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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 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?
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.
My dear old boy Spoke. I’m so happy that you’re indulging me.
Now, let us have some analytical fun.
Ah yes, am I now? Well let us see. This should be very, very fun.
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.
Yes, let us. Of course, I shall have to reply on more than this one article, which you seem to have badly misunderstood.
Indeed, justifying rather later in history as the author noted. But let us delve into that.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
[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.
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:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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):
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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?
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:
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 we hear the female half of the couple speak of herself:
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:
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:
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. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 .
.
.
. 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