasons why beauty would be something to complain of. Of course, without further textual explanation it is hard to say and I would defer to ancient Rabbinic exegesis to get at it.

Thus, the main point is that your ‘objection,’ if we may grace it with such a distinguished word, is rather trivial and silly. Unless one has some reason to believe that there was not a reason for jealousy or other factors to enter into the issue.


Occam's razor. I see no reason to believe "Cushite" means anything other than "Cushite." But, as I sated earlier, I am waiting to be proven wrong. Please provide me with primary sources which demonstrate that "Cushite" did not mean "Cushite," but was used as a synonym for beautiful. Can you show me a passage in Hebrew which demonstrates this usage? Or for that matter, a passage in one of the Arabic poems to which you keep alluding? I'll wait.


Occam’s razor. How often is the concept abused here? In essence your ‘use’ of occam’s razor – misuse in fact, sadly enough – is the argument from ignorance. In order to apply occam’s razor one must have the relevant information, else it’s argument from ignorance. Now, the relevant information would include what ancient Hebraic usage was.

Now, as to Arabic poetry, well what to say? Go to Akbar, I should teach you poetics? The material is there. Well, if I get the time to go to the library, I shall I suppose have to engage in the tedious task of regurgitating for you.


Meanwhile, this little bit of yours:


Someone holds the odd a priori presumption that the African girls could not be beautiful in the eye of the Hebes and the Rabs, although the historical (as opposed to anachronistic) rational is obscure to me.



is simply libel. You will find no such racist assumptions in my posts. But hey, if you can't win the argument, you might as well smear me, eh Collie? You are a sad little man.


Smear you? Sorry Spoke old man, I have no fears about ‘winning’ the argument. It is rather that your train of reasoning, such as it is, is defective and I am unable to discern how you’re arriving at your positions except through some a priori assumptions as noted.

Now if you can manage to explain the following in terms which bear some passing resemblance to logic such that your reasoning does not appear a priori I’ll change my opinion:



And why is this surprising?

Well, in any event, I am not the source of this, Chaim is. I have accepted Chaim’s statement on the basis of his past posting on Hebraic scholarly issues and his learning on the issue. It’s not my area of knowledge. Insofar as it dovetailed with Arabic things, I can’t find any reason to question the issue on its face. I would be happy if some posters with learning on such things, e.g. Rashi et al, (Dex, Chaim, Ziv?) would come to direct us to materials or the like.


[quote]I believe the best explanation of the passage from Numbers is the simplest one. When the passage says that Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for marrying a Cushite, it means Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for marrying a Cushite. If you contend otherwise, then the burden is on you to provide the proof. And you have not done so.


Well, actually it’s not my direct contention Spoke old boy, it’s our Jewish knowledge-seekers, who I am inclined to trust over your naïve readings, but that aside the rather more important issue is your extrapolation that this is due to Cushite as a “race” rather than Cushite as an outsider.

See that’s the whole bloody issue which Tom and I have raised time and time again, which seems to continue to escape you.

Indeed that very article’s examination of the Islamic usage notes the ambiguous usages, and the back and forth between universalism and ambiguous color prejudice of some kind. However, one notes, say if one pursing the citations provided or even this very article, that the nature of the prejudice is hardly ‘racism’ in the modern sense but the “other” – the outgroup. Color itself is not the problem per se, as in racism per the tight definition Tom and I have used, but rather not being part of the fold. We see the differentiation (in terms of structure of the prejudices when and where they existed – and they are not a constant) in the black Sultans which ruled in the Islamic world, the in and out preference for Habashiyat (Ethiopians) as slave girls, for their presumed beauty, etc.

(continued)

[Collounsbury]

Now as for India. I have provided you with cites to primary sources (the Vedic verses) which show clear indications of race-conciousness and racism. You question the translations. Fine, but again the burden is on you. If you contend these are mistranslations, please provide corrected translations to prove it.


No, I question your unlearned readings of texts which don’t seem to me to show “clear” sings of race consciousness – having rather pointed to the dangers of anachronistic readings of texts.

The issue then is to know the context. The usage, and the histories. You’re putting your unlearned interpretation up against what?

You think the source is biased? What of the fact that I provided more than one source? Pray tell, what is the bias of Eric Margolies, the author of this article on India's ancient system of Apartheid? Is Mr. Margolies a Muslim with an axe to grind, do you suppose? Or is it just barely possible that you, Collie, are the one with the closed mind?


Really, spoke, do you think I make points out of idleness? Did I not specifically draw attention to the problems of anachronistic readings?

So you cite for me, what? You cite a modern journalist speaking to modern discrimination containing some assertions regarding the ancientness of this all, and characterizations regarding its ‘racial’ nature in origin.

Now, my objection all along is we need to peel back the accumulated layers. Oddly, ironically yet unsurprisingly the very article you cite makes my point for me in regards to the Ham story. Indeed his entire article is a critique of the kind of “naïve, ahistorical” reading you’re doing. Ah, yes, that would be the sections you skipped over. Very well, let me return to them.

First, there is the authors opening statement regarding his analysis (with a rich footnote you seem to have missed):

[from page 6 in the original]
Ham was the archetypal Other. Whatever the phobia of the moment, Ham was it. In the course of his long history Ham was Egyptian, heretic, sinner, sodomite, Jew, Muslim, Mongol, Black, Asian, and African. He was also both master of empire and slave, a paradoxical synthesis that only Hegel could love and appreciate. Iconographically, Ham did not become black in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam until very late. The first depiction of Ham as a Black man dates from 1843. Exegetically, the blackening of Ham, though earlier than the nineteenth century, has been ambiguous, as this essay will demonstrate.


Ah, now I have omitted the footnote in regards to his claims, but you can return to the article for that.

Now, actually delving into the footnotes on this let’s look to the concepts here:
(note 8):

First we might note that as he notes in the full text there is a large literature “Arguing against an early rabbinic origin of the Curse of Ham: Ephraim Isaac, "Genesis, Judaism, and the 'Sons of Ham,'" in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa, ed. John Ralph Willis, London, Frank Cass, 1985, pp. 75-91 (excellent compilation by the way), as well as his entry "Ham," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, New York, Anchor Books, 1992; Simonne Bakchine Dumont, "La mythe chamitique dans les sources rabbiniques du proche orient de l'ère chrétienne au XIIIe siècle ", La Rassegna Mensile de Israel, vol. 55, 1989, no. 1, pp. 43-71; David H. Aaron, "Early Rabbinic Exegesis on Noah's Son Ham and the So-called Hamitic Myth," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 63,1995, pp. 721-59; David M. Goldenberg, "The Curse of Ham: A Case of Rabbinic Racism?" in Struggles in the Promised Land: Toward a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United States, ed. Cornel West and Jack Salzman, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 21-51; Daniel Boyarin, "Racism, the Talmud and the African American--Jewish Coalition" (forthcoming). Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East, An Historical Inquiry, New York, Oxford University Press, 1990, 123-125, raises a similar claim, but probes possible early Christian and Muslim roles as well. Arguing against a patristic origin and for a Protestant origin: Albert Perbal, "La race nègre et la Malédiction de Cham", Revue de l'Université d'Ottawa, 10, 1940, pp. 156-177.”

Quite a literature. I confess I have not read much of this, but clearly this is something which has been closely examined.

Now, I draw your attention to the continuation in the note:

Arguing against a Protestant origin and for an early rabbinic origin was Raoul Allier, op. cit. The assumption of the essential black slave identity of Ham has been explicit in the widely-published and much translated Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963, pp. 120-124, that in turn is a distorted summary of the early twentieth century anthology of rabbinic snippets seamlessly transformed into a continuous narrative, Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 7 vols. 1909-1938, (text) vol. 1, 1909, pp. 168-170, (notes) vol. 5, 1925 [! sic], p. 60, also in French tr. by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, forthcoming. Since Ginzberg created a naively ahistorical folkloristic narrative, suffused with the myth of timeless national essence, it is almost impossible to set its contents in any specific historical context. While the detailed notes allow a better appreciation of nuance over time and place, they were originally published in separate volumes decades later and require determination and patience to decipher. Taking an approach similar to Ginzberg's narrative is the work of a historian of Jewish Renaissance thought, Abraham Melamed, Hayafokh kushi oro, dimuy ha-kushi ke-"aher" be-historiyah shel ha-tarbut ha-yehudit, Haifa, Haifa University Press, forthcoming, English translation, The Black as "Other" in the History of Jewish Culture, London, Curzon Press, forthcoming. Prof. Melamed graciously provided me a summary of his book before publication.


I underlined the key phrases in there.

I note by way of closing an already excessively long reply, in regards to the issue of ancient color prejudice, he second footnote, which is on the very issue:

For the abundant refutations see Frank M. Snowdon, Before Color Prejudice, the Ancient View of the Blacks, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983, Frank M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,1970, Moses Finley, "The Slave Trade in Antiquity: The Black Sea and Danubian Regions", in Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Brent D. Shaw and R. P. Saller, New York, Viking Press, 1981, pp. 167-175, Lloyd A. Thompson, Romans and Blacks, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1989; John Percy V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1979, Paul Cartledge, The Greeks, a Portrait of Self and Others, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 138, Michel M. Austin and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction, (slightly revised translation by M.M. Austin of Économies et sociétés en Grèce ancienne, Paris, Armand Colin, second edition, 1973) Berkeley, University of California Press, 1977, document no. 75, pp. 283-284.


quite a lot there. I have read, I must say, only Snowden (I think it is Snowden not Snowdon, but bloody hell our man confused it also.) and Finley. Thompson rings a bell but perhaps only because I saw it cited?

He continues in the same note:

Accepting the anachronism are, ambiguously, J. Klausner, "The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple", in Michael Avi-Yonah, editor, World History of the Jewish People, First Series: Ancient Times, Volume Seven: The Herodian Period, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1975, p. 194 and, based on the pre-publication summary, definitively, Melamed op. cit.


Obviously we know what the author thinks of the current argument, and his opinion rather matches the sources cited supra. There is some more to the note on Islamic slavery, but I have omitted it.

BTW Spoke old man, I've not adopted any contorted reading: It strikes me your analysis is rather missing the point and trying to have things both ways. Cushite = beautiful really does not speak to bad attitudes re skin color, quite the opposite.

Now, quite enough of my time has been wasted on you, so I shall have to forgo for the time being replies to your own until I get work out of the way.

[kniz]

It is late, so I will leave you with this Early History of Racism (http://www.geocities.com/ru00ru00/racismhistory/earlyhistory.html) site or you could go for the single page version that applies to this thread called Race: Is It a Valid Issue (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jonmorro/race.html)

[Spoke]

Still waiting for a primary source argument...

[Tamerlane]

Okay all this talk of Cushites peaked my interest a bit and I did a little poking around. Here's an article that seems to be of the opinion that we aren't talking about Cushites at all - It was a misidentification by the later compilers of the tradition and the actual people involved were Indo-European Kassites ( who were caucasian ). Interesting reading:

http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/TableofNations.htm

- Tamerlane

[Gaudere]

Collunsbury:

Shaking my head at the density of denseness.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Collunsbury, you are *not* to refer to one of your fellow posters as being "dense" is this forum. Do not do this again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Collounsbury]

Gaudere, Spoke

I've stepped backed and I want to extend sincere apologies for going too far. Especially to Spoke. Not for the content but rather for the unnecessary content. I was wrong, and have been. Not that I think my critiques were wrong but rather let other issues intrude into my commentary.

Now, as to the substance, I refer you to the textual interpretations (including the verification of Chaim's statement via Tamerlane). The underlying point is that a naive reading without the context gives one a false image. That is not an attack on you, I'm trying to point out an analytical pitfall. I wouldn't trust myself, even given my unbounded arrogance however well founded, to analyze the Hindi connection without the proper foundation. The context, as your own cite demonstrates, the evolution of usage, is critical. You can't just look at a translation and just derive conclusions. That is naive, verging on stupid if one begins to look at the issues. Now I've busted on you for that, but frankly these are subtle issues.

Well, I could go on but I've rather too much work. Again spoke, my apologies for an unnecessary spin on a necessary critique.

Coll

[cmkeller]

Collounsbury, thanks for the excellent defense of Rashi. I should also add the point that Rashi's comments on the Torah generally came from Talmudic/Midrashic sources. In the case of the Cushite issue, it comes from the Midrash Tanhuma, which was compiled some time during the third or 4th century CE. So the anachronism of trying to be "politically correct" on race by doing such spinning is even starker than you pointed out to spoke-.

spoke-, you are correct that in other places, the Torah describes the beauty of some women without resorting to euphemism. What you are not noticing is that here, it is not the Torah describing Moses's wife as "Cushite," it is quoting Miriam's and Aaron's describing her as "Cushite." Rashi (via the Midrash) is explaining the true intention behind the comments, but that is not inconsistent with the Torah's outright use of "beautiful" when describing the woman itself.

Finally, I should also point out that although Ham is cursed by Noah in the Bible, nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that descendants of Ham are to be treated differently than other non-Jews in any way at all. Where, then, is the racism in that?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Spoke]

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. I have been out of town and away from my computer for a few days.

Well, call me "naive, verging on stupid," but I still don't agree with the strained reading of the passage from Numbers.

Tamerlane, thank you for your research and for the cite. However, in reading that article, I see that even Hebrew scholars are not in agreement on Numbers 12. Some think the passage means what it says (a "plain language" interpretation). Others have adopted the strained (in my view) position that "Cushite" was a euphemism for "beautiful."

The author of the article adopts yet another view, that the "Cushites" were actually caucasian Kassites. This reading is even more strained in my view? Why? Because of the passage in Jeremiah 13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+13:23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on):Can the Ethiopian [Hebrew Cushite] change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Your author does not address this passage, or its seeming conflict with his conclusion that the Biblical "Cushites" were "racially 'white.'" Was he unaware of this passage?

Chaim, I was not suggesting a "politically correct" spin on the passage in question. Quite the opposite (at least by modern standards). I was suggesting that Hebrew scholars might have been uncomfortable with the idea of Moses having a black wife, and may have adopted a strained reading to avoid that uncomfortable fact.

I would be interested to know the scholarly view of the Song of Solomon. It appears to be a love poem which is strangely preoccupied with skin color. In Song of Solomon 1:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=SONG+1:4-6&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) we hear the female half of the couple speak of herself: I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

And then in Song of Solomon 5:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=SONG+5:10&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on), she describes her lover as follows:My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.

It's unclear from the passages whether the female character is "racially" black or is just deeply tanned. But either way, it seems clear that among the ancient Jews value was placed on fair skin. (Why else use the disjunctive, "I am black but comely?") In fact, this seeming bias against dark skin might explain why, early on, Hebrew scholars might have begun to spin the story of Moses to turn his wife into a caucasian.

Chaim, regarding the "'Cushite' as euphemism for beautiful" argument, it appears to me that we are still talking about secondary sources (albeit old secondary sources). Are you aware of any other passage (Biblical or not) wherein an ancient writer used "Cushite" as euphemism?

As for the passage itself:And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian [Cushite] woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian [Cushite] woman.

The author is not exactly quoting Miriam as you suggest. And even if the first mention were a "quote" of sorts, why would the author use the supposed euphemism a second time, when he was not quoting Miriam.

In other words, why wouldn't the author have rendered the passage as "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married a beautiful woman?"

I still think the simplest reading is the correct one. And, according to the article linked by Tamerlane, at least some Hebrew scholars agree with me.

cmkeller wrote:Finally, I should also point out that although Ham is cursed by Noah in the Bible, nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that descendants of Ham are to be treated differently than other non-Jews in any way at all. Where, then, is the racism in that?

Technically, I think it was Canaan (Ham's son) who was cursed, even though Ham was the one who had seen his father's nakedness. The idea of Ham and his descendants being cursed is a later gloss on this story. Anyway, here's the relevant chapter from Genesis. Genesis Chapter 9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+9&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on). The relevant verses are 20 through 27.

God cursed Canaan to be a servant to his brothers. Note that nothing in the story says anything about Canaan (or Ham) being "cursed" with dark skin. As mentioned in my earlier post, the 9th century Muslim scholar al-Tabari cited the "people of the Torah" as the source for this tradition.

The original text says nothing about race. However, Ham seems to have been regarded in Jewish tradition as the progenitor of dark peoples.

My point (which Collounsbury seems to have missed), is that the "Curse of Ham" myth is an early gloss on the Biblical passage. It appears to date from as early as the 4th century.

In other words, there was some concern about matters of race among the Jewish people as early as the 4th century. As early as the 4th century, it was reasonable, at least among some in the Jewish community, to consider dark skin a "curse."

Now if dark skin could be considered an appropriate curse, then it's not much of a leap to imagine that Jewish scholars might have begun early on to become uncomfortable with the idea of Moses having a black wife, and so might have begun early on to spin the story in such a way that "Cushite" doesn't mean "Cushite" and that she wasn't really black.

I don't mean to condemn anyone or any group in particular. I am just illustrating my view that racism has been with us for a while.

Maybe race was not a big issue with the Romans or the Greeks (as a reading of anecdotal evidence seems to suggest), but I think it is wrong to conclude from this (as Snowdon apparently does) that racism is a relatively recent invention. That is an extrapolation which, I think, does not hold up under close scrutiny.

(Does Snowdon address the Biblical passages mentioned, by the way? Or the Indian sources?)

An aside: Collounsbury, I appreciate the effort at an apology. You and I don't disagree so very often, but when we do, I will (for my part) try to keep things civil. Cheers.

[clairobscur]

It's only a theory of mine, so I've no cite, but I tend to think that racism in its modern form could be related plainly to the technogical advance of the west.

I mean : The romans, for instance could have felt their civilization was superior to any other, but if they were to send legions against some african leader (or whatever other " barbarian" for that matter), they may well have the crap beaten out of them. On the otther hand when the European got such a technological edge that non-european people couldn't be considered as a threat anymore, it was much easier to deem them as inferior. In my mind it would mean that the "scientific" classification of other races would have been only a consequence of them being actually in a situation of unescapable inferiority at this moment.

In a similar way, I don't remember texts about the "inferiority" of turks and arabs when Vienna was threatened by the ottoman armies and anybody sailing on the mediterranean sea faced the risk to end up as a slave in north-africa.

So, my opinion would be that the modern racism is the result of the natural xenophoby of humans mixed with a temporary but overwhelming technical superiority.


And concerning the debate about Moses : the mere fact that he was married with a (supposedly) black woman is a clear evidence that the way races were considered was substancially different at the time of his life (assuming the story is for real...at least at the time the story was wrote down). I mean : can you imagine an early american president marrying a black woman?

[Joachim Pieper]

Juvenal. Nero. Aristophanes, maybe?


Cheers.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by spoke-

Tamerlane, thank you for your research and for the cite. However, in reading that article, I see that even Hebrew scholars are not in agreement on Numbers 12. Some think the passage means what it says (a "plain language" interpretation). Others have adopted the strained (in my view) position that "Cushite" was a euphemism for "beautiful."

The author of the article adopts yet another view, that the "Cushites" were actually caucasian Kassites. This reading is even more strained in my view? Why? Because of the passage in Jeremiah 13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+13:23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on):

Your author does not address this passage, or its seeming conflict with his conclusion that the Biblical "Cushites" were "racially 'white.'" Was he unaware of this passage?

Well I'm afraid that biblical archaeology and linguistic analysis is not an area where I have a lot of background, so I'm just going by what I have gleaned here and there. But what I seem to be picking up is that a fair number of analysts have reached the conclusion that both meanings of "Cush" are used in different places, depending on context. The Cushite=Kassite ( actually, perhaps, the ancient Kassite city of Kish ) idea for this passage seems to be widespread - Apparently it is based at least in part on work by a famous biblical archaeologist and expert on ancient Semitic languages by the name of Ephraim Speiser ( 1902-1965 ), as well as a few others ( Delitzsch, Martin ), and it seems to be the accepted convention by at least a few authoritative or semi-authoritative volumes, like the Oxford Companion to the Bible. I'll say that just from my limited perspective, the reasoning seems on the surface to be solid ( linguistic evidence and geographic analysis of such things as "Cush" in relation to the Gihon river ).

So I don't really have a definitive answer to your question, but my guess would be that in those two different passages we are talking about two different "Cush's". I'll note that recognition of "racial" differences ( i.e. Ethiopians have darker skin than most Jews ) by ancient commentators does not necessarily equal racist thought in the modern sense :) . As to whether it is a stretch - Well, Occam's Razor is an attractive principle to start from, but it doesn't always hold water in the end ;) .

But I will happily admit that I have no 100% firm stance on any of this. I just threw out the Kassite thing because I found it fascinating. In my view the preponderance of evidence seem to indicate ( and many professional historians seem to be of the opinion ) that the ancient world generally had a pretty different concept of "race", just as they fgenerally had a rather different concept of "nationalism" ( quoted as that word really should have a specific meaning relating to post-Thirty Years War thought ). But I don't completely rule out that your take might have some validity at certain times and for certain ancient peoples - It's definitely a simple enough concept. It just seems to have not been the norm. I really do think that 18th and 19th century racial thought and the accompanying apogee of European world dominance, did alter the world profoundly in this regard.

- Tamerlane

[Spoke]

I really do think that 18th and 19th century racial thought and the accompanying apogee of European world dominance, did alter the world profoundly in this regard.

Well, there's no doubt that European hegemony (and some faulty "science") gave added impetus to racist thought. On that we can certainly agree.

As you note, the Cushite=Kassite explanation of the passage from Numbers has been embraced by a number of scholars over the past hundred years or so. But then again, a lot of scholars of the past hundred years or so also embraced racial "science" which I think we can agree is bunk.

So the "argument from authority" is at least as fallible as Occam's Razor. ;) That is why I have been looking for cites to primary sources in this thread.

Incidentally, I have found a secondary source reference to primary source materials which suggest some pretty strong racial prejudices among the ancient Chinese. Also there are some references to Arabic texts of the Middle Ages which suggest prejudices against sub-Saharan Africans and against Europeans. Rather than reproduce them all here, I'll link the article.

The author of the article is Dinesh D'Souza who is, to put it mildly, a controversial figure. (An arch conservative who loves to stir the pot.) He actually embraces Snowden's thesis that racism is of recent vintage. However, I think D'Souza seeks to coopt the thesis and use it to support his own arguments against affirmative action.

Oddly, D'Souza cites a number of primary sources which would seem to indicate (to me at least) that racism is an ancient evil. However, as some have done in this thread, D'Souza argues that the ancient sources reveal xenophobia or cultural hubris, but not racism. To me, that's a pretty fine distinction to make, but take a look at the article, and the primary sources it cites, and draw your own conclusions.

Here's the article. (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/005/Is%20Racism%20a%20Western%20Idea%20by%20Dinesh%20D%E2%80%99Souza_005__.htm)

[Tamerlane]

Spoke: Interesting article. I'm not a fan of D'Souza's politics ( to put it mildly ) and I think he occasionally makes some real errors in his reading of history ( a minor one I noticed right of the bat in this one - black slaves weren't imported into the Americas by the Spanish because Spaniards were more biased against them than Amerindians - they were imported because of the profound demographic collapse of the Amerindian population over the course of just a few decades ). But I think his argument here does have some merit.

I do agree with him that there is a real difference between tribalism ( probably inherent to humans ) and racism ( a learned behavior ). In fact I was just making that point in another thread :) .

But I'm afraid I'm just not the man to debate you if you want primary sources - I have none and I'm afraid that appeal to authority is all I'm stuck with :D . However, I will note in that vein that I think your philosophical opponents on this issue appear to have both a numerical superiority and at the very least a qualitative equivalence of authorities to appeal to ;) . I'll have to leave it at that for now :) .

- Tamerlane

[Spoke]

Tamerlane wrote: ...I think your philosophical opponents on this issue appear to have both a numerical superiority and at the very least a qualitative equivalence of authorities to appeal to...

Tsk, tsk, Tamerlane. Bad enough that you should argue from an appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html). Now you're combining that with an appeal to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)! For shame!!! ;)

[astro]

In the context of American slavery, other than the "I bought 'em, I own 'em" rationale what specifically did colonial era American slave holders use as a rationale to justify slaveholding? Was it a combination of religious and moral imperatives to "save" them or were they quoting the latest scientific findings?

As a side note the "scientific" notion of higher and lower races is not all that far past. As a lark I purchased a volume of a fairly extensive encyclopedia from the early 1900's for a dollar at a library sale some years ago. This volume had an extensive section on the "races of man" and how it was scientifically understood that different races had different "temperments" citing "emotional" latins etc etc.

It might be interesting to know when this perspective was finally put in the paradigmatic dustbin. In the history of science timeline when was the stake put through the heart of the "race/ethnicity effects temperment" concept as viable and commonly held scientific proposition. 40's, 50's, 60's ...70's ?

[Spoke]

Originally posted by astro
In the context of American slavery, other than the "I bought 'em, I own 'em" rationale what specifically did colonial era American slave holders use as a rationale to justify slaveholding? Was it a combination of religious and moral imperatives to "save" them or were they quoting the latest scientific findings?

The religious justification was the notorious "Curse of Ham" myth discussed above. The "thinking" went like this:

1. God cursed Ham by giving him dark skin. (Not actually in the Bible, but appears to be a later gloss on the Biblical story, deriving from Jewish tradition. Ham was presumed to be the progenitor of sub-Saharan Africans.)
2.God cursed Ham's son Canaan to be a "servant of servants unto his brethren." (Genesis 9:25)
3. Ham's brothers were presumed to be the progenitors of the other races.
4. Ergo, it was presumed to be "God's will" that the "descendants of Ham" (i.e. sub-Saharan Africans) were to be enslaved by the other races.

On the scientific side, during the Enlightenment (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html), a number of thinkers came forward with theories of racial hierarchy, which were also enlisted in support of slavery. The D'Souza article linked above excerpts the thoughts of Enlightenment-era philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant on the subject. Not pleasant reading.

It might be interesting to know when this perspective was finally put in the paradigmatic dustbin. In the history of science timeline when was the stake put through the heart of the "race/ethnicity effects temperment" concept as viable and commonly held scientific proposition. 40's, 50's, 60's ...70's ?

I know that my old (circa 1960) World Book Encyclopedia has a lengthy article on race. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it classifies everyone as either Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Negroid, with various sub-groupings. I don't remember whether it comments on the supposed "temperament" or "character" of the various races, but I doubt it. I think that by that time the idea of assigning such characteristics based on race had fallen from favor. (I'll try to remember to take a look at it tonight.)