Nobody is denying that there are differences between population groups. A strange argument to make considering that I just shared a picture of black, brown and white people, with different color hair, eyes and all, as well as indicating that ethnicities are real... The question is if these arguably shallow differences merit people being classified as different "races", or mere variances within one and the same race. The concept of different races can not be adequately defined by science. It's an artificial construct with many divergent connotations, which is one of the many reasons why it's so controversial, and a topic generally avoided in scientific circles for some time now.There are real differences between population groups which are the result of different ancestry and evolution.
I really can't believe that you brought pygmies into this...
You mean Brazil, don’t you - (where slavery held out for a good while)?Don’t forget that the U.S arguably had the biggest social issues as well as internal war regarding slavery’s legacy than any other single country, it seems that apart from Haiti of course, every other American country ended slavery gradually under the new emerging enlightened ideas of the time.
My apologies for overstepping forum rules, I didn't see your original mod message until after I posted.Sundiata, you're on the list now, too. Everybody, drop the discussion of race and get back on the topic of whether or not some countries are unfairly vilified for their slavery pasts.
That might be better in its own thread. Race has proved problematic in this thread. People can't even agree what race is. It might be a good idea to define in your OP just what race is.Is it possible to discuss how the development of scientific racism influenced the racialization of slavery, which plays a key role in how the history of slavery is often perceived today? Followed by periods like the Jim Crow laws in the Southern USA until the 1960's, or racial segregation to varying degrees across colonial Africa, these periods in history have strengthened the narrative of the "European colonizers" and the "native victims", rightly or wrongly so.
Thanks for the answer, and I understand. Although I'm not particularly enthusiastic about having a big race debate, so I'll probably just retreat back to my little corner, lol.That might be better in its own thread. Race has proved problematic in this thread. People can't even agree what race is. It might be a good idea to define in your OP just what race is.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Why aren't great commanders in WW I & II worthy of consideration for GOAT?||Military History|
|Why aren't "violent extremists" referred to as heretics instead of "radicals"?||Philosophy / Sociology|
|Why Aren't the Buffalo Extinct?||North American History|
|Other countries aren't completely useless.||General History|