Medieval Blacks & Racism

this has to be the STUPIDEST post ever. what do medieval times have to do with jim crow era . are you trying to say that because there were a handful of black individuals that got lucky back in medieval times racism has never existed?
i cant believe people post such nonsense

the jim crow era ended about 60 years ago. so its recent in american history...

hmm i wonder why people would still feel there is racial tension? where did that ever come from? -_-

I would have to say it startes when the caucus mountain opened up. As we are finding out the indigenous people where black. Im not saying African American (made up name)but, black as in brown skin. They where different, but it was a image issue. African American women have image issue living in European images of Beauty.

Black and whites had slaves but race wasnt important. The class system keep the rich richer and the servant workers. As religious groups Pagan/Christians want to escape Roman persecution they ran. Our ancestors wanted power and wealth that was only givin to pass down through families. I notice in Africa, south American, North America missionaries came first. Wanting to convert the world savages. Gun power is the reason America lost.

I dont believe that Africans came and populated America. Slave trade happen but, back and forth on a 3 year ship ride seems too much. Africans where the first in the Americas look at the Olmecs or pyramids, also Cocain found in mummies, and corn in africa already. I believe black native American tribes of the south where force to identify as Negro. Tribes such as the Chactaw, Seminole, native from California and Louisiana are all dark. The trail of tears turn into the underground railroad. Harriet T. Was native, how else did she know the land. To make a long story short. America started to become great and government was built.

Nazi Germany happen and Somebody saw a way to make money. I find it funny when our Christian counrty heard Germans will torturing Jew they had to do something. After all it is taught Jesus was a jew, i believe the white american people felt it was right. I wonder if they knew real Jews are blacks/brown. They rushed with slaves who where still slaves lol to fight Germany and Japan. Native American ship to Germany as spy. They where able to talk and relay messages and the German spies couldn't decode. Thats really how they where able to move and set up their plan.

I guess they let the Elite/Nazi come to america. Alot of people dont know that the Jews were sent her too. In florida put in camps, funny thing is they brought technology, nasa, jewish riches, to the new land to have their own black slaves. So when african americans wanted to be free after fighting war they needed Everybody on board North and South. The FED, CIA, and FBI start, wouldn't surprise me if rhey where started by the Church and Jews. No need for Slavery, the Nazi showed them how to build construction camps aka Prison own by private companies. Oh and they paid the Slave owner of the south for taking away the slaves.

But wait its not over..

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

This post is actually very racist, she was forcefully kidnapped, her parents killed and forced into a life that was naturally not meant for her and u justify this by saying she achieved something, I thought people in this forum were positive individuals who are against the injustices of this world.

a reply to: khepre

Who? Which post are you referring to?

May I suggest that you look up the definition of racism, digest it, and then respond as to how or where I am encouraging others to hate another race? I can only presume you haven't read the thread in its entirety. Calling racist when you've nothing to actually say isn't clever. Thank you

If we look back to Roman times, and later, there was no racist as we know it today.

Colour of skin was as relevant as colour of eyes or hair. Or how tall you were. ie not at all Mainly because everyone in the Roman world was at the same technological level - and if they werent, skin colour wasnt part of the equation.

I think racism probably evolved several hundred years later when Europeans started exploring the world and wherever they went they met people who a) had darker skin and b) were less technologically developed ..... so they must be inferior? Not condonable, but perhaps understandable in the context of the time. But times move on

Today we are back in the Roman world. We are all very very clearly equal. In every respect. Except some Africans can run faster. And us Europeans dont always have the biggest todger .....

But anyone today who judges people on the colour of their skin (hair. eyes, or indeed, height) is really rather stupid. They may as ell do so on the size of, well, their todger ......

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Quite...which is the point of my OP the fact that colour appeared completely irrelevant in both ancient & medieval times and I agree less technologically advanced automatically made the people "superior" and in many ways I suppose it was in essence true to those that discovered all these less advanced peoples

I doubt there are many today that believe the lately discovered rare tribes actually feel that they are a superior race to those tribes, just different. There are in fact many people going back to their roots in the old tribes and very proud of it and lets be honest, there's a whole industry out there based on the less advanced nations and spirituality and our subsequent need for it

Slave trading of black people was invented by the European nobility. The same corrupt nobility that is now running the EU in all its aspects. This nobility royalties and oligarchy belonging to a world that is gone since a long time, will have to be ridden of physically ... One way, or the other ... From east or west ... that doesn't matter.

a reply to: Flanker86

Wrong
It most certainly was NOT "invented" by Europeans. The Arabs Chinese and other black African nations had been trading slaves for years before Europeans came along. You do realise that most Europeans didn't actually own slaves?

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

If someone bumps into you and steps on your foot and apologizes, it can take moments to forgive them.
Other actions can take generations for forgiveness to occur. You are over simplifying something that is not at all simple.

For example, from a thread I once wrote:


Can you forgive the unforgivable?

My first attempt at studying forgiveness was a book referred to me by a colleague. It is entitled "The Sunflower" by Simon Wiesenthal. Wiesenthal, in 1944, was in a Concentration Camp. He was fetched to the bedside of a dying nazi, who wanted the "forgiveness" of "a Jew". The nazi spoke his piece, (peace) to Wiesenthal. After standing beside the nazi's bedside for a few moments, taking in what was happening, and in full realization of the meaning of the encounter, he turned, silently, and walked away.

From this encounter "The Sunflower" was born. Wiesenthal asks a variety of people what would they have done, and whether he did the right thing, and the people in the book respond with multiple insights and scenarios about what they might have done, having been in those circumstances.

The final decision in the book..seems to be that sometimes forgiveness is simply not possible, or that it can take generations to forgive. (I'm thinking I'm not even Jewish, but I really don't think I have forgiven the nazi's).

Forgiveness is not as easy and as simple as it might appear.

But everyone who was an American Black Slave is dead. Non one alive owns those grievances.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: khepre

Who? Which post are you referring to?

May I suggest that you look up the definition of racism, digest it, and then respond as to how or where I am encouraging others to hate another race? I can only presume you haven't read the thread in its entirety. Calling racist when you've nothing to actually say isn't clever. Thank you

Yes, but of course "taking someone out of their natural habitat" is not racist at all.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

...black Knights who were buried in Ipswich and whose skeletons appeared to be from North African...

But I keep getting told that we're all exactly the same, so how can this be? You surely aren't racist, implying there are differences between us? (Just pointing out some general hypocrisy and am not aiming it at you.)

Interesting post, I like history and this is relatively new to me. Looks like I have further reading to do and would appreciate any sources other than "BlackHistoryHeroes" which unfortunately, does not give any sources to their claims.

Thanks!

America is unique in how employers/management discriminates against Black and Hispanic people.

a reply to: Aegeus

A lot of what I discovered and read about revolved around artworks as there are so few literary references to black people, mainly because they didn't really consider skin colour relevant. They may say swarthy or olive or dark but it was all very general. In very early works, descriptions of people were quite vague and often related to their personal feats of say bravery or prowess in battle not so much their physical description and of course the words they used were different with different meanings then as opposed to today.

Its difficult to find accurate accounts particularly now as many "histories" are being re-written to accommodate the rise in anti white particularly by the media such as the BBC.

However if you take Shakespeare and his plays Titus Andromicus and Othello you can see that colour did not appear to be an issue and neither was racism, certainly not as we know it today, indeed it appears from most early writings that religion was the main cause of "racism" rather than skin colour. Moorish actors had been used throughout the 15th/16th centuries across Europe and were seen as mysterious courageous and brave. The presence of black people in England during this time has been well documented too and black people working in London taverns were a common sight and of course far earlier during the Roman occupation blacks were seen in Europe. If you look at the records of certain Parishes in London particularly around Whitechapel such as St Botolphs you will find Black a moores listed as buried in that Parish and marriage records showing inter marriage was frequent. So clearly, the racism that exists today was not in existence then, so socially one could say we regressed

Certainly by the 18th C there are recorded many black poets writers composers and artists such as Olaudah Equiano and Ignatius Sancho and others, some of whom were ex slaves liberated from the Spanish. The fact that black people from such backgrounds could flourish in England and Europe during the height of the slave trade says plenty

a reply to: Kandinsky

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

Not only that but it would seem the whole phenomenon of racism as we know it today, was not in existence then from as far back as the middle ages at least and this is evidence by the number of Blacks in Portugal prior to and during the Portuguese slave trade agreements with the various African Kings, which in itself shows that slavery was NOT based on race or skin colour.

...

So when did this current "racism" start? That is the question since clearly being black in the past was no barrier to all kinds of success and definitely acceptance?

"Racism" is only one expression of our tribal nature, which has always existed at some level - "us" and "them", whether the distinction is made through the language we speak, the colour of our skin, the town we come from, or even the football team we support. It essentially comes down to a threat response and our inherent desire to protect our own community against outside influence.

I would say that blacks in the medieval period were not perceived as a threat, so that threat response was never truly engaged. There would always be some who hated simply because of difference, but there was nothing institutional.

As you moved into the period of western involvement with slavery, it became a matter of supply. Slaves were possibly Africa's main export and the trade had been established for goodness knows how many hundreds or thousands of years at that point, so the west were exposed to an existing market, mentality, and ready supply for the resource it wanted the most - cheap labour. It's worth noting that different European countries engaged in different ways with the process.

Not to paint the west as innocent or somehow pressured/misled into it, of course. It's still interesting to note that, in the earliest days, many of the people brought over from the slave trade were actually treated as indentured servants (aka "slavery in a velvet glove") and could gain freedom. Indenture was applied across a wide range of people, including poor Europeans and (asian) Indians brought over by the British.

It was only later that slavery was more widely applied (possibly as a result of indentured servants becoming more expensive and troublesome to maintain) and almost always against blacks. That resulted in people trying to justify the process by identifying the blacks as something "less". With one side arguing that "humans are above slavery", then the other side starts arguing "well, the blacks are less than human".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Might the difference in religion not have had something to do with it?

Possibly, but I would suggest that there are some other factors as well.

For a start, Spain is one of the closest European countries to Africa. There was much more interaction at the "civilised" level, with more regular trade, travel, and contact. It's harder to write off a race as "animal savages" when not only are they trading with you, but they used to own part of you. Northern Europe was much more isolated and never built up that same level of relationship.

Also, I think there may have been some influence from the classical Roman view of slavery, where a slave held rights against their owners. The master/slave relationship was slightly different under Roman culture than many others.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: redhorse

If medieval Europeans had no concept of race & colour and yet still managed to co-exist then it can be that way again in time

I wonder if the crusades had much of an impact? Once northern Europe came into conflict with Northern Africa/Middle East, that could have been a trigger for the reversion to an "us and them" mentality.

God knows, Europe likes to use it on itself enough times. There was a case of a monkey being executed because the locals assumed it must be a Frenchman.

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

I thought in light of the many "black" posts, this would be quite an appropriate time to post this as a reminder to all that colour & race are not barriers to success and acceptance but perhaps attitude is

This is victim blaming. It is absurd, asinine and frankly insane to say that it doesn't matter where you start if you have the right attitude you can always overcome.

Actually, I took her point (when combined with the original post in its entirety) to be identifying a shift in attitude by the west, not a failure in attitude from black people.

She was asking how that shift in attitude came about, because it wasn't evident in earlier periods.

originally posted by: Beenready2go
Black North Afrikan Muslims called Moors in 711AD conquered most of West Asia (Europe) and that's what got white europe out of the dark ages.

Setting aside any arguments over the use of the rather inaccurate phrase "Dark Ages", the Medieval Warming Period probably had more impact on the transition than the Moors invading Spain.

originally posted by: Beenready2go
The very first Kings and Queens of Europe was black.

Wow.

originally posted by: supremecommander
I'm going to report this thread to the moderation staff. Your intent behind this was to degrade, stereotype, and condescend. It is not a platform for constructive dialogue.

I'm actually impressed by the level of mental contortion required to reach that conclusion.

OP's post is about the shift in European attitude towards blacks, asking why it changed from the earliest records showing a degree of acceptance and equality, to the more recent periods where they were essentially classified as "less than human". OP also points out that this view seems to be inconsistently applied, and asks why some blacks were being accepted by society while others were still being treated as less than human.

The answer, almost certainly, was that those supporting slavery needed to reconcile "humans should be free" with "some humans are slaves".