# Did racism exist in the West before the late 15th century? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2002, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630 "2002-04-09T06:22:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/61 "2002-04-11T06:43:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 _Sidi_\*. 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 ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/62 "2002-04-11T07:46:06Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/63 "2002-04-11T13:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/64 "2002-04-11T14:57:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/65 "2002-04-11T19:49:38Z")
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 [www.bc.edu/bc\_org/research/rapl/word/braude01.doc+%22curse+of+ham%22+rashi&hl=en](http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:XTBaILpC9QUC:%5Burl)"]here, 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? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/66 "2002-04-11T20:01:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/67 "2002-04-12T02:40:42Z")
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: [quote 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. [/quote] 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. > [@](#): > > 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) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/68 "2002-04-12T02:42:52Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/69 "2002-04-12T05:56:49Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/70 "2002-04-12T11:22:15Z")
Still waiting for a primary source argument… ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/71 "2002-04-12T14:01:42Z")
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](http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/TableofNations.htm) - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2002, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/72 "2002-04-12T15:04:47Z")
**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] ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/73 "2002-04-13T03:48:37Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2002, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/74 "2002-04-14T05:14:25Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/75 "2002-04-15T16:24:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/76 "2002-04-15T17:32:46Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Joachim\_Pieper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Joachim\_Pieper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joachim_Pieper)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/77 "2002-04-16T13:39:28Z")
Juvenal. Nero. Aristophanes, maybe? Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/78 "2002-04-16T18:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/79 "2002-04-16T19:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > 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) ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630/80 "2002-04-16T20:41:17Z")
**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 😃 . 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 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-racism-exist-in-the-west-before-the-late-15th-century/102630.md?page=5)