Something interesting I learned is that having the surname Guzman is a marker for conversio ancestry. After the reconquista Spain was on a Visigoth kick. It became prestigious to Germanize your name. So many Jews when converting wanted to play down their Jewishness took the name Guzman, which is a Hispanicized version of Guttman or Goodman. Due to the racial caste system in the New World many conversios and Spaniards of Conversio Jewish ancestry settled there. In the New World they were seen as Spaniards since they were born in Europe, they’d be on top. This is why Guzman is one of the most common surnames in Latin America. I never knew that until my Spanish professor in college told the class this.
From an etymological perspective I've in the past read that "Gut" in Gothic could refer to themselves, like in "Gutthiudda" for meaning "the gothic people" (or in modern standard German "Gothenfolk"). Other sources variously also claim "Gutt" as cognate for "Gott" or "God" in English, so I would wonder about the source for this third interpretation.
I like how even Peter the venerable was like:”I don’t like muslims that much but don’t you think calling them subhuman over their skin colour is a bit much?”
One of the shocking things about the Middle Ages in general is whenever you find a somewhat reasonable take like that. Like there was also some contemporary criticism of the Crusades, especially the sack of Jerusalem.
I would note one small correction! The Romans had... *something* approximating racial thinking, especially in later philosophy nearer the collapse of the west. The climatological explanation of race shown in that one manuscript predating and later justifying Spanish/Portuguese slave trading is, by my reckoning anyways, probably influenced by this old Roman conceptualization of race or at least racialized thinking. Namely, the Romans philosophically justified dominance over the Mediterranean in numerous ways, but one of which was the superiority of the people of Latium (and later all of Italy) being genetically superior due to their temperate climate, a veritable goldilocks zone, of sorts. This is contrasted with how they viewed the "white" (not an actual designation at the time) peoples North of them, the Gauls and Germanic tribes. The author of this theory whose name is currently escaping me saw these Gallo-Germanic peoples as intensely stupid due to the cold temperatures of the north and lack of sunlight thus diminishing their mental capacity but increasing their physical capacity for violence. Conversely, he saw the Arab/Semitic/Kushitic/Indo-Iranian peoples of West Asia and North Africa as more clever and treacherous than their northern counterparts, but short, weak, and lacking in courage as a result of "over exposure" to the sun. The reason I find the need to mention this at all in spite of my relative lack of memory on this subject (the class I took on the matter was a few years ago at least and I can't find my textbook) is just because I feel as though it really sockets in perfectly with the sort of dialectical progression of racialized thinking you lay out rather expertly in this video. This addendum aside, excellently done!
Exactly! Arguably, they even have a sort of "nationalism" in how they view citizens of their own country; They are always more predisposed towards people born in the city of Rome than people born anywhere else in the empire, even in Italy. This is illustrated by the life of the roman senator Cicero who had to fight tooth and nail to be respected among his peers solely because he as born in the Italian countryside. He also didn't come from a rich family so look at that they also had nepotism! The Romans truly were ahead of their time.
While there were such ideas they weren't the norm or at least not supported by the state, as long as you assimilate you are a roman, such notion persistet in rome all the way to middle ages with eastern romans for example considering galations roman but isaurians as still somewhat barbaric despite the fact that both lived in the empire for about the same time, this division by culture is very common across the world, you can definetely call it something, but not modern racism
You're confusing him with his pal, George Race, who wrote his new ideology in Racist Manifesto. John Racism invented colorism, and scientific racism, which he wrote in Racist Manifesto 2: Electric Boogaloo
Though this might be true for the west I would like to point out in my opinion that this is a very euro-centric view on racism and racial ideas about blood lines and the like have existed in a lot of cultures, outside of Europe too, before the crusades too. For example the Umayyad caliphate had a policy of that you had to have a pure arabic blood line in order to be involved in the administration for example and you had to fit certain criteria that were certainly race based (as character traits such as skin color were discussed and). Similarly, the abbasid caliphate did have, in both practice and in theory, though to a far lesser degree similar ideas. You also had axumite and later ethiopic dynastic discrimination towards kuushites by Semitic speakers, often there also based upon racial ideas.
I specifically mentioned this in the video. The racism I'm talking about is the one that's prevalent today, and I mentioned how there were other racial-esque systems of ideas in other cultures, and how this video is not about those and so falls outside the purview of my sources. The racism of today isn't based on the Umayyad beliefs, or the caste system in India, it's based in the ideas that took hold in the west.
@@FreddaYT Yes this is very much true that those were not the focus though that was kind of my point, sorry if I came off as harsher than intended😓 Again I really don't want to come off as being bad or seeking conflict. And for example regarding the racism of today, I would again argue that this is not true, there are still types of racism around the world, probably a big part of the current conflicts in Ethiopia can go back to this, that are based upon various pre-colonial ideas about race, people and bloodline purity. I might actually make a video about this in the future though, as it is an important and interesting topic to discuss.
This was touched on and excluded around the 5:00 mark. However, I'd like to extend, at the risk of being pedantic, that religious persecution, colorism, eugenicism, my overlap with racism but are not definitively racism as much as they are prejudicial & precursors to racism. For instance, being Jewish or Christian aren't races. It's the act of "othering" that's the father of racism, imo.
@@FreddaYT you are completly wrong racism towards africans was invented by arab muslims such as ibn khaldun who would constantly refer to black people as subhuman and natural slaves
An East Asian prospective would be cool. As a Korean, I'd say East Asian racism has lot of xenophobic tones. It's not like civilized x barbarian European paragon. It's more like us vs others, as others = aliens. Aliens bring alien ideas and taint culture sorta fear. However, if an alien can become culturally East Asian according to the East Asian standard of assimilation, usually it's much easier to break the barrier compared to Western racist where even culturally assimilated other race are still viewed as not equal. There are also colorism, but this is a problem/phenomenon almost everywhere and in this case quite similar in connotation even thou the origin may be different. I wonder about African racism as conflicts between different tribes who speak languages from separate families, religion, and so on. It seems to me something overlooked by academics as it is very Western centric in their take.
From what I have heard from african americans. Africans from africa tend to view african americans and africans from the new world as lesser. My guess is that this could do with the history of the slave trade since africans in africa were not enslaved, they sold the slaves. But i don’t know for sure
In Africa in the 1990s: Tribes are like different sports teams, you like your team because that is expected, you battle the other team as tradition as a part of old traditions. Women are expected to be loyal to the husbands team, lighter skin is viewed as superior and closer to god, while darker skin is viewed as a curse. Lighter skin = good, while dark skin = bad. Imagine different sport teams or France and Germany. Not all groups are equal, some are more numerous wealthier, more educated, hold more power. A social order exist, those with the most power on top and everyone else follow down the line. Oral history was common, your family lineage is orally paassed down, memorize names of descendants. Wealth is a symbol of social status. You had a term for each different group you interacted with. Groups: (power and status) White Arab Ethiopian The different tribes ( powerful to weakest) Each family group/ house of origin The wars: British empire vs the tribes Arabs vs the tribes #1 Tribe vs #2 Tribe (the two tribes broke apart in the past) the rival tribe The Allies: (well respected) America Russia Ethiopia
@@bobble13345 Yeah, each with thousands of years of familiarity and cultural exchange with eachother because they've always existed in close proximity to eachother. You're not describing ethnic groups which are culturally alien to eachother - but different groups of people who have existed together in the same confines of a geographic region.
It could be argued that discrimination and prejudice in the Middle Ages was more due to religion than 'race'. For example, Rabban Bar Sauma was a Christian monk from medieval china who served as a diplomat to the mongol empire. He wrote a memoire, and he basically says he had a great time. The book is 'Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China: Medieval Travels from China Through Central Asia to Persia and Beyond.'
12:30 the reason why african slavery eclipsed native slavery was that there werent enough natives to enslave. Too many of them died from disease. Not because the natives skins color was too light
This, plus the natives are far more opportunities to escape (knew the area/blended in with locals) and generally more willing to die instead of being slaves
The church was also very opposed to native slavery since very early because the natives had never been exposed to Christianity and so had no way to know of the "true faith", and in a way they were right, today the Americas are almost completely Christian
That's not entirely true. In Mexico the Spanish did start enslaving the locals and had a very large local population to work with (Mexico was quite densely populated even after the epidemics caused by contact with Europe), but a faction within the Catholic Church succeeded in convincing the Pope and the King of Spain to outlaw slavery for native americans (primarily on the grounds that it was possible to convert them). What you said was somewhat true for Brazil, where there was a much lower native population, and since Portugal also had colonies in Africa they came up with the idea of sending slaves from their African colonies to Brazil. But this strategy wasn't really adopted in Spainish colonies until after the church banned the enslavement of native Americans (for a while many Spanish colonial landowners ignored the laws, but after a few years the state started actually trying to enforce the ban so it became easier to just import legal slaves).
Racism was invented by John Basedman, the first and strongest chess player of all time, he studied every single move to win against both white and black
I studied race during my history degree and I have a MAJOR issue with this problem of reaching all the way back to the middle ages. The reason why the invention of race is so often attributed to the colonial era is because it's when Jews were classified as a race and African slavery came to be justified along distinct heritage to Europeans as religion was no longer sufficient justification due to jesuit objections. By the 1700s with the development of the ideas of species it started to become biological. If you want to start in the middle ages it's so vaguely attributed to how people said "this people with this skin colour or from this place or of this religion are prone to acting in XYZ manner." If this is racialization then you can go all the way back to 400bc with some Greek scholars. It's not really a sufficient justification and in the middle ages it was too wrapped up in religion to constitute something inherent in the PERSON. That's why the racialization of Jews was so important. They were forced to convert in the 16th century but then their grandchildren were still considered Jews and persecuted, showing that being a jew was now in the blood and no longer a religion. The same was not true of Muslims who converted in Spain.
Fredda, I have been loving your longer style content that you have been producing lately! You bring academic rigor and a solid analysis of an issue or topic to the table while maintaining an interesting and engaging format. I also have been loving your long form videos on WIAH, the fact you've got an acronym for his long name kills me! Keep up the amazing work!
@chrislusk3497 I don't think you've really understood my point of academic rigor, as it isn't defined by the number of sources used. I also think you've made your oppositional position clear in characterizing the sources Fredda used in his analysis as "woke." You can disagree with Fredda's analysis and my opinion of his analysis, but I don't think you've provided any real criticisms against my opinion other than taking a lazy swipe at "wokeness"
@@bamboozled9127 I'm not sure what there is to understand about your point. Highly selective use of sources to support a pre-existing ideological agenda (and ignoring evidence to the contrary) is incompatible with the idea of academic rigour. And if you look lower down the comments you will see that yes I have provided real criticisms against your opinion, and against Fredda's video in general. Plus there are more detailed comments by others who point out that what much of what the Arabs did and said as early at the 8th century corresponds to what we would now call "racism". The claim that racism was 'invented" in the Middle Ages by Europeans is pure fiction.
Whenever I see stuff about the historical origins of race, I can’t stop thinking about Othello and considering what “stage” racism was at when that play was released (and just to be clear Othello is one of my top 3 Shakespeare plays)
Arguably one can go even further back than the 11th century to find the roots of western racism. The climatological perspective you mentioned can be traced not only back to Ibn Khaldun, but even to Greek scholars like Aristotle, as discussed by Benjamin Isaac in "'The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity". While you mention people's lack of understanding of genetics, I think it is still true that ancient and medieval people had an understanding of heredity, which can even be witnessed in connection to inherited character traits (ie racism) from accounts like Origen of Alexandria's 4th Century telling of the Curse of Ham, which attached character to color and culture. That said though, I think your video brings up a great point regarding the salience of anti-semitism in solidifying patterns of racial ideology in Europe.
Wasn' Origen egyptian and thus according to biblical classification hamitic? Or did he view himslf as greek and used biblical terminology to justify the greek speaking's elite priviledged position?
There absolutely is racism in the Torah/Old Testament. You can call it "tribalism" or "religious strife" if you want, but repeatedly the Israelites are warned against "foreign practices, and gods" and to commit genocide or "kill the men, boys, and women who have known men, but take those virgins who have not known men as your wives". There are also different rules for treating Israelite servants [who can only be kept for 7 years] and foreign slaves [who are yours forever, or until you tire of them] and for lending money [interest can only be charged against non-Israelites]. While it might not be racist for the time, it absolutely is racist. It even describes the surrounding peoples as descendants of various biblical characters who were not the direct ancestors of"God's Chosen People". Modern Judaism and Christianity may or may not be racist, but their founding book absolutely is.
And the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan is also racist, or at least religiously intolerant. The Samaritans are an Israelite offshoot similar but not exactly like the Catholic/Orthodox split [textual differences, different seat of worship and high priest]. The woman in the parable is not good BECAUSE she is a Samaritan, she is good DESPITE being a Samaritan [as the Samaritans do not recognize Jerusalem as holy and thus refused to support pilgrimages there]. This one is a little thinner, but is absolutely there.
These are abhorrent examples of ethno nationalism, religious intolerance and Xenophobia but not racism. Racism is special in that it is based of inherent immutable traits at birth by your ancestrial lineage.
@TheYolo20 but the concept of who are 'the people' and not is based on descent. Classical age Judaism (pre diaspora) is based on which son of the patriarch you can trace ancestry to. The 'dark skin is a curse' concept stems from the stories tracing the neighbors of Israel to cousins of Jacob or descendants of Ishmael or other unliked figures from genesis. While these ancestors are legendary at best, the use of them to prove you are superior (and others) is not only racist, but the root justification for many of the racist institutions in the west. Remember the Bible itself was used to justify the slave trade and inferiority of non-Europeans
@@TheGalaxyWings how are you defining these terms to make the distinction matter in the context of the genocide and slavery based on being "God's Chosen People" in the Bible.
This was a great video. I think it would be interesting to do a dive into how how ancient peoples conceptualized divisions between groups. Obviously xenophobia and bigotry existed in, for example, ancient Greece, but from what I've read it was formalized more around culture and clan than racial categories.
The anwser is weve usef all of them at basically all points in history with it being more or less of one or the other depending on the spesific situation
The 'races' in most fantasy roleplaying games are much more akin to real world species than actual races as we apply them to real world humans. This should be obvious, since one of the races will invariably just be called 'humans' and include all potential skin tones. Which is why I've always thought it was silly when fellow leftists claim the trope contains racist implications. Literally just call them species-which is more accurate, anyway-and the problem is solved. No, orcs aren't comparable to black people (this is a common talking point, for some insane reason). Orcs aren't humans, while black people are a subcategory of human. It annoys me so much that I'm even talking about it here, even though it's just something that was mentioned in passing at the very start of the video, lmao
Can someone please tell me why do people compare Orcs to Africans or Asians? Because that's just delusional and utterly stupid. Are they insane? It's like how some people call Tolkien a "racist" when in reality he wasn't. I guess ignorant people will latch onto any minute little thing for attention.
I would have liked an addition with regard to the Arabic idea of the time that pale Turks, Asians and Europeans, and dark Africans and Indians, were considered extremes out of the "balance" that was olive-skinned Arabs.
Where does that come from? It dosn't seem right, arabic climaticism didn't really care about skin colour or even be arabic. When Ibn Khaldun talks about "race" he includes mountain moroccans among the climatically disadvantaged, saying they were more dumb because of the cold environment.
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 I mean, it could be otherwise but a source can be very knowledgeable about western history and concepts while only making a superficial analysis of non-western ones. If you want I can give you the passage from Ibn Khaldun I am talking about since it is often taken as the prime example of this climaticist mindset. There are also such passages in older works like those of Mas'udi and Muqqadasi but I don't remember exactly where they are. Ancient muslim scientists have a tendency to ascribe a lot of things to the nature of air, its quality and if it is dry or wet. People from the Nile delta interior and the Iraqi marshes were thus seen as being from an "unclean" environment while places like Kûfa, Cairo or Ahwaz were complimented for the quality of their air.
@@robinrehlinghaus1944Franz Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldun's works is available online and even if it isn't perfect it is completely sufficient for an introduction (one of the issues is the aforementionned confusion where he translates Zanj with european racist terminology which isn't quite accurate). The part on climate and character can be found in the Muqaddimah (introduction) chapter I, part 4. While I checked I saw that his views on skin colour are actually in the preceding sub chapter (chapter I, part 3) where he goes on an interesting tangent where he disputes the narrative of blackness of skin being tied to descent from Ham, instead linking it to climate. By rereading this part I also understand what the authors of what you read perhaps meant since it is made mention of being "temperate in character" which is tied to climate and then climate is tied to skin colour. But in the beginning of this text he makes it quite clear he follows classifical subdivisions of the earth into clines where the central cline is the more temperate, he lists the people inhabiting in the central cline as the arabs, the persians, the chinese, the indians and the europeans, clearly showing it is a quite wide definition while does he deems as "intemperate in character" those who inhabit the first and second clines (southern Africa) as well as the 6th and 7th clines (most of Russia and Scandinavia). Probably this is actually also done to justify making people from those regions slaves which provided most of the slaves in the muslim world. I think there is a point to be made that european modern racism and muslim medieval climaticism were elaborated for the same reasons even if they came to different conclusions.
I think Arin Hanson described it very well when he spoke of a caveman staring at his reflection in a lake: "YOU'RE NOT ME! UGH!" >proceeds to punch lake
That's actually Xenophobia which is discussed by the books I referenced as a different (but also bad!) phenomenon. Xenophobia predated racism by thousands of years.
The relationship between race and religion is interesting for two reasons 1) Mormons recreated this in their theology. Before their prophets got an update from God Himself the general idea was that black people were tainted by sin because they did something wrong in their previous life (Mormon cosmology is too wacky to explain it shortly). Meanwhile native Americans had darker skin bc their ancestors (who were Jewish as well as white) rejected God and killed their brothers 2) Slavs (almost) avoided being framed as a seperate "race" through Christianisation. In early Middle Ages they were a mayor source of slaves for (mostly) Western Europe to exploit and sell. Without an organised state and "right" religion they were an easy victim for Christian slave catchers. As such, when Poland got christianised, we got a bishop who advocated against selling Poles into slavery because they believed in the right God! Not because they were white, not because slavery was bad, he didn't care much about other Slavs who were pagans. Christianity was what truly mattered Slavs almost avoided being framed as a seperate race because Europe is Europe and we play here a little bit different game. The angry WWII dude didn't believe that Slavs were on the same level as germanic people or God forbid aryans. Ns used exactly the same arguments to prove that Slavs are inherently inferior as racist use to say the same about black people Am I white? I definitely have white privilage but damn if anti Slav bigotry is still not a thing. This is one of many reasons why I don't believe in white brotherhood or other similar bull
poza tym zacznij zachowywać się jak europejska a nie globalistyczny nikt kochający trzeci świat zamiast własnej krwii albo wyjedź jak nie lubisz swoich
The Slavs, Baltics, Germanics, Nordics, Alpines, And Celts as well as Finns And Samis could rightfully be dubbed or classified as White Europeans even if all have some looker changers to them while most Southern Europeans could be tagged or collared Olive Europeans just like Middle Easterners could be called Olive Asians, North Africans Olive Africans, North Western South Asians as Olive Desis, And Eastern Caucasus Cliffers as Olive Caucasians yeah.
I think this is a very euro centric critique of racism, which is quite ironic. Racism exists throughout out the world, for instance 華夷之辨 has been (and still is) a very dominant thought in East Asia (namely China, Japan and Vietnam). I assume that other parts of world have their own flavors of racism.
@@p00bix that disclaimer is factually wrong and Eurocentric. The idea of 華夷之辨 affected almost 2 billion people, more than the population of the entire west plus sub-Saharan Africa, so the idea that European problems are world problems is in itself racism.
@@donaldlee8249 Er, no. That's not what the disclaimer says. It says that the focus of the video is on the origin of Western Racism, because the Western conceptualization of 'race' spread much more widely than any similar ideas developed in other parts of the world. It doesn't say it spread literally everywhere.
Within The Far East there was there own flavors of racism or something resembling it and ringing it like in Ancient China, Early Midieval China, Middle Midieval China, Late Midieval China, and other times predating North Western European Colonalism most Chinese had a beauty standard of preferring people with lighter skin East Asian features and usually would not approve of others especially not to the South East Asians to the south of them yeah.
Thumbnail bait caught my attention to this video. Starting off with a reference to video games as your description of RACE threw me off for a moment. As I listened much of what you were stating became more accurate for me. I was never expecting such convoluted details. And you offered new information for me to chew on. Overall I agree with your assessment on the history of race. However, a few points I believe you could have emphasized a few points. Race was created for nefarious reasons. Though you do mention it. Also, I wish you had mentioned the phenomenon behind the MENA Region of the world. How the United States classifies these ethnic groups as White people is a deserving topic of its own.
There's a tremendous amount of detail you didn't go into in this video regarding the history of race in the Muslim world and how that influenced how it was perceived in Christendom, especially as it relates to things like the Zanj revolt, the slave trade into the Muslim world from Africa, longstanding prejudices concerning slaves from different locales around the world among many Muslims (ie, the perception that White women slaves were best suited for a Harem while Black women slaves were best suited for menial labour), ethnic conflict between different groups in Egypt and especially Al-Andalus (There was often tremendous friction between Berbers and Arabs). As much as I can see that you want to talk about this as a 100% Christian phenomenon that is absolutely not true at all, here's a quote from Al-Maqdisi in the 10th century: "As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence." You cannot talk about the actual history of racism without mentioning these factors, the Muslim world had much closer interaction with Africa than Europe generally did and that helped create a perception of Sub-Saharan Africa as filled with people who were typically pagans best used as slaves and preyed upon for raids, or at best uncultured thugs who even if they nominally accepted Islam didn't have the sophistication of Arabs or Persians.
That is real and 100% true and should have been mentioned but that wasnt racism as we consider it today. It can at best be called proto anti black racism which wasn’t fully developed nor in wide spread circulation. Only slave handlers had sometimes that thought and there was a debate between muslim schoolars if black people are human which was ruled to be as such that black people are human. The same conversation was held by the catholic church and they rules that black people were not humans. They were tge cursed offspring of Canaan to be the slaves of all his brothers and their offspring. If we mention proto islamic anti black racism we cannot forget the greek influence which had concept’s of environmental determinism and i think aristotilis also invented tge idea of the natural born slave. But all these examples are not full racism which started in 1439 in Iberia where the Limpiza de sangre was passed in which Christians were divided by “new” and “old” Christians. Basically everyone had to either die or converte to Christianity so that there werent any muslim or jews. Now these jews/muslim could rise the ranks which they previously couldnt which upset many Christians. There was also a anti semetic conspiracy going on that former jews didnt really believe in Christ and we’re practicing in secret still jewdism. So the laws basically took the “new” Christian all rights they have gained and brought them back to the level they had prior to converting. This concept was based on the idea that their blood was “mixed” and was passed on. As long as you had a jewish or muslim ancestors you were an “new” Christian. The first racial law to exist. This system was then brought to the americas.
I'd be interested in learning more about how the Muslim world's pseudo-racial ideas influenced the European world. Could you recommend me something that discusses it?
@@TheYolo20Lol, it was only "proto anti-black racism", nothing to see here. The fact that the arabs turned the vast majority of their black slaves into eunuchs (with very high mortality rates during the procedure) also shouldn't be omitted here, a practice that was ultimately stopped and outlawed due to european colonialism.
Wasn't ancient greece called their neighbors “barbarians”? Ancient china also had similar practice, like people from the state of zheng and song despise each other.
Yes! And the source I cite when I talk about how racism did not exist in these instances talks about this. It's xenophobia, which is not in and of itself racism. For it to be racism you need a concept of race.
@@FreddaYTyouve had to twist yerself a thousand different ways so you could blame racism solely on whites and christianity…… is a fresh hell watching liberals at work. Whitewashing on mao levels for the agenda isnt a good thing
@FreddaYT I guess all modern wars who conveniently segregated themselves into religious differences and ethnic differences is all because "resources" and only Russia has racism and Ukraine is a progressive paradise and never n@zi because.... reasons. Because. Uh, xenophobia isn't racism. Egyptians enslave jews because xenophobia, not anti semitism. Right?
>The 99,9% equal meme Neanderthals were 99,7% identical to us but that doesn't mean the category doesn't exist. Also the original claim of 99,9% equal was made by Craig Venter in 2000. But he later made another analysis in wich he found humans are actually 99,5% equal in chromosomal DNA (this is between two random individuals, not "races").
You only need to read James Watson, one of the greatest molecular biologists of the century, to understand how wrong the academias supposedly "official thesis" about human races is.
@@jimmyalfonda3536 1. We're not that similar, sources vary. 2. The point is just that very tiny differences in genes can cause distinction between groups. This is especially true for groups that have lived in different regions for millenia
… that’s total bs. Modern humans that have existed for 240,000 years before ever leaving Africa meaning most of HUMAN history is in Africa… what do Neanderthals and modern humans have in relation? Then wth was the year 1400s-1900s for, Africans whom are more human than people anywhere else? Those same eugenics said those Africans were closer to Neanderthals. Neanderthals live in cave, couldn’t even build shelter or have agriculture. 2 THINGS humans constantly did no matter the time period. They’re not like humans at all lol, they couldn’t even leave euroasia. They couldn’t even speak, they were more impulsive that cognitive. They have more in common with a gorilla, rather than human.
And you're basing this on one paper about the middle ages, for someone who claims to be concerned with sources it seems that you yourself have made a massive oversight. You can't pressent one paper as fact, and not at least mention that this is a video concerned about the interpretation of one author and not a scientific consensus
I expected the comments to mainly be flooded with jokes along the lines of „CEO of racism“ when this video was recommended to me and boy I was not disappointed
Hello! I found your channel recently and I'm intrigued. I have a question for you: *"If we are just one race, why do multiethnic or multiracial children with leukemia have parents that aren't genetically close to each other for transplants?"* Racially motivated, perhaps. But I hope you'll be able to answer in good faith. :D
That hasn't anything to do with race, if I suffer blood loss I can't be given B- blood even if the person carrying it has ancestry from the same village as me. The human genome is very homogenous since the huge majority of humans lived in the same geographical space less than 100 000 years ago, this doesn't mean individual genomes don't differ. The issue with transplants is that they often require the donor and the recipient to have the exact same gene, which isn't even guaranteed between siblings, since otherwise the body might reject the transplant as a foreign body. If you butcher your parent to have four arms it won't work, genetical closeness doesn't mean you are the same organism. A transplant is there to trick the body into believing its the same organism by aligning a series of genetical traits. I am not familiar with what common traits are needed for leukemia transplants, but these may be absent in some regions of the world and present in others due to bottlenecks and thus make transplants more difficult for children whose parents have one of each. I could make the exact opposite case to say things like motor and mental handicaps are way more common when there is inbreeding and thus the human genome favors exogamic unions... The fact is it depends on what you are talking about and has absolutely nothing to do with imaginary races.
Human is not a race it is a species we are all one species in the same family as other primeapes such as Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, And Bonobos and in the greater Mammal one yeah.
Thing is that humans in games usually have different skin colours? Races in fantasy games are like different species/subspecies of hominids. For example Neanderthals and Denisovians were like a fantasy race.
When people talk about 'race' in fantasy and sci fi, 99% of the time they are talking about species. Klingons and Vulcans are not races, they are species. And no, they can't procreate together.
Your disclaimer at 5.30 essentially rebuts your premise and the title of this video, racism was NOT invented in the middle ages and neither was the concept of race, the claim also that modern racial categories find root in the middle ages is also untrue, Japhetic race or peoples is often cited as the source of a white race, but interestingly the bible and history would have Isidore of Seville think these were the philistines, so why did he expand this to ALL Europeans, well because of course the recognition of commonality between Europeans had always existed as evidenced by the relations and intermarriage of European royalty which was not expanded to for example, Turks, north Africa, the middle east, which they had contact with. There was an ingroup on the basis of common culture and biology, phenotype. Below are some cognates of gene and their meanings, the idea of "being born to a people" as is evidenced by the cognates and their common meanings means that likely, proto indo Europeans had this concept, that dates to 4000BC. Also of interest would be the etymology of "aryan" another word with similar concepts and "freedom", which many don't know is rooted in a concept of familial ingroups being exempt from slavery. "It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "offspring, child, person," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian cnanim "I bear, I am born." " Examples of racism can be found in the archeological record, a great example, the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. Who came into Europe in several waves. They slaughtered, took slaves and multiple wives from the hunter gatherer populations as is show in both the genome of modern Europeans and the burial sites of about 6000bc, people with majority genes from hunter gatherers for generations were not given the same burial rites as the Neolithic farmers did for themselves, instead they were thrown into pits, sometimes with clear signs of injury, head trauma etc. that would've likely been the cause of death. Meanwhile, the different waves of Neolithic farmers can be seen from archeology to have met with one another and recognized that they were a common people even when separated by 500+ years. Biological in groups is a phenomena that goes back as far as we look, race, racism etc. are things that emerge from this. Biological commonality in a broader scale became the basis for modern social in groups rooted in common biology as technology or demographic conditions changed, this is what people like you will reference when saying "race is a social construct and changes", but you seem to ignore the very real commonality that exists between these broader racial categories and how the changes in technology or demographics like in Americas history for instance, opens up more options in who we choose to associate with which explains these things rather than the poor rebuttal that is offered by your likes and the conclusion that race is a concept to be brushed off to the side. The more you research into the topic, the more you might come to the conclusion as I have, that racial categories can change but that they are always rooted in some biological commonality, and what that says about humanity I will let you discern for yourself.
You've said several things that are wrong here, so I'll run them through: 1) The proto-Indo-Europeans were seminomadic herders, they did not have a concept of race and were not the exclusive genetic ancestors of modern Europeans. 2) The Bible is not a credible source as it contains many basic factual errors. 3) "Arya" is the name used by ancient Indo-Aryan people to describe themselves. It has no connection to any words relating to freedom, and there is no evidence that they practiced widespread slavery. 4) Slavery is not always race-based, in fact that was a very modern innovation. Most slavery was done against war captives from neighbouring polities. 5) Jānā́ti means "to know" in Sanskrit, it has nothing to do with Latin genus. The word jánas means species or lineage. People were obviously aware of the concept of family, that does not logically imply they were racist. 6) Levantine farmers did not migrate into Europe. That simply didn't happen, and I don't know why you think it did. They didn't have slavery either, it hadn't been invented yet. 7) The existence of genetic variation across different population groups does not mean that race is real. Nor would the existence of race logically imply racism, anymore than the existence of hair colour logically implies punching blondes. 8) Race is a social construct, obviously. The only alternative to this is the belief that different races are different species somehow, which they clearly are not. There is nothing separating any human group from any other human group except distance. 9) Almost all genetic variation in humans is found within Africa. Classifying the entire continent together is based on superficial nonsense and historic bigotry, neither of which are factual.
@@PlatinumAltaria You literally ignored the evidence I've provided for each claim and made an assertion against each, I gave a list of cognates and their meanings etc. to give framework, anything I've said is a quick google search away. I'm not going through all because it's not a good use of my time but for example. Arya is NOT just a name of a people, it is conceptually a means of denoting in group vs out, Aryaman/Aryanman, in Ireland Eihrumann, is a deity that deals with group wellbeing and his duty is integration of women from foreign groups as secondary/tertiary wives etc. this is because their cultures were those of conquest, quite literally, the indo aryan brought the chariot and horse to India by means and purpose of conquest. Arya/ Non Arya and it's cognates is a familial distinction where Non Arya were groups exempt from in group moralities, this is why slavery was tribal in nature. Freedom, comes from free, the proto indoeuropean/yamnaya, who as they went east because the indo aryan, comes from PIE, "PRI" which it and it's cognates like free in old Germanic languages etc. Just googling aryan and you'll see that in certain contexts, it and it's cognates which come from the root Eros are used in reference to in group and to make distinction between freemen and non. This is because again, conceptually, the non familial were exempt from in group moralities and subject to slavery, this is historically normal from Egypt's slave trade, to the Islamic, to the Atlantic. The in group out, is biological in nature and it's broadness is open to various interpretations at different times which is what might confuse you. Below is from etymonline which is a good resource, if you google the words you can find more on each. "prī-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to love." In some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) it developed derivatives with the sense "free, not in bondage," perhaps via "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves)." Search, Aryan, Eros and you'll see it's much the same, the meanings are deduced from the contexts the cognates are used in. Freemen were kinsmen, which is why what I'm saying is true and your rebuttal is baseless. I suggest you also research etymology of race, ethos or ethnic and nation. You'll understand that these terms are interchangeable historically only recently is their is an attempt to try separate them for purpose of linguistic utility so that race is biological, ethnic includes informational distinction like culture language etc. nation since early 20th century now refers to places rather than peoples and was replaced by race in that context in the 1700s and later ethnic in the 1900s. Point 8 is especially stupid, no offence, but if you can't separate Irish from Bengalese and think it's just "distance" then you have serious problems with discerning reality. Your 7th point rebuts this, so why say this idk. On "punching blondes", genetic variation exists within ingroups of virtually any species, subspecies, breed, race, w/e categorical distinction you want to make. Degree of variation and it's tolerances are in of themselves traits to be selected for, from an evolutionary understanding, populations that undergo rapid environmental change will require broader variation for selection and means to tolerate that. The tolerance of "diversity" and biological discrimination can be observed all the way down to micro biology, with antigens etc. or more obviously in macro with colorism, morphological distinction abilities etc. This does not "necessitate" racism in some empathetic ideal for hominids, the reality is quite different which is obvious by the existence of racism and the great degree of it historically. Individualism, liberal ethic etc. modify attitudes that otherwise would result in classical racisms, which themselves are emergent from ability to recognize behavioral, morphological, color etc. differences. If a form of life doesn't discriminate, it loses out on resources, mating restrictions etc. It ceases to exist in it's form and becomes modified, not itself. "itself" emerges from separation in evolutionary process. 9. is lewontian fallacy gone awry I'm not responding to each point in chronological order, but the Levantine farmer comment, lmao, ok, you know literally nothing about this topic. Neolithic farmers are one of the major central Eurasian groups that migrated into Europe 7k years ago, the specific sub clade of this group that is mainly relevant to Europe are the Anatolian group. Honestly I might make a quick video response and just show you the sources, because you can't even just google basic stuff.
Interesting video but I think it covers a bit too much ground a bit too quickly for me to buy much of it and Im sure the concept of race has been around for much longer than the crusades. Theres texts where Roman explorers talk about black people as "Ethiopians" and early Muslim warriors referring to "Romans" as "Pale faces". Maybe racism started sprouting later with the crusades but I doubt it wasnt present in some minds much earlier. While colonialism/Imperialism/Capitalism surely exacerbated the occurrence of racism the concept of race (and to some degree racism) has likely been present in many places way before the crusades.
@@olivermorin3303 My comment focuses more on race than racism but yours leaves me wondering if I understood the video properly. I do stand by my initial assessment that it covered too much ground in too little time though.
@@FreddaYT On the first part; Im not saying it is but categorizing people of vastly different cultures into the same category based only on skin color does indicate some form of racial awareness similar to what we associate with race today. Cant see how the second part is relevant to what I wrote but I agree.
"I think it covers a bit too much ground a bit too quickly for me to buy much of it" I kinda agree, BadEmpanada's "How Race Was Invented" is a much more in-depth and rigorous video on this topic, you should check it out if you're still interested.
It is a video about modern, Western, America-centric, even, concept of race. Ancient people had other ways of envisioning race and their racial heirarchies. For example, ancient Romans percieved themselves as a separate ethnic entity to even Greeks, and racialized, bundled together in their perception all Celts and all Germanics, without a doubt never considering themselves being racially close to them, in contrast to how modern descendants of all four groups now are all generally considered "white".
@@ИванЕвдокимов-в4мit’s a video about how the idea of “racism” and thus how the idea of “race” itself was invented. The reason why you don’t want to talk about inconvenient truths around how other ancient civilisations had fleshed out concepts of race and even extensive racial laws, breaks the key argument of the video. That argument being: “a bunch of people in the west created le race.” Examples of ancient societies who had codified ideas around race include: ancient Egypt, ancient India and the Sumerian civilisation.
@@ИванЕвдокимов-в4мI could understand Germanics, Celts, Nordics, Alpines, Slavs, Baltics, And Western Caucasus Mountainers as White but not Mediterannean Olive peoples unless they are admixed or have a skin condition that includes lighter hair and lighter corneas too yeah.
I didn't quite follow. You showed picture of Darwin and birds and said how Darwin deduced that it breaks the myth of different types of humans being created separately, but rather that we share common ancestors. Then say in the next sentence that race doesn't exist but is just a social construct. How?
Fredda, how do you reconcile this idea that contemporary racism has its roots in 11th century Europe with the reality that racial bias already existed in the Arab world well before that time period? For example, White and Turkic male slaves were usually given military jobs and could advance in Arab society. On the other hand black slaves such as the Zanj did not have that same level of opportunity and were usually given more brutal work. How does that not go beyond something comparatively benign like say acknowledging skin color?
He is a liberal quoting books from the 2000s. This whole video is revisionist history to blamed racisms existence on whites and christianity….. its so obvious its painfull
Maybe because they have different roots as he described in the video. He didn't say racism was invented by Christians, he said our current conception of race was invented by Christians and all the ones before it were unique and had no tie, which you could try to prove but saying that other people did it first isn't evidence, you have to draw a link.
@@dropyourself The Arab concept of race and the Christian concept are the same. Just because there may have been a different origin does not make them unique. If you want to argue that there was some sort of divergent evolution of racism were the Arab and Western worlds invented a comparable form of racism separately that's fine. But don't say that they are unique because they really aren't. In relation to the way they functioned and who they considered as different races they were the same. The only substantial difference is that the Europeans spread the idea to places the Arabs didnt.
@@Foxy-vs6yj I and this video argue that they have different origins and unless you can prove that the Arab form of racism wasn't beat out by the Christian conception then you are arguing a moot point because I don't deny that they were both a thing, what I do deny is that our current conception of racism now is linked to the racism from Arabs and not Christians. It's possible that Arabs could have proliferated their form of racism or Christians could have not proliferated their form of racism but unless you have evidence to prove either of those assertions then I'm done arguing with you.
Love the disclaimer. "To show how racism was invented in the European middle ages, we are going to ignore all racism that happened before or in other place." Brilliant. Let me show you in an equally brilliant way that every rectangle has an area of 12: "Well, first a disclaimer: While there are rectangular shapes that do not have area 12, those are not relevant to this discussion because 'real' rectangles have an area of 12. Now look at this rectangle: Length 6, width 2...area of 12! Look at this other rectangle: Length 3, width 4. Also area 12! I rest my case."
What about our interactions with other homonids like the neanderthals and denisovans? Were we simply not advanced enough to generate a complex social idea like race, or was there some intermediary between ape warfare and modern human racism?
This is kinda late but, the conflicts between our and other ape species were so long ago that it is unlikely to be culturally remembered. While it is likely to leave a certain trait on a culture, it is impossible to find the specific trace. Additionally, different populations had those conflicts at different times some earlier than others.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551And some have both Australoids have Denisovan while Caucasoids have Neanderthal and Mongoloids, have both while Negroids usually have none yeah.
From what I understand, a big part of the reason that enslavement of Indigenous folks by Europeans became less common than enslavement of Africans was because if the former escaped, they would know the landscape and be able to return to their home community or another native community that they knew might take them in. Although there were many escaped African slaves who then formed their communities or joined with Indigenous folks to form new ones, I do not think this was common enough for Europeans to decide to enslave more equal numbers of Africans and Indigenous people.
Just discovered your channel. Seems like the history space on UA-cam is dominated by alt-right armchair ‘history buffs’. We need more of your kind of content.
If i am not misremembering you are Norwegian right? Just wondering if you have had a chance to read and if so what you think about the book Rase: en vitenskapshistorie by Jon Røyne Kyllingstad
0:35 it's a video game. There doesn’t seem to be much of a similarity between the virtual "race," and real life races other than the fact they are called by the same name.
Arent there many many examples of associations between phenotypical traits and personality traits from way before the middle ages? To the point that it feels a bit intellectually dishonest to argue that its an entierly different phenomenon. One could honestly even argue that the stereotypes held during antiquity was closer to modern racism as it wasn't as tied to religion as it was during the middle ages. This feels more like an explanation of how specifically muslims came to be racialized by europeans, or maybe even just homogenized. The Spanish treatment of jews and Muslims can be seen as an early example of racialized thinking, since their conversions were not recognized.
While it could be argued that racism predates the medieval times, the idea of racism in ancient times was different than the racism that we know about today. In ancient times, it wasn’t uncommon for people of different tribes or ethnic groups to have similar stereotypes about each other. Although the modern idea of racism which was developed in the Middle Ages was fueled by religious and ethnic differences.
@@localclown8999 I just don't see any evidence that people before the middle ages didn't at all believe that different groups of people had inheritable traits or in any way racialized different groups.
@@BigmanDogs There is a difference between vaguely saying "Gauls are so and so" because you are xenophobic and creating a whole system grouping people into races and making a hierarchy among the races. In the roman empire there never was any talk about outlawing marriages between Gauls and Italians, some Gauls even gained patrician status less than a century after the conquest.
@@localclown8999Not entirely for example take Anti Amerindian racism for example even before the arrival of Western Europeans even the Spaniards aand Portuguese many of the racial stereotypes about Amerindians being "Savages", having a "inferior phenotype and anatomy", geographical location, lifestyle, diet, etc could be seen to have been thoughts of The Eskimaux And The Aleutians to there North of them where the arctic and subarctic parts of The America's connect and bridge together in both Canada And Alaska granted the American Indians had similar neg mindedness about the Eskimos And Aleuts but I am pointing out the Eskimo-Aleut on Amerindian Racism rather then the reverse because Amerindians even today have a higher density and population and are the group the most disadvantaged even in modernity the reason why The Eskimos And Aleuts did not conquer the Amerindians like or adjacent to Western Europeans was because of this. 1. The tools the Eskimaux and Aleutians carried while more technologically advanced for fishing, hunting, whaling, hawking, and camping still where not as added by a noticeable amount plus they did not carry diseases with them like The Western Euros did plus even though there toolies were also better for combat both one to one or group on group again it was not by a huge nor noticeable margin. 2. They generally preferred the arctic landscape being used to it and were mostly half ways about conquering "The Red" people to the southern tippers of them. 3. They did not have the diseases to wipe them out like the Afroeurasians did. 4. They were much lesser in number then the Amerindians and had a harder time in trying to divide the Amerindian tribes against the others successfully like the later Western Eurs did there armor was not as strong as the Western Euros either nor did they have good beasts of burden to ride nor gun powder either or explosives yeah.
The idea of Ethnos goes back to ancient Greece. Also the Bible does mention "the nations" and that different people groups are descended from different people. The Jews and Samaritians and Assyrians are different people.
@@FreddaYTand what's the difference? Greeks exactly pointed out different behaviours segregating folks not only civilized vs barbarians uncultured by also by traits so biological differences
Good video! I don't know if I fully agree that Medieval persecution involved racism, but I am aware that the consensus on this is shifting. I myself was taught by a pretty left-wing professor that many times we're reading race into the sources where it does not exist. I am not sure I agree with her, but I'm also not sure I agree with Geraldine Heng... I've been wanting to read Heng's book, "The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages," for quite some time now. But there are other books I want to read first. It might be some time before I get to it yet... Still, I find it interesting that you called greco-roman persecution proto-racial thinking. I know Heng cites Benjamin Isaac's work, -- particularly "The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity" -- but I can't find where at on a cursory flip through. I would think that Isaac's book would challenge the idea that Classical Anitiquity was just proto-racial thinking. Having read neither book, I can't say for sure though.
Jews are original racist. Special sperm of Abracham, God chosen people better than others that should stay separated and dwell alone. People don't have balls and intellectual integrity to talk about obvious things.
"When we arrived the merchants deposited their goods in an open space and the Blacks took responsibility for them. The merchants went to the Farba who was sitting on a rug under a shelter; his officials were in front of him with spears and bows in their hands...The merchants stood in front of him and he spoke to them through an interpreter as a sign of his contempt for them, although they were close to him. At this I was sorry I had come to their country, because of their bad manners and contempt for white people." - Ibn Battutah in "The Country of the Blacks" (Mali) 1352-53 I would *love* to hear how Battutah internalized eurocentric racist mores and/or how this doesn't count or something
Not just against Sub Saharan Africans but against Non Southern Europeans too and Brown people from South Asia as well as "Yellow People" from East Asia And Central Asia The Mediterannean World in general has a very long history even to ancient watches of seeing themselves superior to Non Med peoples be it The Arabs, Jews, Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Arameans, Sumerians, Egyptians, Amazighs, Persians, Aryans, Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, Portuguese, and many other Mediterranean/Olive groups due to skin tones, facial features, body featurettes, hair colors, eye shades, hair texture, hair style, and many more some of it still goes onto today but not as bad as it was Pre North Western European Imperialism yeah.
Not just against Sub Saharan Africans but against Central Indian Subcontinentals And Southern Indian Continentals as well as there proto racism towards Non Southern Europeans And Western Caucasus Mounders plus against people from South East Asia as well as parts of Central Asia And East Asia yeahl
Except this idea of proto race did not feed into our modern understanding of race so is thus irrelevant to the story. Whats more relevant is the Old testaments "Gods chosen people" which I imagine did have an impact on race
People describe each other in a comparative fashion in a social context. For example, "My brother is White while I am Brown. Our friend, ___, is Black."
Not entirely sure about this. I could have sworn I've once read an ancient roman text that basically makes some far-sweeping, generalized statements on the physical traits and personality of people based on where they originated. Unfortunately however, I don't remember *where* I have read it.
Heng addresses this in her book. She notes that similar stereotypes about skin color can be found in classical Greek and Roman sources. But the crucial difference that the Greeks and Romans also differentiated themselves from the lighter-skinned Northern "barbarians." Whereas, in the Middle Ages light skin becomes associated with Christian virtuousness.
Great video! As Heng also explains in her book, another crucial part of this history is the racialized subjugation exacted by white Europeans against the Roma since the 1300s. The racial slur "gypsy" comes from the European lie that the Roma were originally Egyptian slaves. Particularly gruesome was the formalized system of state and church-sponsored chattel slavery of the Romani people by the ruling classes of the Romanian and Habsburg empires that lasted for 500 years. Some Roma were also enslaved by Western Europeans and even sent to the Americas as slaves. This history has been widely suppressed, but Romani scholars and activists such as Margareta Matache are doing important work to expose this brutal history. In many parts of Europe today, the Roma are still branded as a "criminal" underclass and subject to racial profiling, police brutality, and many other forms of discrimination. Anti-Roma racism was a central feature of Berlusconi’s fascism (may he rest in piss).
Yeah you should talk about what the Soviets did with those poor hapless Romani too. Turns out when you look at reality objectively through a material lens, like the Soviets intended to do, you'll find a lot of "stereotypes" ring true. May you rest in piss too, you anti-White racist.
It wasn't just White Europeans but Mediterannean Olive Europeans that also were very racist towards The Gypsies as well as Middle Easterners And North Africans majority of them also being Olive Medi being very hateful to Gypsies themselves even during there earliest show up yeah.
I always said that the only reason people think Orcs and Elves are genetically distinct is because Tolkien was a racist product of his racist homeland. The Elder Scrolls set this somewhat straight by making most of the races canonically related.
A fairly important bit that's missing when discussing European ideas and treatment of Native Americans was that, during early colonization, the Spanish treated their native slaves so badly that they effectively succeeded in genocide (long before that term had been coined). The import of African slaves began because the Spanish's Native American slaves in many of their colonies were almost completely wiped out by the collective effects of the slavery enforced upon them and the diseases the natives were not resistant too. It's also very telling that the Spanish gave the natives smallpox and the Spanish "brought back" syphilis 🤢
The Spaniards And Portuguese also used the mixed races of Mediterannean And Amerindian and some with Sub Saharan African And East Asian admixtures too called (Mestizajes) against The pure Amerindians it also helped that those mixed races had immunity to diseases that the full blood First Nations did not just like there Mediterannean, Sub Saharan African, And East Asian counterparts did so yeah.
The Spaniards And Portuguese both often mixed with the Natives and created mixed races even in the early 1500s if not sooner to be intermediaries for the Spanish And Portuguese or I should say Iberians putting them in higher regard to the pure indigenous it also helped that like the Spanish And Portuguese the mixed Mestizaje groups had a immunity of illnesses that the Indios did not yeah.
Systemic Racism is a continuation of systemic ethnic chauvinism. Which was created in the Achaemenid empire with there being a stark difference between the Iranian/aryan and the Anaryan/ non Iranian. the Persian empire created the first racial caste system because Persian imperialism was way more “colonial” than all the empires that came before. with the western Iranian ( Persian and Median) at the very top, followed by other Iranians including savages like the Scythians and then the civilized non Iranians ( Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks) and at the bottom were the non civilized non Iranians ( Arabs, Berbers, Celts, African tribes and Jews). Most of these structures started by Darius the great continued by Xerxes and solidified under Artaxerxes.
you missed the whole era of countless tribes in Europe lol you are born racist, being scared of black face they didn't even come close to Assyrian ways btw
God had the first ever character assassination (I don't know if thats the correct term or something else, but I mean that they thought he did and said things he never did in the Bible.) It's unbelievable how many crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of God, and I'm not just talking about the crusaids
Just with the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Kings you're pretty much set to commit any kind of brutality in the name of God. There's always ways to go around the contradictions with the more peacefull texts.
Thanks for the video and expanding my reading list. I think the invention of the modern conception began with the blood purity laws of the iberian christian kingdoms, but i am very interested in what your references have to say. Btw, i would recommend the book "the invention of the white race" as the next (and arguably english-centric) progression of the concept.
It's so delightful that people like you, Fredda, have the guts to continue this "Race is a social construct" charade even as the official media sources are beginning to gloat that Race is not just reality - but wholesale Racial replacement and disenfranchisement of native Europeans is underway! Somebody has to do the job, and I'm glad it's you.
@@FreddaYT I've read and keep a copy of "The Man on Mao's Right", I think you should read it... it's a good and revealing book to help any human get an better understanding of Communist China, and its struggles to survive in the modern world. Oh yeah and those same Communist Chinese officials have also mustered the courage to say it like it is "Western Governments are pursuing a Genocide policy".
@@FreddaYT Hey I'm seeing from your description that you're Norwegian, now isn't that interesting. Adds another layer to the revolting slop your channel produces - you must be just tickled at what's happened to your Swedish neighbors! I, for one, hope you yourself get a heaping helping of the diversity your kind has inflicted.
In Africa, the attitude towards skin color varied greatly, but the Moors (a predominantly Muslim North African Empire) placed a lot of value towards whiter complexion. As for the various Asian empires, they also had a fair share of racism and discrimination towards skin color, especially, the Chinese Empire who had a tendency to associate darker skin tones with laborers, as the lighter skin tones represented wealth and fortune. Most parts of the world outside of Europe had similar experiences and attitudes towards race. Sadly.
@@localclown8999Okay but in East Asia particularly in the Pre North Western European ruling times had a preference for people with not just lighter skin but with typical Eastern Asiatic features both in face and body so for example even though peoples like Western Caucasus Mountainers And Non South Variety Of Europeans would usually have lighter skin, lighter hair, and lighter eyes during ancient, early midieval, mid midieval, late midieval, and other times predating the late 1500s CE they would be seen as lesser for there facial, bodily, hair color, and eye color features be it in China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, And Tibet and I guess Vietnam if you consider that East Asian they even called Whites from the Western parts of China as looking like White Monkeys even in ancient times yeah.
As for North Africans, Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, North Western South Asians, And East Caucasian Rockers they before the late 1500s Christ Era placed value on people with medium features in skin tone and preferred raven hair with black, brown, and or hazel eyes as well yeah.
I know this is a bit late, but I just came across this video. After watching the video, and reading your comments, I think the video could be improved by defining race and racism as you are using it, so that we’re on the same page from the start
As long as there have been people racism has existed, even if the word "race" and "racism" haven't. This time line is so historically inaccurate. There is racism in all regions all around the planet, throughout history. For at least hundreds of thousands of years humans have used visual appearance as a way to out our social competition, or enemies.
"Race" is used in the fantasy genre of games, because fantasy stories look inward. The person who looks inward about themselves and about society, tends to think about subjects like "race". Therefore, race is part of fantasy, even though wizards and blizzard and similar companies adopt the safe 1:1 race:species being synonymous (hence why humans are a race, as in the expression "the human race"). However, Tolkien considered different humans (or "men folk") to be of different races in LotR - eg. Numenorians, easterlings, westrons and other groups. Sci-fi stories look creatively outward - people think about what will happen in the future, or what is out in space, what sort of aliens exist among the stars, how the world might change because of technology. A hero who rebels against or survives in a dystopia, tends to look outward for solutions, rather than turning to religion. Stories like Dune tend to focus on outward problems, even though the feudalistic empire of that world is religiously governed - the plot of the story focuses on things that would challenge the core beliefs of that society. Therefore, sci-fi games and media often adopt the term "species". The only game I remember that retained "race" was starcraft, and I think that was a hold over from warcraft 2 (a fantasy game). Sci fi is different from a fantasy story, where religion might exist, but doesn't serve to be deconstructed or confronted by the characters or plot of the story, who merely live within its social constructs; fantasy stories usually focus on upholding the structure of a society, because the society serves as part of the "inner world" of the characters. Usually, "have faith and good will prevail" is a tenant of fantasy, whereas Sci-fi plot is often "use reason to look for a solution if the current one didn't work, perhaps some new idea will solve the problem". Then there's science fantasy like star wars and super hero media, where there's hardly any attachment to the real world, apart from "how would reality break if this or that were to happen". Usually it's far removed from the world, with only some semblance of resemblance - the result of some tenets of fantasy being adopted and some from sci fi. It's therefore in between outward and inward looking.
Premise is already wrong. Racism is older than Ancient Empires. This goes way BC and is well documented in egyptian history not to mention Exodus-Bible.
Yeah, sorry guys, my bad, it was supposed to be just for fun? I didn’t expect people to get so serious about it, there’s no excuse for my making it tho, sorry
@@tyronechillifoot5573 I think the distinction between a linguistic group and cultural grouping is largely a semantic thing. I mean, if Bantu is only linguistics, fine, they're a linguistic grouping, not "cultural" but all of linguistics is cultural, so I feel like this is a distinction without difference yk?
Because the Bantu's where a group from west africa that expanded across the continent and exterminated the other native Africans. Most blacks you see are Bantu descent.
Something interesting I learned is that having the surname Guzman is a marker for conversio ancestry. After the reconquista Spain was on a Visigoth kick. It became prestigious to Germanize your name. So many Jews when converting wanted to play down their Jewishness took the name Guzman, which is a Hispanicized version of Guttman or Goodman.
Due to the racial caste system in the New World many conversios and Spaniards of Conversio Jewish ancestry settled there. In the New World they were seen as Spaniards since they were born in Europe, they’d be on top. This is why Guzman is one of the most common surnames in Latin America. I never knew that until my Spanish professor in college told the class this.
Source: I made it up
@@CumIngentioPriapo
I’m literally a history teacher.
@@MCKevin289 so link the source lol, you claiming to be qualified proves nothing.
From an etymological perspective I've in the past read that "Gut" in Gothic could refer to themselves, like in "Gutthiudda" for meaning "the gothic people" (or in modern standard German "Gothenfolk"). Other sources variously also claim "Gutt" as cognate for "Gott" or "God" in English, so I would wonder about the source for this third interpretation.
crypto jews are fascinating.
It's a shame no one copyrighted racism so they could sue any bootleg racists who try to infringe upon their unintellectual property.
Unintellectual property😆 good one.
Racism was the first GNU GPL
genius well said.
@@Reflox1GNU RPL ( racist purpose license)
Beautiful, top notch comment. Keep em coming.
Finally, the CEO of Racism
Pope Urban II the CEO of racism
@@FreddaYT racism will be humanity’s downfall.
@@MarshalMarrs it will be the salvation
There's too much people on earth, for the survival of mankind we should purge ourselves before it is too late
@@cgt3704 Did we have a Pope Rural? Because I'm pretty sure there's racism even in rural areas as well.
I like how even Peter the venerable was like:”I don’t like muslims that much but don’t you think calling them subhuman over their skin colour is a bit much?”
"Ok I think these guys suck but I don't think God said all that stuff Bernard."
@@FreddaYT Bernard truly is the ceo of racism
One of the shocking things about the Middle Ages in general is whenever you find a somewhat reasonable take like that. Like there was also some contemporary criticism of the Crusades, especially the sack of Jerusalem.
@@hedgehog3180“ok guys here me out... murdering people in the name of the lord is bad”
“...how dare you!”
@@hedgehog3180I find it disrespectful to be surprised by our ancestors actually not being all shitty
This is wrong. Racism was invented in 2016 when Hoi4 came out.
I remember when COD lobbies were the most civilised places on the internet
Holy fuck HoI4 was 2016?
@@mattjk5299 Yes
makes sense because both suck
@@NBrioDaZueraRules idk I enjoyed Old World Blues
I would note one small correction! The Romans had... *something* approximating racial thinking, especially in later philosophy nearer the collapse of the west. The climatological explanation of race shown in that one manuscript predating and later justifying Spanish/Portuguese slave trading is, by my reckoning anyways, probably influenced by this old Roman conceptualization of race or at least racialized thinking. Namely, the Romans philosophically justified dominance over the Mediterranean in numerous ways, but one of which was the superiority of the people of Latium (and later all of Italy) being genetically superior due to their temperate climate, a veritable goldilocks zone, of sorts. This is contrasted with how they viewed the "white" (not an actual designation at the time) peoples North of them, the Gauls and Germanic tribes. The author of this theory whose name is currently escaping me saw these Gallo-Germanic peoples as intensely stupid due to the cold temperatures of the north and lack of sunlight thus diminishing their mental capacity but increasing their physical capacity for violence. Conversely, he saw the Arab/Semitic/Kushitic/Indo-Iranian peoples of West Asia and North Africa as more clever and treacherous than their northern counterparts, but short, weak, and lacking in courage as a result of "over exposure" to the sun. The reason I find the need to mention this at all in spite of my relative lack of memory on this subject (the class I took on the matter was a few years ago at least and I can't find my textbook) is just because I feel as though it really sockets in perfectly with the sort of dialectical progression of racialized thinking you lay out rather expertly in this video. This addendum aside, excellently done!
I read about this in the 10 books on architecture.
Exactly! Arguably, they even have a sort of "nationalism" in how they view citizens of their own country; They are always more predisposed towards people born in the city of Rome than people born anywhere else in the empire, even in Italy. This is illustrated by the life of the roman senator Cicero who had to fight tooth and nail to be respected among his peers solely because he as born in the Italian countryside. He also didn't come from a rich family so look at that they also had nepotism! The Romans truly were ahead of their time.
Race was a worldwide phenomenon before the existence of Hans Kohn.
They also thought the Greeks were pretty gay
While there were such ideas they weren't the norm or at least not supported by the state, as long as you assimilate you are a roman, such notion persistet in rome all the way to middle ages with eastern romans for example considering galations roman but isaurians as still somewhat barbaric despite the fact that both lived in the empire for about the same time, this division by culture is very common across the world, you can definetely call it something, but not modern racism
I can't believe that John Racism invented racism guys this is so sad
You're confusing him with his pal, George Race, who wrote his new ideology in Racist Manifesto.
John Racism invented colorism, and scientific racism, which he wrote in Racist Manifesto 2: Electric Boogaloo
@@volumist no, the guy that wrote the second part was Herbert von Rassenburg. John Racism just had an unfortunate name.
@@Idkpleasejustletmechangeit Seems legit, i will check my data properly next time
The cure for racism is talking animals from alternate earths!
Though this might be true for the west I would like to point out in my opinion that this is a very euro-centric view on racism and racial ideas about blood lines and the like have existed in a lot of cultures, outside of Europe too, before the crusades too. For example the Umayyad caliphate had a policy of that you had to have a pure arabic blood line in order to be involved in the administration for example and you had to fit certain criteria that were certainly race based (as character traits such as skin color were discussed and). Similarly, the abbasid caliphate did have, in both practice and in theory, though to a far lesser degree similar ideas. You also had axumite and later ethiopic dynastic discrimination towards kuushites by Semitic speakers, often there also based upon racial ideas.
I specifically mentioned this in the video. The racism I'm talking about is the one that's prevalent today, and I mentioned how there were other racial-esque systems of ideas in other cultures, and how this video is not about those and so falls outside the purview of my sources.
The racism of today isn't based on the Umayyad beliefs, or the caste system in India, it's based in the ideas that took hold in the west.
@@FreddaYT Yes this is very much true that those were not the focus though that was kind of my point, sorry if I came off as harsher than intended😓
Again I really don't want to come off as being bad or seeking conflict. And for example regarding the racism of today, I would again argue that this is not true, there are still types of racism around the world, probably a big part of the current conflicts in Ethiopia can go back to this, that are based upon various pre-colonial ideas about race, people and bloodline purity. I might actually make a video about this in the future though, as it is an important and interesting topic to discuss.
@@FreddaYT baphomet is a demonizing of Mohammed.
This was touched on and excluded around the 5:00 mark. However, I'd like to extend, at the risk of being pedantic, that religious persecution, colorism, eugenicism, my overlap with racism but are not definitively racism as much as they are prejudicial & precursors to racism. For instance, being Jewish or Christian aren't races. It's the act of "othering" that's the father of racism, imo.
@@FreddaYT you are completly wrong racism towards africans was invented by arab muslims such as ibn khaldun who would constantly refer to black people as subhuman and natural slaves
An East Asian prospective would be cool. As a Korean, I'd say East Asian racism has lot of xenophobic tones. It's not like civilized x barbarian European paragon. It's more like us vs others, as others = aliens. Aliens bring alien ideas and taint culture sorta fear. However, if an alien can become culturally East Asian according to the East Asian standard of assimilation, usually it's much easier to break the barrier compared to Western racist where even culturally assimilated other race are still viewed as not equal. There are also colorism, but this is a problem/phenomenon almost everywhere and in this case quite similar in connotation even thou the origin may be different.
I wonder about African racism as conflicts between different tribes who speak languages from separate families, religion, and so on. It seems to me something overlooked by academics as it is very Western centric in their take.
From what I have heard from african americans. Africans from africa tend to view african americans and africans from the new world as lesser. My guess is that this could do with the history of the slave trade since africans in africa were not enslaved, they sold the slaves. But i don’t know for sure
In Africa in the 1990s:
Tribes are like different sports teams, you like your team because that is expected, you battle the other team as tradition as a part of old traditions. Women are expected to be loyal to the husbands team, lighter skin is viewed as superior and closer to god, while darker skin is viewed as a curse. Lighter skin = good, while dark skin = bad. Imagine different sport teams or France and Germany.
Not all groups are equal, some are more numerous wealthier, more educated, hold more power. A social order exist, those with the most power on top and everyone else follow down the line. Oral history was common, your family lineage is orally paassed down, memorize names of descendants. Wealth is a symbol of social status. You had a term for each different group you interacted with.
Groups: (power and status)
White
Arab
Ethiopian
The different tribes ( powerful to weakest)
Each family group/ house of origin
The wars:
British empire vs the tribes
Arabs vs the tribes
#1 Tribe vs #2 Tribe (the two tribes broke apart in the past) the rival tribe
The Allies: (well respected)
America
Russia
Ethiopia
Hold onto that attitude...
East Asia (chiefly China) has maintained 5,000 years of Civilization - for a reason.
@@rustyshackleford1465china is a very diverse country, there's over 50 different ethnic groups in china
@@bobble13345 Yeah, each with thousands of years of familiarity and cultural exchange with eachother because they've always existed in close proximity to eachother.
You're not describing ethnic groups which are culturally alien to eachother - but different groups of people who have existed together in the same confines of a geographic region.
Racism was invented in COD MW2 lobbies
halo 2 existed before it.
@@krono5el there is where politics was invented. Red vs blue.
It was invented when America was founded. 😔
It could be argued that discrimination and prejudice in the Middle Ages was more due to religion than 'race'. For example, Rabban Bar Sauma was a Christian monk from medieval china who served as a diplomat to the mongol empire. He wrote a memoire, and he basically says he had a great time. The book is 'Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China: Medieval Travels from China Through Central Asia to Persia and Beyond.'
I LOVE IT THAT YOU NAME THE MAIN SOURCES IN THE BEGINNING!
I love the book racism not race. Listened to the podcast where they had a talk with SRSLY Wrong.
12:30 the reason why african slavery eclipsed native slavery was that there werent enough natives to enslave. Too many of them died from disease. Not because the natives skins color was too light
This, plus the natives are far more opportunities to escape (knew the area/blended in with locals) and generally more willing to die instead of being slaves
Yeah. I think he's revealing his own hidden racial biases by those remarks.
"One of the reasons..."
The church was also very opposed to native slavery since very early because the natives had never been exposed to Christianity and so had no way to know of the "true faith", and in a way they were right, today the Americas are almost completely Christian
That's not entirely true. In Mexico the Spanish did start enslaving the locals and had a very large local population to work with (Mexico was quite densely populated even after the epidemics caused by contact with Europe), but a faction within the Catholic Church succeeded in convincing the Pope and the King of Spain to outlaw slavery for native americans (primarily on the grounds that it was possible to convert them). What you said was somewhat true for Brazil, where there was a much lower native population, and since Portugal also had colonies in Africa they came up with the idea of sending slaves from their African colonies to Brazil. But this strategy wasn't really adopted in Spainish colonies until after the church banned the enslavement of native Americans (for a while many Spanish colonial landowners ignored the laws, but after a few years the state started actually trying to enforce the ban so it became easier to just import legal slaves).
Racism was invented by John Basedman, the first and strongest chess player of all time, he studied every single move to win against both white and black
I studied race during my history degree and I have a MAJOR issue with this problem of reaching all the way back to the middle ages. The reason why the invention of race is so often attributed to the colonial era is because it's when Jews were classified as a race and African slavery came to be justified along distinct heritage to Europeans as religion was no longer sufficient justification due to jesuit objections. By the 1700s with the development of the ideas of species it started to become biological. If you want to start in the middle ages it's so vaguely attributed to how people said "this people with this skin colour or from this place or of this religion are prone to acting in XYZ manner." If this is racialization then you can go all the way back to 400bc with some Greek scholars. It's not really a sufficient justification and in the middle ages it was too wrapped up in religion to constitute something inherent in the PERSON. That's why the racialization of Jews was so important. They were forced to convert in the 16th century but then their grandchildren were still considered Jews and persecuted, showing that being a jew was now in the blood and no longer a religion. The same was not true of Muslims who converted in Spain.
*Seeing Fredda reverence his sources*
Me: "Its enough to make a grown man cry."
Fredda, I have been loving your longer style content that you have been producing lately! You bring academic rigor and a solid analysis of an issue or topic to the table while maintaining an interesting and engaging format. I also have been loving your long form videos on WIAH, the fact you've got an acronym for his long name kills me! Keep up the amazing work!
Relying entirely on three woke sources isn't "academic rigour".
@chrislusk3497 I don't think you've really understood my point of academic rigor, as it isn't defined by the number of sources used. I also think you've made your oppositional position clear in characterizing the sources Fredda used in his analysis as "woke." You can disagree with Fredda's analysis and my opinion of his analysis, but I don't think you've provided any real criticisms against my opinion other than taking a lazy swipe at "wokeness"
@@bamboozled9127 I'm not sure what there is to understand about your point. Highly selective use of sources to support a pre-existing ideological agenda (and ignoring evidence to the contrary) is incompatible with the idea of academic rigour. And if you look lower down the comments you will see that yes I have provided real criticisms against your opinion, and against Fredda's video in general. Plus there are more detailed comments by others who point out that what much of what the Arabs did and said as early at the 8th century corresponds to what we would now call "racism". The claim that racism was 'invented" in the Middle Ages by Europeans is pure fiction.
Whenever I see stuff about the historical origins of race, I can’t stop thinking about Othello and considering what “stage” racism was at when that play was released (and just to be clear Othello is one of my top 3 Shakespeare plays)
Arguably one can go even further back than the 11th century to find the roots of western racism. The climatological perspective you mentioned can be traced not only back to Ibn Khaldun, but even to Greek scholars like Aristotle, as discussed by Benjamin Isaac in "'The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity". While you mention people's lack of understanding of genetics, I think it is still true that ancient and medieval people had an understanding of heredity, which can even be witnessed in connection to inherited character traits (ie racism) from accounts like Origen of Alexandria's 4th Century telling of the Curse of Ham, which attached character to color and culture. That said though, I think your video brings up a great point regarding the salience of anti-semitism in solidifying patterns of racial ideology in Europe.
Wasn' Origen egyptian and thus according to biblical classification hamitic? Or did he view himslf as greek and used biblical terminology to justify the greek speaking's elite priviledged position?
Damn, and I thought racism started because of COD modern warfare
Me. I invented it.
There absolutely is racism in the Torah/Old Testament. You can call it "tribalism" or "religious strife" if you want, but repeatedly the Israelites are warned against "foreign practices, and gods" and to commit genocide or "kill the men, boys, and women who have known men, but take those virgins who have not known men as your wives". There are also different rules for treating Israelite servants [who can only be kept for 7 years] and foreign slaves [who are yours forever, or until you tire of them] and for lending money [interest can only be charged against non-Israelites].
While it might not be racist for the time, it absolutely is racist. It even describes the surrounding peoples as descendants of various biblical characters who were not the direct ancestors of"God's Chosen People". Modern Judaism and Christianity may or may not be racist, but their founding book absolutely is.
And the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan is also racist, or at least religiously intolerant. The Samaritans are an Israelite offshoot similar but not exactly like the Catholic/Orthodox split [textual differences, different seat of worship and high priest]. The woman in the parable is not good BECAUSE she is a Samaritan, she is good DESPITE being a Samaritan [as the Samaritans do not recognize Jerusalem as holy and thus refused to support pilgrimages there].
This one is a little thinner, but is absolutely there.
These are abhorrent examples of ethno nationalism, religious intolerance and Xenophobia but not racism. Racism is special in that it is based of inherent immutable traits at birth by your ancestrial lineage.
@TheYolo20 but the concept of who are 'the people' and not is based on descent. Classical age Judaism (pre diaspora) is based on which son of the patriarch you can trace ancestry to. The 'dark skin is a curse' concept stems from the stories tracing the neighbors of Israel to cousins of Jacob or descendants of Ishmael or other unliked figures from genesis. While these ancestors are legendary at best, the use of them to prove you are superior (and others) is not only racist, but the root justification for many of the racist institutions in the west. Remember the Bible itself was used to justify the slave trade and inferiority of non-Europeans
xenophobia is not racism
@@TheGalaxyWings how are you defining these terms to make the distinction matter in the context of the genocide and slavery based on being "God's Chosen People" in the Bible.
This was a great video.
I think it would be interesting to do a dive into how how ancient peoples conceptualized divisions between groups. Obviously xenophobia and bigotry existed in, for example, ancient Greece, but from what I've read it was formalized more around culture and clan than racial categories.
In most of Europe even today just like in ancient Europe, race based on skin colour simply doesn’t exist there.
The anwser is weve usef all of them at basically all points in history with it being more or less of one or the other depending on the spesific situation
Race was a worldwide phenomenon before the existence of Hans Kohn.
The 'races' in most fantasy roleplaying games are much more akin to real world species than actual races as we apply them to real world humans. This should be obvious, since one of the races will invariably just be called 'humans' and include all potential skin tones.
Which is why I've always thought it was silly when fellow leftists claim the trope contains racist implications. Literally just call them species-which is more accurate, anyway-and the problem is solved. No, orcs aren't comparable to black people (this is a common talking point, for some insane reason). Orcs aren't humans, while black people are a subcategory of human.
It annoys me so much that I'm even talking about it here, even though it's just something that was mentioned in passing at the very start of the video, lmao
Can someone please tell me why do people compare Orcs to Africans or Asians? Because that's just delusional and utterly stupid. Are they insane? It's like how some people call Tolkien a "racist" when in reality he wasn't. I guess ignorant people will latch onto any minute little thing for attention.
Incorrect, racism was created in 2011 when league of legends was released upon this world
Black race was invented by tyrese.
I would have liked an addition with regard to the Arabic idea of the time that pale Turks, Asians and Europeans, and dark Africans and Indians, were considered extremes out of the "balance" that was olive-skinned Arabs.
Where does that come from? It dosn't seem right, arabic climaticism didn't really care about skin colour or even be arabic. When Ibn Khaldun talks about "race" he includes mountain moroccans among the climatically disadvantaged, saying they were more dumb because of the cold environment.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 I don't remember where I read it to be honest, but I did think it was a reputable source
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 I mean, it could be otherwise but a source can be very knowledgeable about western history and concepts while only making a superficial analysis of non-western ones. If you want I can give you the passage from Ibn Khaldun I am talking about since it is often taken as the prime example of this climaticist mindset. There are also such passages in older works like those of Mas'udi and Muqqadasi but I don't remember exactly where they are. Ancient muslim scientists have a tendency to ascribe a lot of things to the nature of air, its quality and if it is dry or wet. People from the Nile delta interior and the Iraqi marshes were thus seen as being from an "unclean" environment while places like Kûfa, Cairo or Ahwaz were complimented for the quality of their air.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 Thank you, I would certainly like to explore this.
@@robinrehlinghaus1944Franz Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldun's works is available online and even if it isn't perfect it is completely sufficient for an introduction (one of the issues is the aforementionned confusion where he translates Zanj with european racist terminology which isn't quite accurate). The part on climate and character can be found in the Muqaddimah (introduction) chapter I, part 4. While I checked I saw that his views on skin colour are actually in the preceding sub chapter (chapter I, part 3) where he goes on an interesting tangent where he disputes the narrative of blackness of skin being tied to descent from Ham, instead linking it to climate.
By rereading this part I also understand what the authors of what you read perhaps meant since it is made mention of being "temperate in character" which is tied to climate and then climate is tied to skin colour. But in the beginning of this text he makes it quite clear he follows classifical subdivisions of the earth into clines where the central cline is the more temperate, he lists the people inhabiting in the central cline as the arabs, the persians, the chinese, the indians and the europeans, clearly showing it is a quite wide definition while does he deems as "intemperate in character" those who inhabit the first and second clines (southern Africa) as well as the 6th and 7th clines (most of Russia and Scandinavia). Probably this is actually also done to justify making people from those regions slaves which provided most of the slaves in the muslim world. I think there is a point to be made that european modern racism and muslim medieval climaticism were elaborated for the same reasons even if they came to different conclusions.
Race is more than skin deep
I think Arin Hanson described it very well when he spoke of a caveman staring at his reflection in a lake:
"YOU'RE NOT ME! UGH!" >proceeds to punch lake
That's actually Xenophobia which is discussed by the books I referenced as a different (but also bad!) phenomenon. Xenophobia predated racism by thousands of years.
@Fredda Interesting! At the end of the day, any sort of negative -isms are bullshit anyways lol
The relationship between race and religion is interesting for two reasons
1) Mormons recreated this in their theology. Before their prophets got an update from God Himself the general idea was that black people were tainted by sin because they did something wrong in their previous life (Mormon cosmology is too wacky to explain it shortly). Meanwhile native Americans had darker skin bc their ancestors (who were Jewish as well as white) rejected God and killed their brothers
2) Slavs (almost) avoided being framed as a seperate "race" through Christianisation. In early Middle Ages they were a mayor source of slaves for (mostly) Western Europe to exploit and sell. Without an organised state and "right" religion they were an easy victim for Christian slave catchers. As such, when Poland got christianised, we got a bishop who advocated against selling Poles into slavery because they believed in the right God! Not because they were white, not because slavery was bad, he didn't care much about other Slavs who were pagans. Christianity was what truly mattered
Slavs almost avoided being framed as a seperate race because Europe is Europe and we play here a little bit different game. The angry WWII dude didn't believe that Slavs were on the same level as germanic people or God forbid aryans. Ns used exactly the same arguments to prove that Slavs are inherently inferior as racist use to say the same about black people
Am I white? I definitely have white privilage but damn if anti Slav bigotry is still not a thing. This is one of many reasons why I don't believe in white brotherhood or other similar bull
nie ma dowodów historycznych na handel ludźmi w kraju polan lol
I niewolnicy szli do arabów nie na zachód
poza tym zacznij zachowywać się jak europejska a nie globalistyczny nikt kochający trzeci świat zamiast własnej krwii albo wyjedź jak nie lubisz swoich
The Slavs, Baltics, Germanics, Nordics, Alpines, And Celts as well as Finns And Samis could rightfully be dubbed or classified as White Europeans even if all have some looker changers to them while most Southern Europeans could be tagged or collared Olive Europeans just like Middle Easterners could be called Olive Asians, North Africans Olive Africans, North Western South Asians as Olive Desis, And Eastern Caucasus Cliffers as Olive Caucasians yeah.
I think this is a very euro centric critique of racism, which is quite ironic. Racism exists throughout out the world, for instance 華夷之辨 has been (and still is) a very dominant thought in East Asia (namely China, Japan and Vietnam). I assume that other parts of world have their own flavors of racism.
Did you see the disclaimer at 5:00?
@@p00bix that disclaimer is factually wrong and Eurocentric. The idea of 華夷之辨 affected almost 2 billion people, more than the population of the entire west plus sub-Saharan Africa, so the idea that European problems are world problems is in itself racism.
@@donaldlee8249 Er, no. That's not what the disclaimer says. It says that the focus of the video is on the origin of Western Racism, because the Western conceptualization of 'race' spread much more widely than any similar ideas developed in other parts of the world. It doesn't say it spread literally everywhere.
Within The Far East there was there own flavors of racism or something resembling it and ringing it like in Ancient China, Early Midieval China, Middle Midieval China, Late Midieval China, and other times predating North Western European Colonalism most Chinese had a beauty standard of preferring people with lighter skin East Asian features and usually would not approve of others especially not to the South East Asians to the south of them yeah.
Doesn’t this have nearly the same title as a bad empanada video
Thumbnail bait caught my attention to this video. Starting off with a reference to video games as your description of RACE threw me off for a moment. As I listened much of what you were stating became more accurate for me. I was never expecting such convoluted details. And you offered new information for me to chew on. Overall I agree with your assessment on the history of race. However, a few points I believe you could have emphasized a few points. Race was created for nefarious reasons. Though you do mention it. Also, I wish you had mentioned the phenomenon behind the MENA Region of the world. How the United States classifies these ethnic groups as White people is a deserving topic of its own.
There's a tremendous amount of detail you didn't go into in this video regarding the history of race in the Muslim world and how that influenced how it was perceived in Christendom, especially as it relates to things like the Zanj revolt, the slave trade into the Muslim world from Africa, longstanding prejudices concerning slaves from different locales around the world among many Muslims (ie, the perception that White women slaves were best suited for a Harem while Black women slaves were best suited for menial labour), ethnic conflict between different groups in Egypt and especially Al-Andalus (There was often tremendous friction between Berbers and Arabs).
As much as I can see that you want to talk about this as a 100% Christian phenomenon that is absolutely not true at all, here's a quote from Al-Maqdisi in the 10th century:
"As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence."
You cannot talk about the actual history of racism without mentioning these factors, the Muslim world had much closer interaction with Africa than Europe generally did and that helped create a perception of Sub-Saharan Africa as filled with people who were typically pagans best used as slaves and preyed upon for raids, or at best uncultured thugs who even if they nominally accepted Islam didn't have the sophistication of Arabs or Persians.
That is real and 100% true and should have been mentioned but that wasnt racism as we consider it today. It can at best be called proto anti black racism which wasn’t fully developed nor in wide spread circulation. Only slave handlers had sometimes that thought and there was a debate between muslim schoolars if black people are human which was ruled to be as such that black people are human. The same conversation was held by the catholic church and they rules that black people were not humans. They were tge cursed offspring of Canaan to be the slaves of all his brothers and their offspring. If we mention proto islamic anti black racism we cannot forget the greek influence which had concept’s of environmental determinism and i think aristotilis also invented tge idea of the natural born slave. But all these examples are not full racism which started in 1439 in Iberia where the Limpiza de sangre was passed in which Christians were divided by “new” and “old” Christians. Basically everyone had to either die or converte to Christianity so that there werent any muslim or jews. Now these jews/muslim could rise the ranks which they previously couldnt which upset many Christians. There was also a anti semetic conspiracy going on that former jews didnt really believe in Christ and we’re practicing in secret still jewdism. So the laws basically took the “new” Christian all rights they have gained and brought them back to the level they had prior to converting. This concept was based on the idea that their blood was “mixed” and was passed on. As long as you had a jewish or muslim ancestors you were an “new” Christian. The first racial law to exist. This system was then brought to the americas.
@@TheYolo20how the fuck you gonna just sit here and call racism "proto racism" like damn nigga do they hate black people or not?
I'd be interested in learning more about how the Muslim world's pseudo-racial ideas influenced the European world. Could you recommend me something that discusses it?
@@TheYolo20Lol, it was only "proto anti-black racism", nothing to see here. The fact that the arabs turned the vast majority of their black slaves into eunuchs (with very high mortality rates during the procedure) also shouldn't be omitted here, a practice that was ultimately stopped and outlawed due to european colonialism.
@@bosertheropode5443eunuchs out pf them the black people couldn’t survive the genocide that the europeans inflicted upon them
This was rly good and the sources are hella enlightening
Normally, I am immune to cringe. But the line "without taint" caused me to wince in visceral, palpable cringe. I need to lie down...
Very well made video and script.
Always glad to be a patreon when I see videos with this quality.
Wasn't ancient greece called their neighbors “barbarians”? Ancient china also had similar practice, like people from the state of zheng and song despise each other.
Yes! And the source I cite when I talk about how racism did not exist in these instances talks about this. It's xenophobia, which is not in and of itself racism.
For it to be racism you need a concept of race.
@@FreddaYTyouve had to twist yerself a thousand different ways so you could blame racism solely on whites and christianity…… is a fresh hell watching liberals at work. Whitewashing on mao levels for the agenda isnt a good thing
@FreddaYT I guess all modern wars who conveniently segregated themselves into religious differences and ethnic differences is all because "resources" and only Russia has racism and Ukraine is a progressive paradise and never n@zi because.... reasons. Because. Uh, xenophobia isn't racism. Egyptians enslave jews because xenophobia, not anti semitism. Right?
@@asscheeks3212 what are you talking about
@@FreddaYT just humoring myself at the logic how xenophobia never indirectly lead to racism. Which is kinda impossible.
>The 99,9% equal meme
Neanderthals were 99,7% identical to us but that doesn't mean the category doesn't exist.
Also the original claim of 99,9% equal was made by Craig Venter in 2000. But he later made another analysis in wich he found humans are actually 99,5% equal in chromosomal DNA (this is between two random individuals, not "races").
You only need to read James Watson, one of the greatest molecular biologists of the century, to understand how wrong the academias supposedly "official thesis" about human races is.
The Neanderthals were pretty similar to us, to the point they interbred with us. If that's what 99.7% similarity is like, then what about 99.9%?
@@jimmyalfonda3536 1. We're not that similar, sources vary.
2. The point is just that very tiny differences in genes can cause distinction between groups. This is especially true for groups that have lived in different regions for millenia
… that’s total bs. Modern humans that have existed for 240,000 years before ever leaving Africa meaning most of HUMAN history is in Africa… what do Neanderthals and modern humans have in relation? Then wth was the year 1400s-1900s for, Africans whom are more human than people anywhere else? Those same eugenics said those Africans were closer to Neanderthals. Neanderthals live in cave, couldn’t even build shelter or have agriculture. 2 THINGS humans constantly did no matter the time period. They’re not like humans at all lol, they couldn’t even leave euroasia.
They couldn’t even speak, they were more impulsive that cognitive. They have more in common with a gorilla, rather than human.
And you're basing this on one paper about the middle ages, for someone who claims to be concerned with sources it seems that you yourself have made a massive oversight. You can't pressent one paper as fact, and not at least mention that this is a video concerned about the interpretation of one author and not a scientific consensus
That's because Fredda is a pleb. Any half-baked scholar would at least have half a dozen sources before they make a stand.
I expected the comments to mainly be flooded with jokes along the lines of „CEO of racism“ when this video was recommended to me and boy I was not disappointed
Hello! I found your channel recently and I'm intrigued.
I have a question for you:
*"If we are just one race,
why do multiethnic or multiracial children with leukemia have
parents that aren't genetically close to each other for transplants?"*
Racially motivated, perhaps. But I hope you'll be able to answer in good faith. :D
That hasn't anything to do with race, if I suffer blood loss I can't be given B- blood even if the person carrying it has ancestry from the same village as me. The human genome is very homogenous since the huge majority of humans lived in the same geographical space less than 100 000 years ago, this doesn't mean individual genomes don't differ. The issue with transplants is that they often require the donor and the recipient to have the exact same gene, which isn't even guaranteed between siblings, since otherwise the body might reject the transplant as a foreign body. If you butcher your parent to have four arms it won't work, genetical closeness doesn't mean you are the same organism. A transplant is there to trick the body into believing its the same organism by aligning a series of genetical traits. I am not familiar with what common traits are needed for leukemia transplants, but these may be absent in some regions of the world and present in others due to bottlenecks and thus make transplants more difficult for children whose parents have one of each.
I could make the exact opposite case to say things like motor and mental handicaps are way more common when there is inbreeding and thus the human genome favors exogamic unions... The fact is it depends on what you are talking about and has absolutely nothing to do with imaginary races.
Human is not a race it is a species we are all one species in the same family as other primeapes such as Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, And Bonobos and in the greater Mammal one yeah.
Thing is that humans in games usually have different skin colours? Races in fantasy games are like different species/subspecies of hominids. For example Neanderthals and Denisovians were like a fantasy race.
Yeah it seems these fantasy games use the word race like how it was used in LOTR
Technically that’s how human races are. Europeans are descendants of European Neanderthals.
When people talk about 'race' in fantasy and sci fi, 99% of the time they are talking about species. Klingons and Vulcans are not races, they are species. And no, they can't procreate together.
Unfortunately quite a few of the people talking about it in real life mean the same thing. Not the smartest people.
Your disclaimer at 5.30 essentially rebuts your premise and the title of this video, racism was NOT invented in the middle ages and neither was the concept of race, the claim also that modern racial categories find root in the middle ages is also untrue, Japhetic race or peoples is often cited as the source of a white race, but interestingly the bible and history would have Isidore of Seville think these were the philistines, so why did he expand this to ALL Europeans, well because of course the recognition of commonality between Europeans had always existed as evidenced by the relations and intermarriage of European royalty which was not expanded to for example, Turks, north Africa, the middle east, which they had contact with. There was an ingroup on the basis of common culture and biology, phenotype.
Below are some cognates of gene and their meanings, the idea of "being born to a people" as is evidenced by the cognates and their common meanings means that likely, proto indo Europeans had this concept, that dates to 4000BC. Also of interest would be the etymology of "aryan" another word with similar concepts and "freedom", which many don't know is rooted in a concept of familial ingroups being exempt from slavery.
"It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "offspring, child, person," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian cnanim "I bear, I am born." "
Examples of racism can be found in the archeological record, a great example, the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. Who came into Europe in several waves.
They slaughtered, took slaves and multiple wives from the hunter gatherer populations as is show in both the genome of modern Europeans and the burial sites of about 6000bc, people with majority genes from hunter gatherers for generations were not given the same burial rites as the Neolithic farmers did for themselves, instead they were thrown into pits, sometimes with clear signs of injury, head trauma etc. that would've likely been the cause of death.
Meanwhile, the different waves of Neolithic farmers can be seen from archeology to have met with one another and recognized that they were a common people even when separated by 500+ years.
Biological in groups is a phenomena that goes back as far as we look, race, racism etc. are things that emerge from this. Biological commonality in a broader scale became the basis for modern social in groups rooted in common biology as technology or demographic conditions changed, this is what people like you will reference when saying "race is a social construct and changes", but you seem to ignore the very real commonality that exists between these broader racial categories and how the changes in technology or demographics like in Americas history for instance, opens up more options in who we choose to associate with which explains these things rather than the poor rebuttal that is offered by your likes and the conclusion that race is a concept to be brushed off to the side.
The more you research into the topic, the more you might come to the conclusion as I have, that racial categories can change but that they are always rooted in some biological commonality, and what that says about humanity I will let you discern for yourself.
You've said several things that are wrong here, so I'll run them through:
1) The proto-Indo-Europeans were seminomadic herders, they did not have a concept of race and were not the exclusive genetic ancestors of modern Europeans.
2) The Bible is not a credible source as it contains many basic factual errors.
3) "Arya" is the name used by ancient Indo-Aryan people to describe themselves. It has no connection to any words relating to freedom, and there is no evidence that they practiced widespread slavery.
4) Slavery is not always race-based, in fact that was a very modern innovation. Most slavery was done against war captives from neighbouring polities.
5) Jānā́ti means "to know" in Sanskrit, it has nothing to do with Latin genus. The word jánas means species or lineage. People were obviously aware of the concept of family, that does not logically imply they were racist.
6) Levantine farmers did not migrate into Europe. That simply didn't happen, and I don't know why you think it did. They didn't have slavery either, it hadn't been invented yet.
7) The existence of genetic variation across different population groups does not mean that race is real. Nor would the existence of race logically imply racism, anymore than the existence of hair colour logically implies punching blondes.
8) Race is a social construct, obviously. The only alternative to this is the belief that different races are different species somehow, which they clearly are not. There is nothing separating any human group from any other human group except distance.
9) Almost all genetic variation in humans is found within Africa. Classifying the entire continent together is based on superficial nonsense and historic bigotry, neither of which are factual.
@@PlatinumAltaria
You literally ignored the evidence I've provided for each claim and made an assertion against each, I gave a list of cognates and their meanings etc. to give framework, anything I've said is a quick google search away.
I'm not going through all because it's not a good use of my time but for example.
Arya is NOT just a name of a people, it is conceptually a means of denoting in group vs out, Aryaman/Aryanman, in Ireland Eihrumann, is a deity that deals with group wellbeing and his duty is integration of women from foreign groups as secondary/tertiary wives etc. this is because their cultures were those of conquest, quite literally, the indo aryan brought the chariot and horse to India by means and purpose of conquest.
Arya/ Non Arya and it's cognates is a familial distinction where Non Arya were groups exempt from in group moralities, this is why slavery was tribal in nature.
Freedom, comes from free, the proto indoeuropean/yamnaya, who as they went east because the indo aryan, comes from PIE, "PRI" which it and it's cognates like free in old Germanic languages etc.
Just googling aryan and you'll see that in certain contexts, it and it's cognates which come from the root Eros are used in reference to in group and to make distinction between freemen and non.
This is because again, conceptually, the non familial were exempt from in group moralities and subject to slavery, this is historically normal from Egypt's slave trade, to the Islamic, to the Atlantic.
The in group out, is biological in nature and it's broadness is open to various interpretations at different times which is what might confuse you.
Below is from etymonline which is a good resource, if you google the words you can find more on each.
"prī-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to love." In some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) it developed derivatives with the sense "free, not in bondage," perhaps via "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves)."
Search, Aryan, Eros and you'll see it's much the same, the meanings are deduced from the contexts the cognates are used in.
Freemen were kinsmen, which is why what I'm saying is true and your rebuttal is baseless.
I suggest you also research etymology of race, ethos or ethnic and nation.
You'll understand that these terms are interchangeable historically only recently is their is an attempt to try separate them for purpose of linguistic utility so that race is biological, ethnic includes informational distinction like culture language etc. nation since early 20th century now refers to places rather than peoples and was replaced by race in that context in the 1700s and later ethnic in the 1900s.
Point 8 is especially stupid, no offence, but if you can't separate Irish from Bengalese and think it's just "distance" then you have serious problems with discerning reality.
Your 7th point rebuts this, so why say this idk.
On "punching blondes", genetic variation exists within ingroups of virtually any species, subspecies, breed, race, w/e categorical distinction you want to make.
Degree of variation and it's tolerances are in of themselves traits to be selected for, from an evolutionary understanding, populations that undergo rapid environmental change will require broader variation for selection and means to tolerate that.
The tolerance of "diversity" and biological discrimination can be observed all the way down to micro biology, with antigens etc. or more obviously in macro with colorism, morphological distinction abilities etc.
This does not "necessitate" racism in some empathetic ideal for hominids, the reality is quite different which is obvious by the existence of racism and the great degree of it historically.
Individualism, liberal ethic etc. modify attitudes that otherwise would result in classical racisms, which themselves are emergent from ability to recognize behavioral, morphological, color etc. differences.
If a form of life doesn't discriminate, it loses out on resources, mating restrictions etc. It ceases to exist in it's form and becomes modified, not itself.
"itself" emerges from separation in evolutionary process.
9. is lewontian fallacy gone awry
I'm not responding to each point in chronological order, but the Levantine farmer comment, lmao, ok, you know literally nothing about this topic.
Neolithic farmers are one of the major central Eurasian groups that migrated into Europe 7k years ago, the specific sub clade of this group that is mainly relevant to Europe are the Anatolian group.
Honestly I might make a quick video response and just show you the sources, because you can't even just google basic stuff.
Interesting video but I think it covers a bit too much ground a bit too quickly for me to buy much of it and Im sure the concept of race has been around for much longer than the crusades. Theres texts where Roman explorers talk about black people as "Ethiopians" and early Muslim warriors referring to "Romans" as "Pale faces". Maybe racism started sprouting later with the crusades but I doubt it wasnt present in some minds much earlier. While colonialism/Imperialism/Capitalism surely exacerbated the occurrence of racism the concept of race (and to some degree racism) has likely been present in many places way before the crusades.
It depends on how you define racism. My definition, and the definition used by this video, does not include xenophobia or religious discrimination.
@@olivermorin3303 My comment focuses more on race than racism but yours leaves me wondering if I understood the video properly. I do stand by my initial assessment that it covered too much ground in too little time though.
Observing different skin colors isn't racism. Being colour-blind is not the opposite of racism, that's a common misconception.
@@FreddaYT On the first part; Im not saying it is but categorizing people of vastly different cultures into the same category based only on skin color does indicate some form of racial awareness similar to what we associate with race today.
Cant see how the second part is relevant to what I wrote but I agree.
"I think it covers a bit too much ground a bit too quickly for me to buy much of it" I kinda agree, BadEmpanada's "How Race Was Invented" is a much more in-depth and rigorous video on this topic, you should check it out if you're still interested.
2:58 I was wondering wtf was going on with that map until I read the credit.
Thank you again for the great video. As a biological anthropology student this topic is particularly interesting and important to me.
I dont know, probably some guy in ancient times that said to his friend "i can run to that tree faster than you" was the inventor of race
Amazing summarization surrounding the analysis of the phenomenon of race
10:35 bro was this literally enforced centuries earlier when the Muslims took over Jerusalem in the pact of UMAR
Oh yeah because the Yamnaya totally didn't create race-base caste systems everywhere they went thousands of years before....
It is a video about modern, Western, America-centric, even, concept of race. Ancient people had other ways of envisioning race and their racial heirarchies. For example, ancient Romans percieved themselves as a separate ethnic entity to even Greeks, and racialized, bundled together in their perception all Celts and all Germanics, without a doubt never considering themselves being racially close to them, in contrast to how modern descendants of all four groups now are all generally considered "white".
@@ИванЕвдокимов-в4мit’s a video about how the idea of “racism” and thus how the idea of “race” itself was invented. The reason why you don’t want to talk about inconvenient truths around how other ancient civilisations had fleshed out concepts of race and even extensive racial laws, breaks the key argument of the video. That argument being: “a bunch of people in the west created le race.” Examples of ancient societies who had codified ideas around race include: ancient Egypt, ancient India and the Sumerian civilisation.
@@jamesfield6141 5:01-5:26
@@ИванЕвдокимов-в4мI could understand Germanics, Celts, Nordics, Alpines, Slavs, Baltics, And Western Caucasus Mountainers as White but not Mediterannean Olive peoples unless they are admixed or have a skin condition that includes lighter hair and lighter corneas too yeah.
I didn't quite follow. You showed picture of Darwin and birds and said how Darwin deduced that it breaks the myth of different types of humans being created separately, but rather that we share common ancestors. Then say in the next sentence that race doesn't exist but is just a social construct. How?
Fredda, how do you reconcile this idea that contemporary racism has its roots in 11th century Europe with the reality that racial bias already existed in the Arab world well before that time period? For example, White and Turkic male slaves were usually given military jobs and could advance in Arab society. On the other hand black slaves such as the Zanj did not have that same level of opportunity and were usually given more brutal work. How does that not go beyond something comparatively benign like say acknowledging skin color?
He is a liberal quoting books from the 2000s. This whole video is revisionist history to blamed racisms existence on whites and christianity….. its so obvious its painfull
@@isaac6077he's not a liberal you politically inept dipsh1t
Maybe because they have different roots as he described in the video. He didn't say racism was invented by Christians, he said our current conception of race was invented by Christians and all the ones before it were unique and had no tie, which you could try to prove but saying that other people did it first isn't evidence, you have to draw a link.
@@dropyourself The Arab concept of race and the Christian concept are the same. Just because there may have been a different origin does not make them unique. If you want to argue that there was some sort of divergent evolution of racism were the Arab and Western worlds invented a comparable form of racism separately that's fine. But don't say that they are unique because they really aren't. In relation to the way they functioned and who they considered as different races they were the same. The only substantial difference is that the Europeans spread the idea to places the Arabs didnt.
@@Foxy-vs6yj I and this video argue that they have different origins and unless you can prove that the Arab form of racism wasn't beat out by the Christian conception then you are arguing a moot point because I don't deny that they were both a thing, what I do deny is that our current conception of racism now is linked to the racism from Arabs and not Christians. It's possible that Arabs could have proliferated their form of racism or Christians could have not proliferated their form of racism but unless you have evidence to prove either of those assertions then I'm done arguing with you.
Love the disclaimer. "To show how racism was invented in the European middle ages, we are going to ignore all racism that happened before or in other place." Brilliant. Let me show you in an equally brilliant way that every rectangle has an area of 12: "Well, first a disclaimer: While there are rectangular shapes that do not have area 12, those are not relevant to this discussion because 'real' rectangles have an area of 12. Now look at this rectangle: Length 6, width 2...area of 12! Look at this other rectangle: Length 3, width 4. Also area 12! I rest my case."
*Modern idea of racial categories, but understanding that would require you to have a functioning brain
"How Racism Was Invented in The Middle Ages"
The Chinese and east asians centuries before the middle ages: Are we a joke to you?
Modern Racism comes from Europe
Did you see the disclaimer at 5:00?
That wasn’t racism. Modern racism was created by Western Europeans
@@draco_1876 "It wasn't racism its just xenophobia. even though its the same its just different because i too am a racist"
@@p00bix "a time before the concept of race" that time was definitely before the ancient chinese, japanese, koreans.
Fredda what happened? You made almost no Videos in like half a year and now you just post three Vids in one month. Thank you for the great content.
Summer happened lol
╰(✿´⌣`✿)╯♡@@FreddaYT, oh please may this summer never end! ͡ಥ ͜ʖ ͡ಥ
Who invented it? Me, after a night of excessive drinking and driving an electric scooter at full speed over a speed dump into a phone repair store.
The Bibliography seems woefully short are you sure that this topic doesn't require more rigorous research
I agree with you.
Humanity has different races and so we have racism.
What about our interactions with other homonids like the neanderthals and denisovans? Were we simply not advanced enough to generate a complex social idea like race, or was there some intermediary between ape warfare and modern human racism?
He’ll just call it a different thing so he can continue to blame racism existance on whites
This is kinda late but, the conflicts between our and other ape species were so long ago that it is unlikely to be culturally remembered. While it is likely to leave a certain trait on a culture, it is impossible to find the specific trace. Additionally, different populations had those conflicts at different times some earlier than others.
Most people outside Africa have denisovan or neaderthal genes so meh...
@@azarshadakumuktir4551And some have both Australoids have Denisovan while Caucasoids have Neanderthal and Mongoloids, have both while Negroids usually have none yeah.
From what I understand, a big part of the reason that enslavement of Indigenous folks by Europeans became less common than enslavement of Africans was because if the former escaped, they would know the landscape and be able to return to their home community or another native community that they knew might take them in.
Although there were many escaped African slaves who then formed their communities or joined with Indigenous folks to form new ones, I do not think this was common enough for Europeans to decide to enslave more equal numbers of Africans and Indigenous people.
Just discovered your channel. Seems like the history space on UA-cam is dominated by alt-right armchair ‘history buffs’. We need more of your kind of content.
Another day, another Fredda banger
If i am not misremembering you are Norwegian right? Just wondering if you have had a chance to read and if so what you think about the book Rase: en vitenskapshistorie by Jon Røyne Kyllingstad
Have not read it, sorry!
0:35 it's a video game. There doesn’t seem to be much of a similarity between the virtual "race," and real life races other than the fact they are called by the same name.
Arent there many many examples of associations between phenotypical traits and personality traits from way before the middle ages? To the point that it feels a bit intellectually dishonest to argue that its an entierly different phenomenon. One could honestly even argue that the stereotypes held during antiquity was closer to modern racism as it wasn't as tied to religion as it was during the middle ages. This feels more like an explanation of how specifically muslims came to be racialized by europeans, or maybe even just homogenized. The Spanish treatment of jews and Muslims can be seen as an early example of racialized thinking, since their conversions were not recognized.
While it could be argued that racism predates the medieval times, the idea of racism in ancient times was different than the racism that we know about today. In ancient times, it wasn’t uncommon for people of different tribes or ethnic groups to have similar stereotypes about each other. Although the modern idea of racism which was developed in the Middle Ages was fueled by religious and ethnic differences.
@@localclown8999 I just don't see any evidence that people before the middle ages didn't at all believe that different groups of people had inheritable traits or in any way racialized different groups.
@@BigmanDogs There is a difference between vaguely saying "Gauls are so and so" because you are xenophobic and creating a whole system grouping people into races and making a hierarchy among the races. In the roman empire there never was any talk about outlawing marriages between Gauls and Italians, some Gauls even gained patrician status less than a century after the conquest.
@@localclown8999Not entirely for example take Anti Amerindian racism for example even before the arrival of Western Europeans even the Spaniards aand Portuguese many of the racial stereotypes about Amerindians being "Savages", having a "inferior phenotype and anatomy", geographical location, lifestyle, diet, etc could be seen to have been thoughts of The Eskimaux And The Aleutians to there North of them where the arctic and subarctic parts of The America's connect and bridge together in both Canada And Alaska granted the American Indians had similar neg mindedness about the Eskimos And Aleuts but I am pointing out the Eskimo-Aleut on Amerindian Racism rather then the reverse because Amerindians even today have a higher density and population and are the group the most disadvantaged even in modernity the reason why The Eskimos And Aleuts did not conquer the Amerindians like or adjacent to Western Europeans was because of this.
1. The tools the Eskimaux and Aleutians carried while more technologically advanced for fishing, hunting, whaling, hawking, and camping still where not as added by a noticeable amount plus they did not carry diseases with them like The Western Euros did plus even though there toolies were also better for combat both one to one or group on group again it was not by a huge nor noticeable margin.
2. They generally preferred the arctic landscape being used to it and were mostly half ways about conquering "The Red" people to the southern tippers of them.
3. They did not have the diseases to wipe them out like the Afroeurasians did.
4. They were much lesser in number then the Amerindians and had a harder time in trying to divide the Amerindian tribes against the others successfully like the later Western Eurs did there armor was not as strong as the Western Euros either nor did they have good beasts of burden to ride nor gun powder either or explosives yeah.
That's because this was obviously intended to be a run of the mill "Europe is the root of all evil" hack-job like so many out there....
I miss the days when we could hate each other for no reason at all.
The idea of Ethnos goes back to ancient Greece. Also the Bible does mention "the nations" and that different people groups are descended from different people. The Jews and Samaritians and Assyrians are different people.
Different people and cultures are not race.
@@FreddaYTand what's the difference?
Greeks exactly pointed out different behaviours segregating folks
not only civilized vs barbarians uncultured
by also by traits so biological differences
@@FreddaYTexplain what makes the idea of people groups with discrete origins distinct from race
@@FreddaYTWhat is a race then
They were different nationally but racially and sub racially they were the same Mediterannean Olive Caucasoids also known as Western Eurasians yeah.
Good video! I don't know if I fully agree that Medieval persecution involved racism, but I am aware that the consensus on this is shifting. I myself was taught by a pretty left-wing professor that many times we're reading race into the sources where it does not exist. I am not sure I agree with her, but I'm also not sure I agree with Geraldine Heng...
I've been wanting to read Heng's book, "The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages," for quite some time now. But there are other books I want to read first. It might be some time before I get to it yet...
Still, I find it interesting that you called greco-roman persecution proto-racial thinking. I know Heng cites Benjamin Isaac's work, -- particularly "The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity" -- but I can't find where at on a cursory flip through. I would think that Isaac's book would challenge the idea that Classical Anitiquity was just proto-racial thinking. Having read neither book, I can't say for sure though.
Jews are original racist. Special sperm of Abracham, God chosen people better than others that should stay separated and dwell alone. People don't have balls and intellectual integrity to talk about obvious things.
"When we arrived the merchants deposited their goods in an open space and the Blacks took responsibility for them. The merchants went to the Farba who was sitting on a rug under a shelter; his officials were in front of him with spears and bows in their hands...The merchants stood in front of him and he spoke to them through an interpreter as a sign of his contempt for them, although they were close to him. At this I was sorry I had come to their country, because of their bad manners and contempt for white people."
- Ibn Battutah in "The Country of the Blacks" (Mali) 1352-53
I would *love* to hear how Battutah internalized eurocentric racist mores and/or how this doesn't count or something
Last I checked Mediterannean people are not White most of the time they are Olive at least the pure ones unless they have a skin disorder yeah.
I hope he was not referring to himself and most of the people with him as White because he is Olive yeah.
Came here from your excellent Crusades video. Video essays are not dead. Subbed.
Not bad but he skipped the arab middle-eastern proto racism against imported african slaves historically speaking
Not just against Sub Saharan Africans but against Non Southern Europeans too and Brown people from South Asia as well as "Yellow People" from East Asia And Central Asia The Mediterannean World in general has a very long history even to ancient watches of seeing themselves superior to Non Med peoples be it The Arabs, Jews, Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Arameans, Sumerians, Egyptians, Amazighs, Persians, Aryans, Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, Portuguese, and many other Mediterranean/Olive groups due to skin tones, facial features, body featurettes, hair colors, eye shades, hair texture, hair style, and many more some of it still goes onto today but not as bad as it was Pre North Western European Imperialism yeah.
Not just against Sub Saharan Africans but against Central Indian Subcontinentals And Southern Indian Continentals as well as there proto racism towards Non Southern Europeans And Western Caucasus Mounders plus against people from South East Asia as well as parts of Central Asia And East Asia yeahl
Except this idea of proto race did not feed into our modern understanding of race so is thus irrelevant to the story. Whats more relevant is the Old testaments "Gods chosen people" which I imagine did have an impact on race
People describe each other in a comparative fashion in a social context. For example, "My brother is White while I am Brown. Our friend, ___, is Black."
...and the planet Neptune was invented in 1846
I thought that it began with Bacons Rebellion, so this will be interesting.
Very happy I found your channel and am eager to support it by watching more as I'm sure you'll grow!
So this the place where we’ll find the CEO of Racism
Not entirely sure about this. I could have sworn I've once read an ancient roman text that basically makes some far-sweeping, generalized statements on the physical traits and personality of people based on where they originated.
Unfortunately however, I don't remember *where* I have read it.
Heng addresses this in her book. She notes that similar stereotypes about skin color can be found in classical Greek and Roman sources. But the crucial difference that the Greeks and Romans also differentiated themselves from the lighter-skinned Northern "barbarians." Whereas, in the Middle Ages light skin becomes associated with Christian virtuousness.
Bernard of Claraval talking about malefactors that mind their own business in their country is peak western twisted hero complex
Great video! As Heng also explains in her book, another crucial part of this history is the racialized subjugation exacted by white Europeans against the Roma since the 1300s. The racial slur "gypsy" comes from the European lie that the Roma were originally Egyptian slaves.
Particularly gruesome was the formalized system of state and church-sponsored chattel slavery of the Romani people by the ruling classes of the Romanian and Habsburg empires that lasted for 500 years. Some Roma were also enslaved by Western Europeans and even sent to the Americas as slaves. This history has been widely suppressed, but Romani scholars and activists such as Margareta Matache are doing important work to expose this brutal history. In many parts of Europe today, the Roma are still branded as a "criminal" underclass and subject to racial profiling, police brutality, and many other forms of discrimination. Anti-Roma racism was a central feature of Berlusconi’s fascism (may he rest in piss).
Yeah you should talk about what the Soviets did with those poor hapless Romani too. Turns out when you look at reality objectively through a material lens, like the Soviets intended to do, you'll find a lot of "stereotypes" ring true.
May you rest in piss too, you anti-White racist.
It wasn't just White Europeans but Mediterannean Olive Europeans that also were very racist towards The Gypsies as well as Middle Easterners And North Africans majority of them also being Olive Medi being very hateful to Gypsies themselves even during there earliest show up yeah.
"Malicide" lol, remindes me of a poster I saw saying "WE KILL ONLY BEASTS" with a soldier stepping on an animal skull in the middle of the desert.
I always said that the only reason people think Orcs and Elves are genetically distinct is because Tolkien was a racist product of his racist homeland. The Elder Scrolls set this somewhat straight by making most of the races canonically related.
yet Nords are still snow demons according to the based and xenophobe-pilled Dunmer.
This really strikes me as a misuse of information to draw wholely unproveable conclusions.
This comment says less than nothing.
This comment is a nerdy way to say "I disagree with this video and do not like it."
A fairly important bit that's missing when discussing European ideas and treatment of Native Americans was that, during early colonization, the Spanish treated their native slaves so badly that they effectively succeeded in genocide (long before that term had been coined). The import of African slaves began because the Spanish's Native American slaves in many of their colonies were almost completely wiped out by the collective effects of the slavery enforced upon them and the diseases the natives were not resistant too.
It's also very telling that the Spanish gave the natives smallpox and the Spanish "brought back" syphilis 🤢
The Spaniards And Portuguese also used the mixed races of Mediterannean And Amerindian and some with Sub Saharan African And East Asian admixtures too called (Mestizajes) against The pure Amerindians it also helped that those mixed races had immunity to diseases that the full blood First Nations did not just like there Mediterannean, Sub Saharan African, And East Asian counterparts did so yeah.
The Spaniards And Portuguese both often mixed with the Natives and created mixed races even in the early 1500s if not sooner to be intermediaries for the Spanish And Portuguese or I should say Iberians putting them in higher regard to the pure indigenous it also helped that like the Spanish And Portuguese the mixed Mestizaje groups had a immunity of illnesses that the Indios did not yeah.
Systemic Racism is a continuation of systemic ethnic chauvinism. Which was created in the Achaemenid empire with there being a stark difference between the Iranian/aryan and the Anaryan/ non Iranian. the Persian empire created the first racial caste system because Persian imperialism was way more “colonial” than all the empires that came before. with the western Iranian ( Persian and Median) at the very top, followed by other Iranians including savages like the Scythians and then the civilized non Iranians ( Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks) and at the bottom were the non civilized non Iranians ( Arabs, Berbers, Celts, African tribes and Jews). Most of these structures started by Darius the great continued by Xerxes and solidified under Artaxerxes.
you missed the whole era of countless tribes in Europe lol
you are born racist, being scared of black face
they didn't even come close to Assyrian ways btw
God had the first ever character assassination (I don't know if thats the correct term or something else, but I mean that they thought he did and said things he never did in the Bible.) It's unbelievable how many crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of God, and I'm not just talking about the crusaids
Just with the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Kings you're pretty much set to commit any kind of brutality in the name of God. There's always ways to go around the contradictions with the more peacefull texts.
Look up ESOTERICA's video on the development of Yahweh. Unnecessary violence is nothing new to the abrahamic religions at any point.
Thanks for the video and expanding my reading list. I think the invention of the modern conception began with the blood purity laws of the iberian christian kingdoms, but i am very interested in what your references have to say. Btw, i would recommend the book "the invention of the white race" as the next (and arguably english-centric) progression of the concept.
It's so delightful that people like you, Fredda, have the guts to continue this "Race is a social construct" charade even as the official media sources are beginning to gloat that Race is not just reality - but wholesale Racial replacement and disenfranchisement of native Europeans is underway!
Somebody has to do the job, and I'm glad it's you.
Please read any books at all I beg you
@@FreddaYT I've read and keep a copy of "The Man on Mao's Right", I think you should read it... it's a good and revealing book to help any human get an better understanding of Communist China, and its struggles to survive in the modern world.
Oh yeah and those same Communist Chinese officials have also mustered the courage to say it like it is "Western Governments are pursuing a Genocide policy".
@@FreddaYT Hey I'm seeing from your description that you're Norwegian, now isn't that interesting.
Adds another layer to the revolting slop your channel produces - you must be just tickled at what's happened to your Swedish neighbors!
I, for one, hope you yourself get a heaping helping of the diversity your kind has inflicted.
@@rustyshackleford1465you are not mentally well. You are the reason we advocate for better mental health services.
What of the attitudes of African tribes, of the older Asian empires, and the world beyond what the Europeans saw?
In Africa, the attitude towards skin color varied greatly, but the Moors (a predominantly Muslim North African Empire) placed a lot of value towards whiter complexion. As for the various Asian empires, they also had a fair share of racism and discrimination towards skin color, especially, the Chinese Empire who had a tendency to associate darker skin tones with laborers, as the lighter skin tones represented wealth and fortune.
Most parts of the world outside of Europe had similar experiences and attitudes towards race. Sadly.
@@localclown8999 Yeesh.
@@localclown8999Okay but in East Asia particularly in the Pre North Western European ruling times had a preference for people with not just lighter skin but with typical Eastern Asiatic features both in face and body so for example even though peoples like Western Caucasus Mountainers And Non South Variety Of Europeans would usually have lighter skin, lighter hair, and lighter eyes during ancient, early midieval, mid midieval, late midieval, and other times predating the late 1500s CE they would be seen as lesser for there facial, bodily, hair color, and eye color features be it in China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, And Tibet and I guess Vietnam if you consider that East Asian they even called Whites from the Western parts of China as looking like White Monkeys even in ancient times yeah.
As for North Africans, Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, North Western South Asians, And East Caucasian Rockers they before the late 1500s Christ Era placed value on people with medium features in skin tone and preferred raven hair with black, brown, and or hazel eyes as well yeah.
do you consider adding the subtitles? in my perception it would make a vid easier to comprehend because sometimes i don't feel like i'm that fluent :\
I could try!
I know this is a bit late, but I just came across this video. After watching the video, and reading your comments, I think the video could be improved by defining race and racism as you are using it, so that we’re on the same page from the start
So many of the problem we face nowadays almost always comes back to religion this is yet another one in the never ending list
As long as there have been people racism has existed, even if the word "race" and "racism" haven't. This time line is so historically inaccurate. There is racism in all regions all around the planet, throughout history. For at least hundreds of thousands of years humans have used visual appearance as a way to out our social competition, or enemies.
pseudoscience
I can be trusted with high explosives materials
"Race" is used in the fantasy genre of games, because fantasy stories look inward. The person who looks inward about themselves and about society, tends to think about subjects like "race". Therefore, race is part of fantasy, even though wizards and blizzard and similar companies adopt the safe 1:1 race:species being synonymous (hence why humans are a race, as in the expression "the human race"). However, Tolkien considered different humans (or "men folk") to be of different races in LotR - eg. Numenorians, easterlings, westrons and other groups.
Sci-fi stories look creatively outward - people think about what will happen in the future, or what is out in space, what sort of aliens exist among the stars, how the world might change because of technology. A hero who rebels against or survives in a dystopia, tends to look outward for solutions, rather than turning to religion. Stories like Dune tend to focus on outward problems, even though the feudalistic empire of that world is religiously governed - the plot of the story focuses on things that would challenge the core beliefs of that society.
Therefore, sci-fi games and media often adopt the term "species". The only game I remember that retained "race" was starcraft, and I think that was a hold over from warcraft 2 (a fantasy game).
Sci fi is different from a fantasy story, where religion might exist, but doesn't serve to be deconstructed or confronted by the characters or plot of the story, who merely live within its social constructs; fantasy stories usually focus on upholding the structure of a society, because the society serves as part of the "inner world" of the characters. Usually, "have faith and good will prevail" is a tenant of fantasy, whereas Sci-fi plot is often "use reason to look for a solution if the current one didn't work, perhaps some new idea will solve the problem".
Then there's science fantasy like star wars and super hero media, where there's hardly any attachment to the real world, apart from "how would reality break if this or that were to happen". Usually it's far removed from the world, with only some semblance of resemblance - the result of some tenets of fantasy being adopted and some from sci fi. It's therefore in between outward and inward looking.
Premise is already wrong. Racism is older than Ancient Empires. This goes way BC and is well documented in egyptian history not to mention Exodus-Bible.
Evidence
@@TheYolo20 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt
(read the references, not just wiki)
they have 27 sources stated there it would take dozens of hours to read everything u have to be more specific
@@TheYolo20Then, stick to the wiki article. Up to you
xenophobia and racism aren't the same thing
Yeah, sorry guys, my bad, it was supposed to be just for fun? I didn’t expect people to get so serious about it, there’s no excuse for my making it tho, sorry
Why are people using Bantu as a racial grouping
Because that's the only Sub-Saharan cultural group they know of.
@@hedgehog3180 it’s not even a cultural group it’s a linguistic group
It’s like using “Indo-European” as a racial grouping
@@tyronechillifoot5573 I think the distinction between a linguistic group and cultural grouping is largely a semantic thing. I mean, if Bantu is only linguistics, fine, they're a linguistic grouping, not "cultural" but all of linguistics is cultural, so I feel like this is a distinction without difference yk?
Because the Bantu's where a group from west africa that expanded across the continent and exterminated the other native Africans. Most blacks you see are Bantu descent.
5:40 I'm pretty sure that's not true.