And here’s a little background on India’s caste system.
From the site:
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.
Huh? Relevance? You seem to have badly if unsurprisingly misread or misunderstood my comments. Reread.
I’m not a biblical scholar, I could care less, reread my comments to get at what I was actually refering to.
For the simple reason that the imagery was associated with “leprosy”?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Chaim,
Interesting comments. A few questions/obs.
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.
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.
…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:
Tom, I believe you are mistaken about that. Examples:
…and on and on. Here is the source which draws a connection between these vedic verses and the development of the caste system:
Small wonder that Hitler found inspiration in Indian history.
Another interesting article here regarding “India’s ‘Hidden Apartheid.’” (The author coincidentally chose the same word as I to describe the caste system.) From the article:
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 web site (including this page 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 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.
Spin doctoring?
I guess the ancient Arabs poets were spin doctoring also, eh Spoke old man?
Shaking my head at the density of denseness.
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.
Tom, in an earlier post, you defined the question thusly:
If that last Vedic verse I cited doesn’t meet that test, I’m not sure what would. Here it is again:
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
Readers of this thread can take a look and draw their own conclusions, but to me it looks like a pretty straightforward story:
“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.
Tom wrote:
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.
First in europe you mean, In argentina it was banned by the XIII year assembly (1813)
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.
A point I missed:
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.
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.
[Hijack]
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.[/Hijack]
Ah bother.
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.
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.
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.