Whats with all the racism geared twords African history?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,572
Portugal
#81
I am curious to know if the word racist is used in medieval English sources, and in what meaning?. I understand what you are saying but you will at-least agree with me that definition of racism is greatly muddled in last few decades. The world is led , influenced and shaped by English-speaking America and whatever comes from that nation, is accepted as 'mainstream'. Notice OP (from America), some people are dismissive about his history, or just simply disagreed with him, and he is shouting 'racism' at the top of his lungs. What has racism any thing to do with it?. If a Muslim say that he/she faces hate and prejudice in America because of his/her religion, there will be mild reactions to it. But Muslims they say that they are facing racism (because of their Muslims background), then alarm bells will ring and they will get due attention. So every one around the world is misusing and over-using the word racism. Just few days ago a Pashtun living in America called me a racist (i am also a Pashtun) after i criticized my people for practicing a certain custom. It has become a great comedy. I refuse to go along with 'mainstream' definition of racism.
Since I joined this forum, I noticed that themes like racism and slavery were on the order of the day, and that I didn’t had a specific study about it. That influenced me to buy the book “Racisms. From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century”, by Francisco Bethencourt: Racisms

You can read the introduction here: http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10082.pdf

This just to say that I am influenced by this work.

To answer to you, yes, I think that the definition of racism changed in time. I don’t agree with you that much that whatever comes from the USA is mainstream, after all I am European, and there are still academics and intellectuals here that like to contradict often what comes from a certain type of “America”.

As for your question about the “Medieval English sources” I can’t answer. I don’t have the knowledge to do that. My knowledge of English history is quite limited. On the other hand your question is about the word “racism”, well racisms can predate the existence of the word, or better explained in the words of Francisco Bethencourt:

“In my view, classification did not precede action. Prejudice concerning ethnic descent coupled with discriminatory action existed in various periods of history, although I acknowledge the critical impact of the scientific framework provided by the theory of races. Notions of blood and descent already played a central role in medieval forms of collective identification, while the modern ethnic and racial divide was largely inspired by traditional religious antagonism. The theory of races was permeated by conflicting points of view, which is why I will address its subject in the plural. To speak about race before racism means to follow a nominalist approach; Lucien Fèbvre pointed out many years ago that content may exist before the noun that expresses it.4 I will discuss the significance of vocabulary and explain my own choices later.” (it is ain the 3rd page of the previous link).

By the way, about you example, I don’t agree that criticizing a Pashtun custom (or any other) is racism, or a racist attitude, since a critique doesn’t necessarily follow in the definitions that I pointed out.
 
Likes: Azad67

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,572
Portugal
#82
Approaching History | Bias

To summarize;
There are two types of bias: intentional and unconscious. Intentional bias is easily recognized and can be justly disregarded. Unconscious bias is the historian's pitfall.

I am prone to say that in the case of African history, the study would benefit from African historians. In light of the above, perhaps Africa has been enough of a contested issue in recent past and the present that a fair assessment isn't yet reasonable. It's just too much of an emotional topic for us presently.
Interesting page. I would say that the inexistence of bias is impossible to achieve to any historian.

Probably the better is to recognize it and to move on. So in a way, I think that there is a third bias, the one that we know that exists, that we deal with it, try to minimize it even if we know that is there constantly influencing our work.

Anyway, I think that African history is just too emotional in certain circles. Mostly in the USA, and by consequence in the English speaking world.
 
Oct 2013
14,446
Europix
#83
I am curious to know if the word racist is used in medieval English sources, and in what meaning?
IDK when the word "racist" was for the first time used.


But I can tell You that "race" exist for long time, and designed other people, regardless skin colour. Only 2-3 centuries ago, a French called Bretons, or Flemish, another "race".


People are over-using the word racism, and very incorrectly. Racist is one who is nationalistic about his race and thinks that all the ethno-linguistic groups of a particular race should act and behave as one nation irrespective of the differences in language, culture and religion. Right now in the world, only White nationalists and Black nationalists are racists, others are not. ...

No.


Racism and nationalism are two different things.


Racism is simply hatred directed to a certain category. Jews, or Arabs, or Blacks, or etc.


Nationalism isn't simply hatred. There is also the affirming nationalism, not only the negating nationalism (tho the later is a lot more vocal). And the affirming nationalism can be (and often is) not racist.
 
Feb 2018
28
Belgium
#85
Simply because of afrocentrism. Afrocentrists have invaded the internet especially on the anglo side of internet it's almost impossible to speak about history with an afro-american he'll always try to speak about black egypt and the black moors and if you try to show him that there is no evidence of it he will call you an eurocentrist and when you see that they make thousands of videos who got 500K views you can't stay calm especially if you're north african.
 
Jan 2019
53
Norway
#88
Ancient Egypt and Carthage weren't black right?
Carthage was built by Phoenician colonizers. Ancient Egypt is a bit controversial, and we can't talk about genetic on this forum because it's not politically correct, but here are a few pictures of the ruling class when Egypt prospered :
yuya-thuya-1.jpg
636b6298-b6dd-4a06-bef0-c7eabb3ceb7a.png
cc.png
32fcae2025389ec598a5503873fbe27b.png
06f3c1fe45282c28b9198780aa27f34e--scribe-ancient-egypt.jpg
main-qimg-40ceb718e8a3c4e5563e03a43a9e9fea-c.jpg

So this is how Egyptians looked for most of their history. There was however, a Nubian dynasty. The last pharaoh of a Nubian dynasty, Taharka, whose mixed race ancestry is clear from sculptures, was driven from his throne by invading Assyrians, and it is from this fall of Taharka that historians formally date the fall of Egypt, although in reality the last true ethnic Egyptian had disappeared nearly two hundred years previously. In this picture, , on the left, you see the ethnic Egyptian Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, circa 1450 BC. Center, the Nilo-Saharan Nubian Pharaoh Shabako, circa 710 BC., and right, the last Nubian pharaoh Taharka, who ruled Egypt from 690 to 664 BC.
1549881714026.png
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,572
Portugal
#89
Ancient Egypt is a bit controversial, and we can't talk about genetic on this forum because it's not politically correct, but here are a few pictures of the ruling class when Egypt prospered:
What is the controversy about Egypt, in your opinion? (if you answer, please do it without photos or videos).

By the way, I see that you joined in January, a bit more than a month ago, so it seems that you don’t know why genetics aren’t allowed here. If you don’t know than it is incorrect to state that is because of ”political correctness”, correct?
 
Jan 2019
53
Norway
#90
What is the controversy about Egypt, in your opinion? (if you answer, please do it without photos or videos).
The controversy is ethnic. Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have been fighting for years about the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians.

(if you answer, please do it without photos or videos)
I would love to do so. However, if I was to do so, I would post SNP data, and genetic isn't allowed on this forum.

By the way, I see that you joined in January, a bit more than a month ago, so it seems that you don’t know why genetics aren’t allowed here. If you don’t know than it is incorrect to state that is because of ”political correctness”, correct?
I simply guessed that genetic create a lot of controversy when discussed. I have seen on various forums people mis-using haplogroups to claim the history of other peoples, which sometimes may create low-quality discussions. However, I don't see why it would be more problematic than historical accounts in general.
 

Similar History Discussions