A quote about Capitalism/Racism

Status
Closed
#31
Again- you are not catching the meaning.

There is no evidence from Roman writings that they gave much thought to the color of anyone's skin.

Rather- they saw the distinctions between the peoples they came across as purely cultural. If you could build stone temples... you were considered civilized- just like them.

This is not to say they did not economically exploit people- it is to say they did not do so on the basis of skin color.
If you got conquered- you might end up a slave- but to the Roman way of thinking this did not make you less than human. You fought... you lost. The penalty for losing was slavery.

Like the feudal Europeans- they had to invent Other distinctions they used to justify their exploitation of others.



The notion that people were LESSER than you- based upon nothing but an aspect of their appearance- did not manifest until the colonial exploitation by europe of people's with less advance technology.

And it was not based upon any valid objective criteria- you exploited people to make money from them. And if you transhipped people who were immediately identifiable as being NOT like your people... you could justify your cruelties by making them defacto subhuman in your own mind.

try and find instances of racial enslavement prior to the era of European Colonialism...

It is a relative NEW idea- and it was borne of capitalist opportunism and persisted as a result of capitalist opportunism.
This is inaccurate on so many levels.

Just because you didn't have the New York post bellowing race from the towers, doesn't mean it didn't exist back then.

What do you think colonialism did to cause racism? especially when Africans had been taken as slaves by Arabians etc centuries before?

You are right in one way, the Romans didn't have an obsession with skin colour, because no one bothered to talk about it, they didn't need the reasons or excuses to think low of people that we do today.

.......... but that's completely the same reason that the Romans conquered and massacred and no one said anything, it was for the glory of Rome and that was it, why do you think a group of people who'd take anyone's lands and slaughter them felt they needed skin colour as an excuse? ............ Roman or barbarian, if you were the latter they didn't need skin colour to put you down, you were already there in their eyes.

But to act like people were blind to colour or features before colonialism is ridiculous.
 
Aug 2016
4,070
Dispargum
#32
I think you are making too much of it and mixing several concepts in one: risks, lending, poverty, race.... How would they - for example- keep a black person out of a neighborhood if that person would pay cash for a home ?
1. Real estate agents would not show a Black person a home in a white neighborhood nor would they agree to process such a sale if a Black person found a house on his or her own.
2. White sellers often refused to sell to a Black person out of loyalty to their white neighbors. No white person wanted to be known as the person who let the first Black person into the neighborhood.
3. If a Black person could overcome 1 and 2, very few people buy homes with cash.
Some Blacks did manage to move into white neighborhoods, but it was very rare. Even today in America most neighborhoods are racially homogeneous.

I'll give you another example.... Expats.... is this racism ? is this red lining ? ...No its bureaucracy and risk management...
Expats paying higher interest rates or fees is not the same thing as being completely banned from most neighborhoods. I agree that red lining was bureaucracy and risk management, but it was bureaucracy and risk management that resulted in whites acquiring wealth through home ownership while Blacks were forced to rent or buy homes that declined in value even they had good jobs and could afford to pay mortgages. Where we live should be decided by how much we can afford to pay, not by what color our skin is.

In the above definitions of yellow and red neighborhoods, terms like "undesirable population" and "lower grade population" were understood to mean Blacks and other minorities. Everyone was incentivized to keep blue and green neighborhoods blue and green. That meant not letting Blacks and other minorities move in.

I agree there are other issues. It was more difficult for a Black person to get a good job that would let them afford a mortgage in a nice neighborhood, but even economically diverse neighborhoods were discouraged. There were few, if any, neighborhoods where rich, middle class, and poor lived in close proximity to each other because of fear that the poor would drive down home values of the rich and middle class. Arguing that Blacks live in Black neighborhoods because they're poor not because they're Black, doesn't hold water. Red lining discriminated against poor people, too. For most of the 20th century, it was taken for granted in America that Black and poor meant pretty much the same thing. The racial aspect of red lining comes into play when you realize that it was easier for a poor white person to move into a better neighborhood than it was for a Black person because a poor white person can pass for a middle class white, but it was too easy for a banker or a realtor to assume that a Black person must be poor and therefore didn't belong in a white middle class neighborhood.
 
#34
Would the Messenians count?

How about the Janissaries or Mamelukes? It's my rudimentary understanding that the men who filled the ranks of these two institutions were specifically sought out from certain regions/cultures/"races" etc.
Yes but not for skin colour.

1st requirement - Non Muslim, it was against the laws of Islam to enslave a muslim.

2nd requirement - Mamlukes were picked from Turkic tribes due to their cultural affinity for warfare via horsemanship, the mamluks after all were a cavalry force.

Jannisaries on the other hand were picked because balkan youths were on hand to be taken as enslaved levy from balkan residents living under the shadow of the Empire, it was also an interesting way to rob the Christian Kingdoms of future generations of balkan males to be used against the Ottomans, the Ottomans essentially robbed their youth and enlisted them to fight for themselves.

3rd requirement - Locally accessible in bulk, the balkans speak for themselves and so did the Turkic tribes who were on and within the borders of the Islamic Empire.

So this was more selection on religion and culture, not racial.
 
Oct 2009
3,557
San Diego
#35
This is inaccurate on so many levels.

Just because you didn't have the New York post bellowing race from the towers, doesn't mean it didn't exist back then.

What do you think colonialism did to cause racism? especially when Africans had been taken as slaves by Arabians etc centuries before?

You are right in one way, the Romans didn't have an obsession with skin colour, because no one bothered to talk about it, they didn't need the reasons or excuses to think low of people that we do today.

.......... but that's completely the same reason that the Romans conquered and massacred and no one said anything, it was for the glory of Rome and that was it, why do you think a group of people who'd take anyone's lands and slaughter them felt they needed skin colour as an excuse? ............ Roman or barbarian, if you were the latter they didn't need skin colour to put you down, you were already there in their eyes.

But to act like people were blind to colour or features before colonialism is ridiculous.
Look- no one is saying that cultures didn't used to be opportunistic. No one is saying that capitalism was GREAT before it invented racism.

Rather the opposite. I am saying that PRIOR to the era of European seaborne trade/colonialism there is no evidence that cultures based their exploitation of other peoples on RACE.
People were not very often even referred to as races unless they had dramatically different physical traits. Moors were seen as a race- but NOT muslims, per se. Arabs were seen as a race- But Turks looked like greeks who were considered caucasian.

Capitalism ALWAYS exploited SOME group-- Its a Pyramid scam, after all- you need a LOT of people on the bottom so that a Few can live large on top-- It's just that, before the renaissance, it was NOT exploiting people based on RACE.

Persians enslaved Greeks and vice versa- but they did not see one another as separate races- and they did not see one another as INHERENTLY a Slave people.

partly this was due to the fact that in the ancient world you were as likely to meet someone black- who lived in a civilized manner- as you were white, or olive or yellow.
In the ancient world, all areas of the globe had civilizations that were roughly equivalent in terms of accomplishments.

But the advent of modern science and its effect on making one geographical region far more technologically advanced than most other peoples gave the lucky Europeans ample means to exert their will over other people's and the fact that those other people's could Not hit Europe back in any meaningful sense afforded the Europeans a sense of superiority that was predicated upon RACIAL identifications.

There was huge money to be made buying slaves in africa and selling them in the colonies... where European diseases had decimated local native peoples into near extinction.
Thus- instead of seeing Africans as just darker skinned people- it became easy to see their darker skin as the FLAG for their subhuman status- and thinking that way made it a lot easier to sleep at night in the comfy surroundings afforded by your trade in slaves.


So- sorry- its just true- Slavery- as we think of it today, being the systemic economic exploitation of an entire RACE of people based SOLELY on their race alone- is absolutely an artifact of European Capitalist Economics- combined with European technological and scientific advances that handed them the ability to expand economically on a global scale.
 
Oct 2009
3,557
San Diego
#36
Arab slave trade.

Julius Caeser, Gaul.
Gauls are NOT a race- they are a tribe- and they were not ALL enslaved. 60 years later Gauls were as often Roman Citizens.
Ergo- not an example of a people who were defacto Sub-Roman by virtue of their race.

Arabs did not enslave based on race- but on religion. Black muslims could not be enslaved. White Muslims could not be enslaved- You could Convert to escape slavery. So- yet again, Not an example of an entire people BORN to be slaves strictly by virtue of their skin color or facial morphology.- Moreover- in the later renaissance era Arab colonialism was perverting their sense of slavery just as much and due to the same capitalist opportunism comboned with territorial expansion.
Slavery prior to the colonial era was a Misfortune... not a GENETICALLY determined fate.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2009
3,557
San Diego
#37
]Gauls are NOT a race- they are a tribe- and they were not ALL enslaved. 60 years later Gauls were as often Roman Citizens.
Ergo- not an example of a people who were defacto Sub-Roman by virtue of their race.

Arabs did not enslave based on race- but on religion. Black muslims could not be enslaved. White Muslims could not be enslaved- You could Convert to escape slavery. So- yet again, Not an example of an entire people BORN to be slaves strictly by virtue of their skin color or facial morphology.- Moreover- in the later renaissance era Arab colonialism was perverting their sense of slavery just as much and due to the same capitalist opportunism comboned with territorial expansion.
Slavery prior to the colonial era was a Misfortune... not a GENETICALLY determined fate.
 
Apr 2010
34,479
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#38
Gauls are NOT a race- they are a tribe- and they were not ALL enslaved. 60 years later Gauls were as often Roman Citizens.
Ergo- not an example of a people who were defacto Sub-Roman by virtue of their race.
"Africans" are not a race. They are a geographic grouping of multiple ethnicities and they were nor ALL enslaved. Years later, Africans were as often American citizens.
Ergo- not an example of a people who were defacto Sub-Roman by virtue of their race.

Arabs did not enslave based on race- but on religion. Black muslims could not be enslaved. White Muslims could not be enslaved- You could Convert to escape slavery. So- yet again, Not an example of an entire people BORN to be slaves strictly by virtue of their skin color or facial morphology.- Moreover- in the later renaissance era Arab colonialism was perverting their sense of slavery just as much and due to the same capitalist opportunism comboned with territorial expansion.
Slavery prior to the colonial era was a Misfortune... not a GENETICALLY determined fate.
Un huh. And the slave owners checked the genes of their slaves, did they?

"No true Scotsman". Nice try.
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
#39
Look- no one is saying that cultures didn't used to be opportunistic. No one is saying that capitalism was GREAT before it invented racism.

Rather the opposite. I am saying that PRIOR to the era of European seaborne trade/colonialism there is no evidence that cultures based their exploitation of other peoples on RACE.
People were not very often even referred to as races unless they had dramatically different physical traits. Moors were seen as a race- but NOT muslims, per se. Arabs were seen as a race- But Turks looked like greeks who were considered caucasian.

Capitalism ALWAYS exploited SOME group-- Its a Pyramid scam, after all- you need a LOT of people on the bottom so that a Few can live large on top-- It's just that, before the renaissance, it was NOT exploiting people based on RACE.

Persians enslaved Greeks and vice versa- but they did not see one another as separate races- and they did not see one another as INHERENTLY a Slave people.

partly this was due to the fact that in the ancient world you were as likely to meet someone black- who lived in a civilized manner- as you were white, or olive or yellow.
In the ancient world, all areas of the globe had civilizations that were roughly equivalent in terms of accomplishments.

But the advent of modern science and its effect on making one geographical region far more technologically advanced than most other peoples gave the lucky Europeans ample means to exert their will over other people's and the fact that those other people's could Not hit Europe back in any meaningful sense afforded the Europeans a sense of superiority that was predicated upon RACIAL identifications.

There was huge money to be made buying slaves in africa and selling them in the colonies... where European diseases had decimated local native peoples into near extinction.
Thus- instead of seeing Africans as just darker skinned people- it became easy to see their darker skin as the FLAG for their subhuman status- and thinking that way made it a lot easier to sleep at night in the comfy surroundings afforded by your trade in slaves.


So- sorry- its just true- Slavery- as we think of it today, being the systemic economic exploitation of an entire RACE of people based SOLELY on their race alone- is absolutely an artifact of European Capitalist Economics- combined with European technological and scientific advances that handed them the ability to expand economically on a global scale.
Dude .........smh.

Hear me out here, NO one and I repeat no one gives a crap about race like Americans do, hence why you think your theory holds weight because your looking at the past through a lense at a time when no one gave a crap ........ a bit like me today, sick of hearing about race by obsessed Americans who are spreading that complex throughout the Western World.

Your right like I said in that regard, people (other than Americans) don't have this hang up about the subject but where your theory falls flat is in this ...............

i could name you loads of systems which are predatory not just capitalism, in fact every hierachy is predatory, the only difference is older cultures were mainly surrounded by their own nationality so race was never a reason, class was.

For e.g in Medieval Europe, Serfs, Feudalism etc was as predatory as you could get, Lords claiming lands and forcing peasants to work for them and treating them like cattle.

So basically throughout history captialism was replaced by class, capitalism is nothing more than a class structure the only difference is its based on free enterprise.

If you think a Roman, or a European Knight didn't look at an African whenever they even saw one and thought they weren't superior then your misinformed, Europeans thought that about the enitre Middle East, they looked down on them as every group does, Chinese def do, they looked down on Mongols like they were scum.

Its innate of every group to view foriegn groups as lower because it upholds your culture and social structure as superior ........ the only time foreigners change this perspective is usually via brute force (Huns) or through technological advancement.

i.e the Greeks were thought well of, even by their enemies because of the Civilizations they had raised.

Native American Indians got just as short shrift as the Afro Americans did, the difference is the Natives were too unruly to be used as slaves, you could take some of them yes (and they did) but en masse Native Indians (and they did) would always end up fighting back, so instead Americans ended up slaughtering them.

Capitalism didn't create the subject of race ........... America did, to the detriment of us all.
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions