Was racism a thing back in Roman times or is it a relatively new concept? I mean sure they called everyone barbarians but that's because they weren't Romans not because of their nationality.
They were right about germaniggers though.
>>>tumblr
>>359228
barbarbar muffuga
wer da latin womenz at
There was no 'race' back then. It was more about cultures.
>>359310
This.
Racism is a relatively new concept, the rise of the evolutionary theory was kind of a prerequisite for it
Both racism and anti-racism are modern phenomenoms. Romans didn't gave their daughters to be raped by Ethiopians to prove how tolerant they were either.
>>359336
Doesn't really matter what you think unless you provide empirical evidence.
>>359228
As >>359310 mentioned, racism back before the modern age of nationalism was largely confined to cultures.
While ancient and medieval people could no doubt tell the visual differences between races, the main greivances people would've had at the time would've been their spoken language first and foremost, their religion second (depending on the time period) and their culture third.
A Roman would've probably gotten along better with a Latin-speaking, Roman-cultured Black man than with a pale-faced Bar-Bar-Bar-speaking barbarian.
it wasnt like, hes black fuck him, it was more of, hes a barbarian (for rome) fuck him or hes a gaul or german fuck him, they had respect for the other cultures but they felt others were inferior
>>359358
>german
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>359323
Yeah and it was pretty convenient for the whole slave trade thing.
And, of course, it's all the Protestants fault.
Don't listen to the idiots ITT. Of course there was racism, there was a reason why Caesar liked gauls but would never allow a black in the Senate.
>>359228
>Was racism a thing back in Roman times
of course it was you dipshit
>>359412
I think that might have more to do with blacks never being part of the roman world at any time. Berbers (or well half breed 100% romanized berbers) on the other not only managed to become senators by the empire, but even emperors.
>>359412
>Caesar liked Gauls more than Africans
What Tf?
>>359418
>Berbers are black
>muh Africa only has black people in it
>kangz and senators and emperors n shiet
>>359418
They would have been white though.
>WE WAZ ROMANS
>>>/carthage/
>>359403
Uh, the slave trade ended by the time On The Origin of Species was published.
>>359345
not that guy but this work argues his point:
Isaac, Benjamin H. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
>A vigorous assault on the popular argument that there was no such thing as racism in ancient Greece and Rome. Instead, the author asserts throughout that the seeds of racism were sown in the ancient world.
this one argues the opposite:
Snowden, Frank M. Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
>Representative example of the argument that blacks were not subjected to racism in the ancient world. Instead, they were often treated with respect and admiration.
>>359412
>would never allow a black in the Senate.
where does he say this lel
>>359427
About as white as the Carthaginians maybe. Certainly not Nubian black but not exactly Roman white either.
>>359455
>the slave trade ended by the time On The Origin of Species was published
You mean that the Europeans had banned it.
Arabs and Africans were still dealing in slaves through up until the dawn of the 20th century, and the Africans still are.
>muh slavery is about racism
African kingdoms have almost all been founded on the enslavement and sale of their subject peoples and those of rival kingdoms.
Juvenal was certainly racist towards Greeks.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_03.htm
>I cannot abide, Quirites, a Rome of Greeks; and yet what fraction of our dregs comes from Greece? The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber, bringing with it its lingo and its manners, its flutes and its slanting harp-strings: bringing too the timbrels of the breed, and the trulls who are bidden ply their trade at the Circus. Out upon you, all ye that delight in foreign strumpets with painted headdresses!
>No: there is no room for any Roman here, where some Protogenes, or Diphilus, or Hermarchus rules the roast----one who by a defect of his race never shares a friend, but keeps him all to himself.
>>359426
I think you might be agreeing with me already, but just to be sure let me reiterate that berbers are not "black" to me.
>>359427
>They would have been white though.
Well what does white mean exactly? Their skin tone would have looked to the romans no less different than the gauls' from their own. They weren't italic peoples, and that's pretty much the only thing that counted before the provinces started being given citizenship under the empire. If a tribe of the niggest niggers had populated Sardinia but got 100% romanized and been loyal subjects for a couple centuries, I quite doubt the average roman would have considered them more different than people from outside the empire.
>>359468
>Roman white
>Romans
>White
>>359488
It's all relative anon.
I do agree though. Romans definitely weren't creamy white themselves.
>>359468
>roman white
Which is barely white at all.
>>359488
>>359499
There were Gauls and Iberians and Germans and Brittani and Helvetii aplenty in Rome, what are you talking about?
>Italians aren't white
I would say go back to /pol/ cause they would agree that Italians are basically just pastaniggers, but saying Romans weren't white is like something tumblr hipsters would say so go there.
PRAEPARABIT TAURUM
>>359519
Do you mean that pol thinks italians are niggers but romans are white? But italians are basically romans raped by germans and french.
>>359519
>t. Salvatore Di Maggio
You're basically the same as an arab m8, I don't see the difference.
>>359525
>you mean that pol thinks italians are niggers but romans are white
They were honorary whites, like the Japanese, but they got keked hard by Ethiopia so they lost the title.
>italians are basically romans raped by germans and french
pls
>>359519
>go back to /pol/
Please. That site is so full of bootyblasted mutts and Mediterraneans trying to prove their whiteness these days that they'll take anyone who's willing to join their anti-Islam circlejerk. It's even opened up to Israeli posters now and I'd never thought they'd go that far.
You're thinking of /int/, who bantz on anything based on who OP is.
![tito%20di%20maggio[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pq5XZjG.jpg "tito%20di%20maggio[1].jpg")
>>359531
>Salvatore Di Maggio
Are you talking of this guy? Doesn't really look like an arab to me.
Here's what they were saying in medieval Arabia.
>>359543
>/int/, who bantz on anything based on who OP is
ever since mandatory flags and polharbor they've pretty much completely into the international bants scene desu
>>359544
that guy's clearly not white
>>359228
Well I don't know about roman times, but racism (more specifically anti-black racism, which is what one usually thinks of when talking about racism) is pretty old. For instance arabs genuinely thought they were sub humans.
>>359554
That's hardly surprising given their involvement with the African slave trade. They probably had to pull a Confederacy-styled racial hierarchy to rationalise it into something justifiable.
>>359560
>they've pretty much completely into the international bants scene desu
Just without any sense of self-awareness.
>>359565
...or they simply noticed that africans were underdeveloped savages, which anyone with a functioning pair of eyes would've noticed.
>>359567
DUDE
JUST
REMOVE
POO
IN
DEBTS
YES
>>359569
Maybe, but keep in mind one of Muhammad's companions was explicitly stated to have been a black slave (kinda forgot his name atm, he was the guy that did the first call to prayer), so they probably had to reconcile that with all the nigs they were selling.
>>359578
He was half ethiopian. And anyways, a half-ethiopian slave born and raised in Arabia doesn't prevent arab explorers from being shocked by the backwardness of the bantus living on the eastern african coast.
There has always been prejudice and bigotry since the dawn of time. We have new words to explain it.
![ssal2012-1_big[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KcvfmTk.jpg "ssal2012-1_big[1].jpg")
>>359563
>Ethiopian =/= Sub-Saharan African.
>>359719
>we wuz ethiopians n sheeit
>>359725
>I post a map of the world recognized by the UN
>he posts meme's
>>359345
I don't have any evidence im just going off my understanding of human beings. There's not much evidence for those times about daily life, you cant say racism never occurred anymore than racism always occurred.
In general i imagine it existed as humans will always find something to hate other humans for.
>They were right about germaniggers though
right about what?
a lot of important ancient romans actually had blonde hair, but my theorie is that this was due to the amount of incest that was going on
>>359738
Regions are literally a social construct.
What you're being obtuse about is that ethiopians are not bantu, which is what one usually means when referring to "sub saharans".
>>359569
I doubt it since the closest black nations to them at the time were actual empires.
>>359228
>that's because they weren't Romans not because of their nationality
This literally makes no sense.
>>359774
>I doubt it since the closest black nations to them at the time were actual empires.
Which were? Don't say Ethiopia, because they weren't really black.
>>359773
>all sub-Saharan are Bantus
This is on the level of saying African is synonymous to black.
>>359790
>>all sub-Saharan are Bantus
The vast majority are. Which is why the terms are usually interchangeable.
>>359719
You're missing the point.
When you think of "Blacks", you think of niggers. Bantu, Mande, West Africans.
Ethiopians are not "Blacks". They are Afro-Asiatics. They are more closely related to Arabs, Jews, Berbers, and Egyptians than Jay Z or Kanye West.
Frenchmen and Chinese live on the same landmass. It would be retarded to think they were in any way related genetically, culturally, or linguistically. Ethiopians, likewise, are not related in the slightest to "Blacks" (IE, the people who live in Sierra Leone) even though they both live in Africa.
The Muslim writers are not talking about Ethiopians. They are talking about Sub-Saharan Africans, such as the people who live in Sierra Leone.
This is Genzebe Dibaba. She is an Oromo from Ethiopia.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Genzebe_Dibaba_by_Augustas_Didzgalvis.jpg
This is Yemi Adenuga. She is Nigerian.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Yemi_Adenuga.jpg
Yes. They are the same color. Yes, they both come from Africa. Those two things are the ONLY thing they have in common.
So yes. Ethiopian =/= Sub-Saharan African.
>>359788
Romans called all blacks Ethiopian
>>359788
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Makuria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alodia
>Inb4 they aren't really black
>>359773
>What you're being obtuse about is that ethiopians are not bantu
I never said that Ethiopians were Bantu, because they aren't.
>bantu, which is what one usually means when referring to "sub saharans".
No, nobody does this. When they mean Bantu, they usually just say Bantu.
>>359806
>When you think of "Blacks", you think of niggers.
No i think of black people because im not a childish racist
>>359815
Your point being? That Romans were inaccurate?
>>359788
What constitutes as " really black"?
>>359821
>When I think of "Blacks", I think of black people cause I'm progressive and can't tell the difference between Negroid sub-types!
You're simplistic.
>>359832
Muh bantu!
So basically hardly any Africans in the time of the caliphate since it was before the major bantu expansions
>>359457
>blacks were not subjected to racism in the ancient world. Instead, they were often treated with respect and admiration
Wouldn't the second be actually shooting on his own foot by arguing that (positive) racism existed?
>>359816
Of course they weren't black, they were afro-asiatic, like present day northern sudan. Arabs nipped their slaves further down south, on the kenyan and tanzanian coast.
>>359818
>I never said that Ethiopians were Bantu,
Right, you said that ethiopians were sub saharan. At which point I told you that in this case, the term "sub saharan" was used instead of "bantu".
Unsatisfied with this explanation, you dragged on this pointless conversation vehemently insisting that ethiopians are sub saharan. I don't have the time or energy to argue with autists, so yes, ethiopians are sub saharans. In fact they're anything you want them to be. They're europeans, they're asians, heck, they're kamtchatkians for all I care. It doesn't change that they differ racially from their nigger neighbors to the south and to the west. Happy?
>>359834
No, i just don't think niggers.
Black people are humans. You should get your politics out of here.
>>359846
Sudan was historically very dark black. The Kingdom of Kush was also a black kingdom, but i think i BTFO of you before on that.
>>359802
>The vast majority are.
"No."
>>359849
So West-African's aren't "really black"?
>>359849
>All black africans are bantu
you dun goofed
>>359852
>Black people are humans.
You say that as if you need to reassure yourself.
I swear, progressives and liberals are some of the most racist people I've ever met. They go into fucking conniptions if you even make a joke about black people, as if blacks are somehow untouchable or something.
It's so fucking "white man's burden" level backwards.
>>359834
>You're simplistic.
This. The entire notions of generalizing various races as "white" and "black" is the result of American colonial fucktardery.
>>359875
I like how the simple phrase of blacks are human makes you sperge out calling me a liberal crybaby progressive.
I'm just a history loving NEET arguing on a Yemeni Camel trader convention
>>359881
>the result of American
That's just cause we don't really know where our blacks came from.
We do have words like mulatto and octoroon though, and are capable of distinguishing a Peruvian native from an Eskimo and shit. Also casual racism towards Irish people and Italians is still a thing.
>>359866
"Black" is a term used to lump a large amount of people together, much like "White".
There are not Whites. There are no Blacks. There are Tutsi, Hutu, Frenchmen, Germans, Temne, Mende, Swedes, and Portuguese. "White" and "Black" are used by people like >>359821 in order to feel good about themselves and oversimplify an incredibly complex subject so they can sweep it under the rug in the name of "progress".
The closest thing there is to "Black" is "All non-Afro-Asiatic non-Khoisan non-Indo-European groups native to Africa south of the Sahara". But even then that is a poor approximation because of pic related and the pic in >>359864. Keep in mind that we're only talking about language FAMILIES here. Indo-European is a language family. Every language in Europe (Sans Basque, Hungarian, Maltese, Yiddish, Turkish, and Finnish) falls under "Indo-European". And two groups can speak the same language and despise each other.
>>359846
I didn't just say ethiopians were sub saharan, I supported my claim with a map recognized by the UN. Then you started saying that bantu is interchangeable with sub saharan, which simply isn't true.
>I don't have the time or energy to argue with autists
And judging by this reply I think you admit that you were wrong.
>>359896
Although it's true that I'm using "bantu" to denote a larger family than what it typically denotes. "Niger-Congo" would be more accurate, but bantu is shorter to type.
>>359896
They're not, they're racially Negroid. Bantu is just a subtype of that.
It's like saying "Germans are racially Russian"
>>359896
>Not really. They were afro-asiatics. Swarthy afro-asiatics, but afro-asiatics nonetheless. Think Ahmed the clock boy, he's "nubian".
No really, the Kushites were extremely dark, not like Clock boy.
>>359901
Why are you still replying? I conceded to your point. Ethiopians are whatever the fuck you want. They're australian for all I care.
Labels to denote geographic areas are social constructs. What matters is the genes. Ethiopians are genetically distinct from other subsaharans, that much is fact.
>>359896
west africans =/= bantu
so if bantu = black then
west africans =/= black
if we follow logic and your definitions
>>359913
define Ethiopian.
>>359896
>West africans are racially bantu.
Jesus fucking Christ, you have to be American
>>359917
Belonging to the Habesha ethnic group.
>>359916
Sheesh. For the third time, I used the term "bantu" although it's true the term "Niger-Congo" is more precise.
West africans, just like bantus, are from the common "Niger-Congo" family.
Honestly, I'd simply call them "nigger" but I think it'd get me banned.
>>359898
>And two groups can speak the same language and despise each other.
I dunno what are you talking about familia :^)
>>359920
>They really weren't.
Yea lets just dismiss all evidence to the contrary because you can't accept that black people had civilisation.
>>359875
You seem pretty triggered there
>>359934
So you're just retarded and expecting everyone else to understand what you're talking about.
>"dude almost all whales are dolphins"
>get called a retard
>backpedal and try to claim "w-well I meant whales but I just typed dolphins you should k-know what I'm talking about"
>>359523
>PRAEPARABIT TAURUM
ayy
>>359934
>I typed French instead of European because its shorter, you should have known i meant all Europeans!
Re-tard
>>359935
Graphical representations are not accurate. Genomic sequencing of ancient nubians prove that they had a significant west eurasian component.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/boring-dna-evidence-from-ancient-nubians/
>>359942
I'm being honest!
>Just admit you were fucking wrong
I was perhaps wrong for using imprecise terminology. Everything I've posted, however, is factually right.
>>359964
>Genomic sequencing of ancient nubians prove that they had a significant west eurasian component.
What gets me with racialist logic is that one drop of African blood makes you mulatto/black, but when it suits their arguments just a drop of European blood makes you 100% white and not black at all. You can't have it both ways.
>>359864
>"No."
>posts map where the vast majority of the area is "bantu area"
>>359974
>What gets me with racialist logic is that one drop of African blood makes you mulatto/black, but when it suits their arguments just a drop of European blood makes you 100% white and not black at all.
You're strawmanning hard. Where have I ever claimed that?
Please stop resorting to such basic logical fallacies.
>>359964
>Graphical representations are not accurate.
Except they are because they accurately show Egyptians, Libyans and Semites, yet somehow the Kushite ones are wrong?
>Genomic sequencing of ancient nubians prove that they had a significant west eurasian component.
This doesn't mean they aren't dark black people. Everybody already knows about R1bv88
>>359974
>racialist logic means that one drop of African blood makes you mulatto/black
That's an incorrect assertion.
>>359979
>Except they are because they accurately show Egyptians, Libyans and Semites, yet somehow the Kushite ones are wrong?
They're cartoon drawings. You can't draw conclusions from them.
>This doesn't mean they aren't dark black people.
"Black" is not about skin color, it's about race.
>Everybody already knows about R1bv88
Read the article, it's not about that.
>>359978
I'm talking in a more general sense, every single time in a thread like this.
>people talk shit about Africans
>point out Ethiopia
>"n-no they had a European great-great-grandfather, 100% PURE ARYANS"
>>359981
Go on /pol/ and see it all the time. Hell, even more people think the same. That's why Obama is considered black instead of considered half-black/half-white.
>>359977
>area
What's population density you retard
Ok but what about racemixing?
Like, what would you get if you essentially put a genetically equal proportion of a pureblooded example of every major and minor ethnic group on the planet into one individual?
>>359985
>I'm talking in a more general sense, every single time in a thread like this.
Well because Ethiopians are indeed not blacks!
Ethiopians are a mullato race between blacks and semites. They are NOT black.
I repeat, they are NOT black.
Which doesn't mean that they're white either.
>>359985
>invoking a /pol/ boogeyman strawman
>>359987
>shifting the goalposts
>>359991
What do you define 'Black' as? There is a lot of variation between sub-saharan Africans.
>>359991
Too bad "black" doesn't have a solid definition, it's just nomenclature used by normies who don't understand genetics. "black" as it's almost always used includes Ethiopians.
>>359999
What goalposts? We were talking about people not about an area.
>>359984
>They're cartoon drawings. You can't draw conclusions from them.
Sure i can, and they're not cartoons, they're depictions of the different people the Egyptians had contact with. Why would they draw them black if they weren't black? The moment a white one appears I'm sure you'll use that to support Egyptians being white.
Whats your problem with Kushites being black anyway?
>"Black" is not about skin color, it's about race.
Yes and 45% Eurasian genetics on a single chromosome doesn't make them European, they're still black Nilotics.
>>359996
No need to get triggered anon
>>359999
Not him, but pointing out population density has nothing to do with shifting goalposts.
>>360016
Indeed, so calm down.
>>359991
Hmm they're africans with dark skin, that's black to me!
>>359991
You can't use the term "black" in these types of discussions dude, it causes way too much confusion.
>>360023
>africans with dark skin
So American Negroes aren't black?
>>360028
They're from Africa so they are
>>360026
>confusion
That's the entire point, and I would bet confused race relations is the idea behind a lot of leftist political thought nowadays.
>>360002
>What do you define 'Black' as?
Niger-Congo peoples.
>>360005
Blacks has a pretty obvious definition : people of west and central african ancestry.
>"black" as it's almost always used includes Ethiopians.
Not true, ethiopians were always seen as having semitic affinities.
>>360011
>Sure i can,
You can't, it's not rigorous.
> they're depictions of the different people the Egyptians had contact with.
My point being that they're poorly drawn depictions. Were the ancient olmecs black too? Because some of their statues exhibit negroid features.
>Why would they draw them black if they weren't black?
Probably because they were darker than themselves and the color brown was already taken.
>The moment a white one appears I'm sure you'll use that to support Egyptians being white.
Wait, what? We're talking about nubians here, not egyptians. Obviously egyptians weren't black.
>Whats your problem with Kushites being black anyway?
It's false.
>Yes and 45% Eurasian genetics on a single chromosome doesn't make them European,
I never claimed they were europeans.
Jesus you afrocentrists are the worst. Everybody is either a proud black african or a blonde blue eyed european.
Nubians were an intermediary population akin to modern day ethiopians.
>>360030
So are South-African whites who become American citizens African-Americans?
>>360041
>Niger-Congo peoples
Nigers?
>>360041
>Blacks has a pretty obvious definition : people of west and central african ancestry.
According to who?
>>"black" as it's almost always used includes Ethiopians.
>Not true, ethiopians were always seen as having semitic affinities.
So every thread on /int/ or other boards complaining about "Somali niggers" is completely wrong since, you see, Somalis aren't black
>this thread
/his/ can't handle the bantu
>>360041
Wow, calling me an afrocentrist now?
Look at the straws you're grasping, the lengths you're going to, to deny that the Kushite civilisation was made by black Africans.
So you believe that all the artistic depictions of the Kushites as black skinned are somehow all false and the Egyptians just randomly decided to draw them that way.
Well then look at this image, showing multiple Kushites, some are brown, some are black. The black ones are drawn black why? Because they're fucking black.
You're deluded.
By the way, the word Nubian doesn't make sense when referring to the Kushites.
>>360051
I'd wager there's a strong difference between an Ethiopian and a Somalian given the massive differences between the two countries.
Does anyone actually know why it is that Ethiopia is basically just another civilized nation and Somalia is a fourth world hellhole? They're right next to each other.
>>360065
Uh!!! They ran out of brown ink!
>>360069
>According to common knowledge.
>grass is blue
>says who?
>dude it's just common knowledge
>>360065
>Wow, calling me an afrocentrist now?
You literally implied that the ancient egyptians were black. You can't get much more afrocentrist than that.
>Look at the straws you're grasping, the lengths you're going to, to deny that the Kushite civilisation was made by black Africans.
I'm not grasping at any straws, I posted a dna study which showed ancient nubians NOT to be pure africans. You, on the other hand, have gone on posting cartoon depictions of "nubians" as if they constitute any proof whatsoever.
>So you believe that all the artistic depictions of the Kushites as black skinned are somehow all false and the Egyptians just randomly decided to draw them that way.
Yes, they're inaccurate, and no egyptians didn't "randomly" decide to draw them that way, it's just that nubians were darker than themselves so they comparatively drew them darker. Kind of like how europeans drew moors to look like niggers despite moors being rather light skinned berbers.
>Well then look at this image, showing multiple Kushites, some are brown, some are black
And some have blonde hair! Did the ancient nubians have blonde hair?
Your entire argument rests on inaccurate artistic depictions. Only in the moronic mind of the afrocentrist could inaccurate artistic depictions constitute any proof whatsoever.
In essence, kill yourself.
>>359843
I guess so, he might be making the argument that they admired certain black figures, sort of how like muslims and europeans might have marveled at the wealth and generosity of mansa musa
>>360011
>Sure i can, and they're not cartoons, they're depictions of the different people the Egyptians had contact with. Why would they draw them black if they weren't black?
Not the guy you're replying to but Egyptian depictions are notoriously inaccurate. For example they're making people who are less important smaller, children also just look like shrunken adults etc. Skin color is also used in a symbolic fashion when depicting deities.
Also the general color use varies among cultures, for example Belarus literally means "white Russia" but it doesn't mean "Russia where white people live", as among ancient Slavs color was more like a compass (white - north, black - south, red - west, green - east).
So if an Egyptian depicted a person as black it doesn't necessarily have to mean "this person had a black skin color IRL". It could be symbolic.
It reeks of cultural bias and ignorance when we're trying to interpret ancient cultural shit through our own cultural norms.
>>360070
>Does anyone actually know why it is that Ethiopia is basically just another civilized nation and Somalia is a fourth world hellhole?
Because Somalia was an arena of proxy fighting in the Cold War and was ruled by a socialist regime that eventually collapsed in on itself, and it's filled with plenty of Islamic extremists and poor people desperate just to eat. The success or failure of a country doesn't depend on whether they have some gene or not, and guessing that they must be genetically distant just because one is more successful than the other is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
You'll also be amazed to learn there's a shitload of Somalis in Ethiopia.
>>360072
A more relevant example would be
>grass is green
>says who?
>well it's common knowledge
>>360052
>It only causes confusion among people who throw petty tantrums about semantics.
Yeah, but defining things properly is one of the most important debating rules. Exactly because of the reason you stated: so people can't talk about semantics while ignoring the issue at hand.
>>360070
>Does anyone actually know why it is that Ethiopia is basically just another civilized nation
Ethiopia is a complete shithole too.
>>360070
I love how retards think that modern economical and political stability can be broken down to race and ethnicity alone.
>>360094
Again, show me somewhere where people who use "black" only refer to a specific subset of Africans.
Something tells me the average person, and the average channer, using "black" and "nigger" refers to all Africans.
>>360091
Why doesn't Ethiopia just invade Somalia and start fixing some shit up?
Is Somalian clay just that worthless?
>>360097
I actually agree with this. I'll try to use more precise terminology in the future.
>>360099
I love how faggots strawman.
>>360102
Why doesn't America just invade Mexico and start fixing some shit up?
There's already an African Union coalition of forces occupying parts of Somalia trying to return the rule of law.
>>360100
>Again, show me somewhere where people who use "black" only refer to a specific subset of Africans.
Well, me for instance.
>Something tells me the average person, and the average channer, using "black" and "nigger" refers to all Africans.
Since when is "the average channer" relevant?
>>359554
ah so blacks were hated by everyone since always not since the XX century good to know
>>360118
>Since when is "the average channer" relevant?
Because that's how common nomenclature works. The vast majority of people define and use a word a certain way, just because a single autist uses it differently doesn't change that meaning and its connotations.
>>360087
>You literally implied that the ancient egyptians were black. You can't get much more afrocentrist than that.
No i didn't, not once. What the fuck are you talking about? I said the Kushites were black.
> I posted a dna study which showed ancient nubians NOT to be pure africans.
And i never said they're pure africans, i said they're black, and i didn't post cartoons, you're just using the word cartoon to make egyptian art seem less important.
>it's just that nubians were darker than themselves so they comparatively drew them darker.
Then why did they draw the "Nubians" in two different skin tones. Europeans never drew moors to look black, Moor in real terms means Moroccan, however Moor meant black person in medieval European terms.
>And some have blonde hair! Did the ancient nubians have blonde hair?
It's a paste they put in their hair which some still do to this day.
My argument is based off hundreds of depictions of Kushites as dark black, as well as the region today being inhabited by Dark blacks.
>Kill yourself
Great argument
>>360089
It's the sheer volume though, they're always dark brown or black. Here is one with a middle easterner, his colour is brown, the Kushites are black. Am i supposed to believe one is realistic and the other 2 are false?
>>360117
>just invade Mexico
That's what I've been saying for over a year now!
>>360130
>let's just annex 100 million people living below the poverty line, why didn't anyone else think of this?
>>360135
It's literally the perfect plan.
>>359323
That's not true. Many peoples in antiquity and classical eras had very clear-cut notions about race and identity.
>>360123
>Because that's how common nomenclature works.
That's not how it works actually. Usually, terms are set by a select group of experts, not by the population at large...
>>360128
>No i didn't, not once. What the fuck are you talking about?
Right here : >>360011
>Why would they draw them black if they weren't black? The moment a white one appears I'm sure you'll use that to support Egyptians being white.
Although it might've been a typo.
>And i never said they're pure africans, i said they're black
Define "pure african". Bushman? Your terminology makes no sense.
>and i didn't post cartoons, you're just using the word cartoon to make egyptian art seem less important.
Indeed. Egyptian art is about as accurate as cartoons.
>Then why did they draw the "Nubians" in two different skin tones.
Probably because some nubians were of the same skin tone as egyptians, because *gasp* nubians had a hefty dose of west asian ancestry.
>Europeans never drew moors to look black,
pic related.
>It's a paste they put in their hair which some still do to this day.
What's to say they didn't paste black tar over their faces?
>My argument is based off hundreds of depictions of Kushites as dark black, as well as the region today being inhabited by Dark blacks.
Northern sudan today, which is where historical nubia is located, isn't inhabited by dark blacks at all.
>>360158
>Usually, terms are set by a select group of experts, not by the population at large...
The English language doesn't have an elite institution determining the rules, it's decided by how people use it. This is for common, casual words that aren't scientific in any way, like "black"
>>360175
>The English language doesn't have an elite institution determining the rules,
But certain field such as anthropology do.
>>360178
And "black" isn't a clearly defined, scientifically determined term in anthropology
>>360158
Never called the Ancient Egyptians black in that post.
>Define "pure african". Bushman? Your terminology makes no sense.
I don't have to define pure African, you're the one who used the phrase first. You define it.
>Probably because some nubians were of the same skin tone as egyptians, because *gasp* nubians had a hefty dose of west asian ancestry.
And quite a lot more were also very dark. Your argument makes no sense. You first said they drew the Kushites as very dark to distinguish them from themselves, when i pointed out how some Kushites are dark, and some are brown, you now say, they draw them brown because they are brown (because west Asian ancestry) So you've shot yourself, you've said they are drawing them accurately. Which therefore also means the black ones must be accurate. Or, unless they're drawing half of them different to distinguish from themselves, but half of them not different? Nah, that's bonkers. Thanks for playing though.
>What's to say they didn't paste black tar over their faces?
And their entire bodies? Really, this is your argument, your reasoning for the Kushites not being black is that they must have smothered their bodies in tar.
I think you've lost dude.
>>360186
All right, you win.
What shall we call them?
>>360175
>The English language doesn't have an elite institution determining the rules
It did at one point, or at least people who tried, and its the source of most of the conflicting bullshit about grammatical and and spelling rules.
>>360193
Dindus?
>>360193
You can use the common nomenclature 'black', just understand it also includes East Africans, and don't act like it has precise, widely agreed on definitions.
Cultural difference.
Race is pretty new but then again so is the legal age to marry nowadays.
>>360192
>I don't have to define pure African, you're the one who used the phrase first.
Literally where?
>And quite a lot more were also very dark.
[citation needed]
Cartoon drawings don't count.
>You first said they drew the Kushites as very dark to distinguish them from themselves, when i pointed out how some Kushites are dark, and some are brown, you now say, they draw them brown because they are brown (because west Asian ancestry) So you've shot yourself
What? Are you clinically retarded?
Yes, I said that they drew nubians darker because they were darker than themselves, but drew some with the same skin tone because they had the same skin tone as themselves. This CLEARLY shows that some nubians were as "light" as egyptians, which CLEARLY shows that nubians weren't this pitch black people like you depict them to be.
>you've said they are drawing them accurately.
I never said that.
>Which therefore also means the black ones must be accurate.
They're accurate in the sense that nubians were darker than egyptians, they're inaccurate in the sense that nubians weren't pitch black.
>Thanks for playing though.
The worst thing about this is that I'm sure you're deeply convinced you've won this argument.
>And their entire bodies? Really, this is your argument, your reasoning for the Kushites not being black is that they must have smothered their bodies in tar.
I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
Yes, it's possible that this blonde hair is the result of them putting paste in their hair. Just like it's possible that their black skin is the result of them putting black tar on their skin. There's no way to know, since such artistic depictions are inaccurate.
You know what's accurate on the other hand? GENETICS. See the study I posted
>I think you've lost dude.
The only thing I've lost is my time spent debating with you braindead nigger.
>>360235
>But that's imprecise, since ethiopians differ significantly genetically from their neighbors.
Then you won't be able to come up with any real meaningful term since Africa is the most genetically diverse place for humans. You would have an easier time agreeing on an umbrella term that covers all Eurasian, Australians, and Americans.
>>360229
>Literally where?
Follow the conversation to where you first used the phrase "Pure African". I feel like you're trying to be dumb so i'll leave and you can claim victory. That aint happening.
>Cartoon drawings don't count.
Egyptian art does count and can't all be immediately dismissed as unreliable. Though it shows stereotypes, thats no reason to dismiss it all as meaningless, and actually, stereotypes are good because it shows what the most kushite Kushite would have looked like, Black skin, dyed hair, earrings, and a leopard skin skirt.
>Yes, I said that they drew nubians darker because they were darker than themselves, but drew some with the same skin tone because they had the same skin tone as themselves.
So you admit that the Dark drawings are correct.
> This CLEARLY shows that some nubians were as "light" as egyptians, which CLEARLY shows that nubians weren't this pitch black people like you depict them to be.
What the fuck man? You're accepting the Brown ones but refusing to accept the black ones in the artwork.
Also You are clearly contradicting your own point that it's unreliable.
>There's no way to know, since such artistic depictions are inaccurate.
They do the same today, tons of Africans put colour into their hair.
>You know what's accurate on the other hand? GENETICS. See the study I posted
A study which doesn't prove the Kushites weren't black. At the very most it proves them to be 25% Semitic, at the most, which is still black. People who are 1/4 black are called black still.
You are contradicting your own argument and using complete fallacies while dismissing any evidence as unreliable for no valid reason, and then using that supposed unreliable evidence to support your own point.
>>360229
So the black ones are inaccurate but the brown ones are accurate?
>>359806
>Ethiopians are not "Blacks". They are Afro-Asiatics. They are more closely related to Arabs, Jews, Berbers, and Egyptians than Jay Z or Kanye West.
>Using African Americans, a biracial people to prove your point, when they likely have as much Caucasian DNA as your average Ethiopian
And that's not even going to the assumption that all Ethiopians are the same. Remember, the Khoisan and Black Africans evolved in East Africa some 150,000 years ago, and they certainly aren't Afro-Asiatic. Yes, there are clearly non-Sub Saharan Ethiopians, but the population is too mixed to claim one race or the other, unless a person from Ethiopia actually wants to call themselves a certain thing.
By the way, that Oromo woman looks like a black person from the Caribbean, or the Southern United States. Pick a better example next time.
>>359228
There was "cultural racism", but "biological racism" and eugenics is a thing of modernity because of Darwinism and other sciences.
>>360235
Since when is black not colloquially used to refer to your skin colour phenotype, and not genotype.
>>361176
Since there are many people not related to Black Africans that are dark skinned. Pic related.
>>361191
>Implying that all humans aren't descendants of Africans
Why not use 'black' for the meaning of the word, and use appropriate distinctions between populations based off genetic dissimilarity
>>361206
Yes, all humans are descended from Africans (from Ethiopia about 200,000 years ago to be specific).
And to answer your question, it's because it's too "complicated" for most people. Many people have a hard enough time believing that >>361191 are the least related to Sub-Saharan Africans, or that the Khoisan aren't too related to Bantu and other African ethnic groups.
>>359228
Ofcourse, they just weren't as diverse as modern day.
>>359985
Ethiopia was colonized by semetics.
It literally says on the wiki nigger.
Maybe you should learn how to read instead of running your baboon mouth.
>>361522
>THEY WIKIPEDIA SAYS SO!
Hilarious
American blacks are also 30% white, does that make them white? or even not-black?
>>361527
They are racially mixed.
Nobody is black/white you fucking nigger.
What are you trying to "prove"?
We was kangz? Ooga booga the white came and opreesed us?
Ethiopia was a mixture of Semetics and neo-lithic blacks I think, they were not "black" there is nothing known as "black" in Africa, there also is only recently an emergence of "white" in America because of how ethnically mixed we are.
>>361561
>We was kangz? Ooga booga the white came and opreesed us?
Nice shitposting.
>Nobody is black/white
Exactly, which is why saying one group if black or not is fucking retarded, especially when the common use of the word includes that group anyway. There is no such thing as race, but our culture still considers both Ethiopians and american blacks to be "black"
See: Obama being considered the "first black president"
>>361581
>There is no such thing as race
Wrong, what your referring to is the social definitions of race.
As in
>his skin is black therfore he is black
There is however very genetic definitions of race, mixed with anthropoligical data to assist us.
Just because you mix races doesn't mean there is no race.
You really are a nigger arnt you?
>>361592
>You really are a nigger arnt you?
And you're illiterate.
> what your referring to is the social definitions of race.
Which is the sole definition of race. There is no scientific definition, unless you're discussing sub-species which wouldn't apply to humans.
>>361601
Not going down this road.
Race denialists are more retarded than Nordacists and Neo-Nazis.
Just to note, there's a trend with niggers and other psudo-intellectuals; they read up on one or two things and latch on to some very basic ideas and act like they know everything. At the end of the day you're still a fucking moron denying the existence of race.
>>361613
Nice citation shitposter
>>359554
So cherry pick all the bad opinions?
>>361618
If you don't believe in race, you can clearly look at the scientific reports of
>Reported race
Vs
>actual race
You're literally outright denying science and then asking me for a citation.
Go fuck yourself
>>361635
OK define race for me.
>>361635
Half your posts have just been "lol ur a nigger" so you're clearly a logical debating heavyweight.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, in this case the claim that race is more than just a social construct.
>>361629
lol try to find ONE example of historical writings speaking positively about blacks.
go on I'll wait
>Ethiopians/Eritreans aren't Black.
truly I though people could not have gotten stupider.
t. Eritrean.
>>361650
>black is now one unified racial group
>Ethiopias racial composition hasn't changed
>>361645
And you're clearly a nigger.
There is a difference between a "social construct" of race (which doesn't make it any less real) and the use of genetic and anthropologtic data to classify homo Sapian Sapians
>>361648
Herodotus describes their physical characteristics and provides great detail about the traditions of Ethiopians in his era, stating,
>"...and the men are taller, handsomer, and longer lived than anywhere else. The Ethiopians were clothed in the skins of leopards and lions, and had long bows made of the stem of the palm-leaf, not less than four cubits in length.
>>361655
>And you're clearly a nigger.
The Cicero of our time
>>361650
It's funny, I knew an eritrean who was super racist against blacks.
Don't habeshas consider themselves distinct from them?
>>359228
>Was racism a thing back in Roman times or is it a relatively new concept?
Relatively new concept. Not even the middle ages had it.
The Romans had plenty of experience with the fact that there's no hard cleavages in human biology. Europeans only became enamored with the idea when they could take a boat and skip thousands of miles of travelling.
>>361658
>blacks are athletic and wear animal skins
shiggy
>>361671
Some mentally desperate.pathetic people are.
So desperate to raise their social standing by any means they attach themselves to what little ties they have to a more favorable people even if those favorable group hate them or think they are a joke.
>>361655
Thing is to others we are Blacks all the same though.
Arabs treat us like every other black and Sudanese Arabs have to throw out" I'm an Arab" signs in ME society to not get mistaken as non-Arab blacks unless they have high social status which protects them since wealth provides a racial protection of course.
>>361687
>lol try to find ONE example of historical writings speaking positively about blacks.
>e-except that o-one
>"go to Abyssinian(Ethiopia), you will find a king under whom none are persecuted. It is a land of righteousness where God will give you relief from what you are suffering."
-Prophet Mohamed
>>361710
Worse case you have people like that a Ethiopian gal from Sweden on /int/ who had this "I'm willing to kill a Swede to wear their skin to be white" vibe. Wanted to marry a Swede to have a white kid which was creepy since it was fetishizing that hypothetical males race in one of the most fucked up ways and if one kid didn't look pure white she would've probably abuse the kid mentally especially if it had a whiter looking sister.
>>359911
If Clock boy spent all his life in the Saharan sun he would get pretty damn dark
>>359573
>Canada
>not sure
>Serbia/middle east
>india
>Greece
>Sweden
How'd I do senpai?
The Idea of race existed but not in the way we see it.
For example, the Romans had the concept of the Roman and Celtic races.
>>362713
But that was based on feet because everyone wore sandals.
>>361710
Doesn't matter what "others" socially think.
Sure you have black skin, and every person isn't a Geneticist, this doesn't make race "not real" in the sociological nor scientific sense
>>359228
yes and no the romans where more like culturists they belived being civilized made you better then uncivilized folk but they also belived that anyone could become civilized
but racism as it exists today is a new concept and most modern racists have never even interacted with the ethnicities they hate
>>362981
It does matter because people's opinions on other influences and gets influenced by others and racial categories can shift all the fucking time.
and honestly even with the "muh genes" don't mean shit because in the end we still are African and black and are just one of many types of blacks.
>>361648
>"The blacks possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. Their sultan shows no mercy to anyone who is guilty of the least act of it. There is complete security in their country. Neither traveller nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence. They do not confiscate the property of any white man who dies in their country, even if it be uncounted wealth. On the contrary, they give it into the charge of some trustworthy person among the whites, until the rightful heir takes possession of it. They are careful to observe the hours of prayer, and assiduous in attending them in congregations, and in bringing up their children to them"
Please fuck off already
>>363086
>we are still African and black
>we is all one big bruthahood
>POCs UNITE
>some dindu on the internet now defines racial groups and dismisses all of Genetics and anthropology in one sentence
You're an American Nigger.
Arnt you.
I'm glad I can sit here in my cosy mountain jew house knowing I'll never have to watch you guys chimp out in the streets when your "brutha" is slain, when you were going to kill him for his shoes the next day.
>>363197
Do you have an actual argument are you just gonna keep calling him a nigger ? You pol fags are the most arrogant retards I've ever seen.
>>360148
But they didn't have it about race, they had it about culture.
It piles up a lot higher when there is segregation on clothing, price of clothing, and everything is not made out of materials with good durability.
And when social classes are even more segregated because of no literally and collective education.
On the top of that, travelling the world where horses are ponies, and roads is supreme tech nobody has? Just travelling a good distance, learning a lot of languages: That is very impressive.
Managing to adapt to different social classes on the top of that is even more impressive.
You wouldn't give any shits about Race, because culture would be more important.
Racism, as in (in its most basic form) "they're not my skin color so they aren't as good as me", came about during the African slave trade. Notice, I don't mean that Africans were enslaved because they were black but when the morality of the slave trade began to become questioned, people in support of it created the myth of blacks not being as human as whites. That way they could say that they weren't enslaving people, they were enslaving non-humans or subhumans. I don't think many people went as far as to call them "animals" but you get the point.
Racism snowballed from there and spread fast as many white people bought all the "evidence" like blacks being "more docile than a human would be" when chained up with armed guards watching them. Whites applied this logic to every other different skin color, and then soon everyone whites came in contact with began to discriminate based on race as well. It also worked in the opposite way, as people viewed the white race with distrust and saw them as evil oppressors (the same racism that SJWs have made mainstream today).
Pretty much all discrimination before that point was based off of religious differences or being "uncivilized". For example, the Spanish didn't dislike/enslave/kill the Native Americans because of their race, but because they weren't their religion and they were uncivilized according to their standards.
WE WUZ CEASARS AND SHIIIIEEET
>>359323
Acceptance of predates evolutionary theory, Shakespeare's reference to Othello being a moor is an example.
Modern racism stems from the slave trade and interactions with native americans
>>359989
Based sheer population amounts he or she would look more Asian or Indian. Any European or African features would be drowned out
>>364132
>Implying xenophobia = racism
Your where grouped into your "people" the Nubian people for example, your religion, arts, language ect. were all Nubian. There are cases of racism if you want to call it that, the Nubians for instance thoguht that "the black men where the coals sent to burn the white men (arabs) fat"(1) "Saladin" John Man, good read by the way
>>364159
So what you're saying is that race relations is based on someone's first contact with someone of a different race?
>>364159
Does anyone else think this guy looks oddly West African?
>>364489
He has a long face, so I'd say no. If it wasn't the nose and the skin, he'd be completely white.
>>364504
But, I have a long face like that, and I'm of West African descent (mostly anyway, the rest is Chinese and European, because my parents are from Jamaica).
Eh, maybe I'm not the best example.
>>359340
Actually the degenerate ruling classes would marry their daughters away to some barbarian for political reasons
>>359523
>how can white men even compete?
>>363634
>implying he has an argument
>>359228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#History
>>359523
So Ethiopians have been fucking with Italians since day one?
>>360059
underrated
>>359974
>He doesn't know about the Iberian caste system.
You know, there's a lot more racist than North American anglos.
The ancient Egyptians absolutely despised their kushite rulers. It was the shortest hereditary dynasty; where the crown was passed down. There were shorter dynasties but they had only one ruler who was deposed.
King Kushta came riding into egypt on a lie, and deposed the previous dynasty. King Kushta seeing the magnificence of the pyramids built miniature versions as tombs for himself in his homeland.
His successor Piye, bankrupted egypt with lavish parties and extreme spending on luxuries. It was said that Piye's river barge was the largest and most luxurious in all of the ancient world, up until Caligula's. Piye raised taxes to pay for his lavish lifestyle and his frivolous spending lead to a small civil war and the subsequent exodus of many Egyptian farmers craftsmen and other peasants.
Tahraqa neutered Egypt's military with disastrous and costly military campaigns. Egypt lost more than half of it's Charioteers under his reign and was invaded from the many times.
But the greatest crime the kushites ever committed against the Egyptian people was their refusal to take the mantle of pharaoh, they thought it was beneath them.
Even now kush is slur against black people in modern egypt.
>>359228
>filename
LOL
