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

[Spoke]

Tamerlane wrote:

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

Tsk, tsk, Tamerlane. Bad enough that you should argue from an appeal to authority. Now you’re combining that with an appeal to popularity! For shame!!!

[astro]

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

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

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

[Spoke]

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

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

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

On the scientific side, during the Enlightenment, a number of thinkers came forward with theories of racial hierarchy, which were also enlisted in support of slavery. The D’Souza article linked above excerpts the thoughts of Enlightenment-era philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant on the subject. Not pleasant reading.

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

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