Less racist, sexist and homophobic world

[Siberian Tiger]

How can we have a less racist, sexist, homophobic, and bigoted world in an alternate 2019?
I saw an older thread on here about this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-less-chauvinism-racist-and-homophobic-world.450989/

 

[Miguel Lanius]

>less racist

Prevent scientific racism from developing, or make it weaker.
The problem is that Scientific Racism is pretty much a logical progress from the moment you work out the Theory of Evolution, as Darwin did. If animals are biologically different from each other, having species and sub-species and different breeds... why not people?

One specific thing that could help, at least with blacks, is butterflying away the Arab Slave trade (or Islam). The Arabs practically created all the old racist cannards. Go look at any ancient description of Arabs (or Ottomans) about Blacks, and its incredible how they seem pretty much like modern racist tirades.

Something else that might help, is spread of Christianity to West Africa before 1500s. If much of Africa is already christianized, then the African Black might be less Othered by westerners. However, they will be more othered by the others. Having a more prosperous Africa might help. If the massive slave trade is butterflied away, even better.

>sexist

This one is harder, because unlike races, the sexes are not equal.
Also, a lot of what we call equality was very much abeited and helped by technological advancements.

>homophobic

Hard, because people seem to be straight-out repelled to homosexual activity. I once read up an study where seeing men kissing is as repellent to hetero men as maggots.

 

[Kaiko]

We'd need to be extremely idealistic, have rapid transportation and communication that connects the entire world much earlier, and dozens of other changes to have a more egalitarian outcome progress naturally. This would need many PODs throughout history to prevent certain ideologies from developing.

Another way which is much faster but less permanent and more cruel is to have a greater amount of atrocities occur in modern history to industrialized societies. Racism and antisemitism as a core principle for a state was discredited after the Nazis took popular beliefs at the time brought it to it's most extreme and into the public conscious. The world saw the extent of human evil and came together to try and avoid such a thing (even if mostly in the Western world). It would take a series of massive wake up calls throughout the world to get nations to renounce their ways and try to make the world a better place.

In short, it's like in Star Trek where the only way humanity was able to join together and eliminate need and provide for everyone was to suffer through WW3 and the Eugenics Wars that killed over 600 million people.

 

[GauchoBadger]

>homophobic

Hard, because people seem to be straight-out repelled to homosexual activity. I once read up an study where seeing men kissing is as repellent to hetero men as maggots.

Many brutish people will indeed be grossed out by men kissing each other (men, note; sexism means lesbian porn is still popular), but to what extent is that not a culturally set standard? Medieval feudal lords, clergymen, among other groups in old Europe, if i'm not mistaken, kissed each other in various ways despite sex/gender, and few spoke out against that.

Something else that might help, is spread of Christianity to West Africa before 1500s. If much of Africa is already christianized, then the African Black might be less Othered by westerners. However, they will be more othered by the others. Having a more prosperous Africa might help. If the massive slave trade is butterflied away, even better.

I think you're being way too simplistic on the issue of faith here. If there's no Muslim empire(s) to roughly unite the Christians of the old world around a set of issues, the legend of Prester John just won't be created as a justification for strategic alliances, and the "white" Christians will sooner rather than later becry the "black" Christians for being schismatics or closet pagans.

 

[LNSS]

Germany becomes communist in the 20s, allies with the Soviet Union, and together they spread communism to Eurasia. America eventually follows.

 

[Darrenb209]

Many brutish people will indeed be grossed out by men kissing each other (men, note; sexism means lesbian porn is still popular), but to what extent is that not a culturally set standard? Medieval feudal lords, clergymen, among other groups in old Europe, if i'm not mistaken, kissed each other in various ways despite sex/gender, and few spoke out against that.

The study makes the claim of a man seeing two men kissing as provoking the same physiological response as seeing maggots or spoiled food IIRC. Not getting into whether it's true or not but it might be useful to know the specifics of what it claims in case this escalates into an argument.

I think you're being too simplistic on the issue of faith here. If there's no islamic empire to roughly unite the christians of the old world around a set of issues, the legend of Prester John just won't be created as a justification for strategic alliances, and the "white" Christians will sooner rather than later becry the "black" Christians for being schismatics or closet pagans.

Now onto what I actually wanted to address. While I don't doubt they'd be seen as schismatics or even heretics I'm not so sure that it wouldn't lead to them getting seen as merely needing a guiding hand vs OTL's... OTL.

At the very least, give a strong common factor and racism won't be as pervasive. Could even lead to the Christianity splitting on the matter, or one of the splits claiming they're closer because at least they aren't the other group they have bigger issues with.

 

[Alexander the Average]

The two biggest, and deeply interrelated, factors that led to the development of modern race and racism are the transatlantic slave trade and the Spanish Empire, in particular the Casta System and limpieza de sangre. These institutions were the foundations of the racecraft that gave birth to the modern categories of race and the racism used to justify the slavery and colonialism inherent to them. Weakening the European Empires, or any alternative globe-spanning empires, would go along way to reducing race ideology. Europeans thought quite highly of Africans and Indians before the slave trade and the British conquest of India (a tiny island ruling an entire subcontinent will give you a nasty superiority complex).

 

[Richard V]

We need to create post-scarcity world sooner

 

[I'tikaf]

One specific thing that could help, at least with blacks, is butterflying away the Arab Slave trade (or Islam). The Arabs practically created all the old racist cannards. Go look at any ancient description of Arabs (or Ottomans) about Blacks, and its incredible how they seem pretty much like modern racist tirades.

I can see how butterflying the arab slave trade away might be relevant but why Islam? The Ottomans and the Arabs may have expressed supremacist views in reference to africans but I doubt it had anything to do with Islam and probably had more to do with the fact that many slaves were taken from Africa than the Middle East.

 

[GorillaTheater]

Germany becomes communist in the 20s, allies with the Soviet Union, and together they spread communism to Eurasia. America eventually follows.

Because ... communists are unusually kind to minority groups?

 

[Monter]

I can see how butterflying the arab slave trade away might be relevant by why Islam? The Ottomans and the Arabs may have expressed supremacist views in reference to the Blacks but I doubt it had anything to do with Islam and probably had more to do with the fact that many slaves were taken from Africa than the Middle East.

Not islam per si, but the Arab conquest of North Africa is reputed of introducing camels to the region, kickstarting (or greatly boosting) the gold/ivory/slave economy axis of West Africa and the Mediterranean.

 

[twovultures]

I'm sorry

 

[YusaEmi]

>sexist

This one is harder, because unlike races, the sexes are not equal.
Also, a lot of what we call equality was very much abeited and helped by technological advancements.

Define equal

 

[NotedCoyote]

The study makes the claim of a man seeing two men kissing as provoking the same physiological response as seeing maggots or spoiled food IIRC. Not getting into whether it's true or not but it might be useful to know the specifics of what it claims in case this escalates into an argument.

One should always be careful of studies that aim to create an evolutionary or biological explanation for modern attitudes. Not only do they often do a disservice the diversity and variety of human culture and history, they often end up being shallow efforts to justify prejudices that are going out of style. Whether or not heterosexual men in the present feel revulsion at the sight of two men kissing, even a passing glance at cultural practices around the world and at history demonstrate that any such response must be learned, not biological. The social pressure against displays of affection between men in the west is a lot newer than most people assume. Before the trial of Oscar Wilde in England, men habitually walked arm in arm and were physically affectionate in public. Go back further, and it's already been pointed out that many cultures, including Medieval Europe, considered kisses between men to be the norm in certain social situation. For that matter, many cultures have been more or less tolerant of male homosexuality, and still others such as Japan, Greece and Polynesia have at times elevated forms of male homosexuality into fixtures of masculine identity.

Interestingly, you might be able to accomplish a greater tolerance for homosexuality through the same method that you lessen racism: preventing or limiting scientific racism. A lot of the social fears behind 19th century homophobia had its roots in the existential fears of Europeans about the decline or extinction of their race. Victorian writers calling for the persecution of homosexuals considered homosexuality to be a social disease (almost always associated with foreigners) that would weaken the moral and physical fiber of the English people, and could lead to the extinction of the English race. If that sounds a lot like the justifications used by various countries for racial segregation and racist laws, it's because it is. The actual target might have been different, but laws against homosexuality and anti-miscegenation laws were supported through the same hysterical fears and described the "threat" in almost identical terms. While there are still centuries of religious pressure to overcome, a Europe and America less concerned about maintaining an imagined racial superiority will almost certainly be less aggressive in persecuting homosexuality.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

Many brutish people will indeed be grossed out by men kissing each other (men, note; sexism means lesbian porn is still popular), but to what extent is that not a culturally set standard? Medieval feudal lords, clergymen, among other groups in old Europe, if i'm not mistaken, kissed each other in various ways despite sex/gender, and few spoke out against that.

Possibly. But my greater point is that aversion to homosexualism looks ingrained, possibly biological.
I don't think its a coincidence that most human cultures consider homosexuality taboo, gross, unamainly or all of those.

I think you're being way too simplistic on the issue of faith here. If there's no Muslim empire(s) to roughly unite the Christians of the old world around a set of issues, the legend of Prester John just won't be created as a justification for strategic alliances, and the "white" Christians will sooner rather than later becry the "black" Christians for being schismatics or closet pagan

Well, that could lead to a splittering of the Christian world, althrough the real question might be if the Basileus keeps the Bishop of Rome *coff coff the 'Pope' coff coff* on a leash. In a no-Islam world, it seems likely that the Church is more united as a whole. Alternatively, it splinters even more.

Also, its harder to other away people from your religion.

The two biggest, and deeply interrelated, factors that led to the development of modern race and racism are the transatlantic slave trade and the Spanish Empire, in particular the Casta System and limpieza de sangre. These institutions were the foundations of the racecraft that gave birth to the modern categories of race and the racism used to justify the slavery and colonialism inherent to them. Weakening the European Empires, or any alternative globe-spanning empires, would go along way to reducing race ideology. Europeans thought quite highly of Africans and Indians before the slave trade and the British conquest of India (a tiny island ruling an entire subcontinent will give you a nasty superiority complex).

Could a hispano-screw do it? The Portuguese weren't as racist for one, they were racist for sure but it seems that their factor for "is this guy one of us?" was pretty much a) Is Catholic, b) Speaks Portuguese and c) Is loyal to the King. Partly because the Portuguese never had much manpower.

I can see how butterflying the arab slave trade away might be relevant but why Islam? The Ottomans and the Arabs may have expressed supremacist views in reference to africans but I doubt it had anything to do with Islam and probably had more to do with the fact that many slaves were taken from Africa than the Middle East.

Because that's how you butterfly away the Arab slave trade. Can't there be much of it if Arabs are pretty much restricted to Arabia and getting assimilated, viking-style, by the locals. of other places.

I think the Camel will be making its way into the Mediterranean, but the Serf-based economies of Late Antiquity Med are quite different from the immense demand for slaves the Arabs had. So, when the Med and West Africa get linked, it will be between Christian Berbers and Pagan Africans. Said Christian Berbers will also be integrated with the european/christian trade routes, meaning higher contact between Europe and Africa.

Don't forget: The European Slave Trade is a child of the Arab Slave Trade.

 

[Orcot]

Theirs probably a lot of things that wuld need to change.
- A Portugese empire that spans most of west africa that has a monopoly on slave trade. Resulting in making slaves extremly expensive.
- Perhaps Calais can remain longer in english hands being sepperated by a short distance from england it's the ideal location to send onwanted family members that are still second in line (combinend in both the anglican church and the english navy avoiding them). It could have caused a sort of san fransico to form. Attracting a gay community from all over Europe, the people who could travel where rich. And gay frustrated and had a lot of free time in their youth making them yust below people with authism very productive. Also the linnen a lot of them could be fashion designers.
-Julie d'Aubigny could have been born 30 years earlier and lived longer sucking up to Louis XIV of France who was really tolerent considering that his brother Philippe I, Duke of Orléans was extremily gay. Giving that a louder mouth peace would help.
- Papal bulls forcing people with slaves to convert them to cristianity first promoting encomiendas and forcing a joined church. Basicly they have to sit in the same room for 1,5 hours a week and they need to pay a fine to the priest if the can't confess.
- Inventing the printing press right before the crusades would also help Europe in the 13xx was basicly ruled by women as their men where off fighting in the holy land.
These are somethings that could have helped

 

[Arkenfolm]

Germany becomes communist in the 20s, allies with the Soviet Union, and together they spread communism to Eurasia. America eventually follows.

Communist states tended to have similar attitudes toward homosexuality that they did before communism. That's why in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, China, and North Korea it was a "disease of the bourgeois", to say nothing of how it was treated in African communist states or Cuba. Racial tolerance was all over the place in practice in communism. I don't see why a communist US is all of a sudden going to result in everyone treating black people as equal even if segregation is abolished.

For that matter, many cultures have been more or less tolerant of male homosexuality, and still others such as Japan, Greece and Polynesia have at times elevated forms of male homosexuality into fixtures of masculine identity.

Key word "forms". In Ancient Greece and many other societies receptive male homosexuality was considered the ultimate shame. That's not really equality.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

Define equal

Physically, mentally.

- Men are stronger, tougher, faster.
- Men are more aggressive
- Men and women usually have different types of intelligence: Men are superior at spatial-geometrical, while women are socially/emotionally superior and more details-oriented. Men have a higher variance of intelligence levels (more geniuses, more idiots) while women are more "average" (less geniuses and less idiots, more middling), so to say.
- Women go through childbirth, men don't.
- Sperm are cheap, ova are expensive.
- Women process colors differently from men.

Kinda hard to get male/female equality in an era where combat is done by swinging swords, shooting bows and heavy guns while wearing plate armor, and anti-conceptionals are but a dream/ancient memory of roman silphium.

Imagine going to this burly dude with a longsword wearing heavy armor and telling him that women are equal to him and can do everything he can. Hearty laughs will be had.

 

[NotedCoyote]

Communist states tended to have similar attitudes toward homosexuality that they did before communism. That's why in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, China, and North Korea it was a "disease of the bourgeois", to say nothing of how it was treated in African communist states or Cuba. Racial tolerance was all over the place in practice in communism. I don't see why a communist US is all of a sudden going to result in everyone treating black people as equal even if segregation is abolished.

Key word "forms". In Ancient Greece and many other societies receptive male homosexuality was considered the ultimate shame. That's not really equality.

Right, but only "forms" of heterosexuality were tolerated as well in those societies. I used the Greeks simply to demonstrate the dubiousness of the theory that heterosexual men are biologically repulsed by the sight of men kissing other men. The attitudes you mention were generally held in places like Greece, Rome and Japan which possessed notably sexist views against women and femininity. Other cultures, like Assyria, considered receptive homosexuality to be shameful only if the receptive partner was of a superior social status... between men of equal status, homosexuality was considered good luck. Ethiopia and Egypt also didn't seem to consider homosexual relationships a big deal, and don't seem to have written anything condemning the receptive partner in such relationships, but the historical record is made less clear because we have limited sources and much of what we know was interpreted by scholars who weren't shy about applying their own attitudes to their work. Essentially, it comes back to my original point: find a way to reduce one form of social prejudice in a society and you'll often find that it has a corresponding effect on reducing others. The attitudes toward receptive positions in Greece was a logical extension of Greek attitudes toward women. Reduce those, and the stigma of femininity becomes less of a social pressure.

As for communist societies, it was a little more complicated than mere inheritance of existing views. The USSR actually did decriminalize homosexuality after its formation, it wasn't until the Stalinist era that homosexuality as a bourgeois or fascist disease became the party line... and that may have had as much to do with inventing a new charge to level against inconvenient dissidents as it did with any freestanding ideological objection to homosexuality. You're absolutely correct, however, that a communist revolution won't do much on its own to encourage progressive views about homosexuality or racial equality. To the extent that communism did (briefly) improve the legal situation for gay men the USSR, it was probably for the same reason that Revolutionary France and Quebec in the Quiet Revolution advanced legal equality/tolerance of homosexuality, which is to say anti-clericalism and a general purging of old laws associated with the old regimes.

 

[The Romulan Republic]

>less racist

Prevent scientific racism from developing, or make it weaker.
The problem is that Scientific Racism is pretty much a logical progress from the moment you work out the Theory of Evolution, as Darwin did. If animals are biologically different from each other, having species and sub-species and different breeds... why not people?

You do realize that people were aware that different species existed before Darwin, right? Right?

No, Scientific Racism does not progress inevitably or logically from the Theory of Evolution. "Scientific Racism" is a deliberate twisting of science. Nothing in actual biology supports racism, which is based on minor cosmetic differences and generalizations. There is no scientific basis for the idea of different races whatsoever- all of the "races" blend together and overlap to some extent, and the differences between individuals within a "race" are greater than those between "races". Saying "Scientific Racism" is a logical progression of the Theory of Evolution is like saying Nazism is a logical progression of religion.

The Theory of Evolution is not a moral guide- it just says: this is how things work in nature, and it doesn't claim that evolution always leads to a "superior" outcome. Literally all evolution is, when you get down to it, is random mutations, with the ones that help a species survive long enough to reproduce in its current environment being the most likely to be passed on. That's it.

Darwinism leading to racism is just an old lie trotted out by Creationists to try to ad hominem the Theory of Evolution and try to pretend that all prejudice would magically vanish if everyone was Christian (HAH!).

One specific thing that could help, at least with blacks, is butterflying away the Arab Slave trade (or Islam). The Arabs practically created all the old racist cannards. Go look at any ancient description of Arabs (or Ottomans) about Blacks, and its incredible how they seem pretty much like modern racist tirades.

Right, racism and slavery are all the fault of Muslims and Arabs. Where did you get that from, Brietbart? Do you really not see the contradiction in "Racism is all the fault of those dirty Arabs" as an argument? Or do you just think that we're too stupid to see it?

Something else that might help, is spread of Christianity to West Africa before 1500s. If much of Africa is already christianized, then the African Black might be less Othered by westerners. However, they will be more othered by the others. Having a more prosperous Africa might help. If the massive slave trade is butterflied away, even better.

Racists don't care what black people believe, and they've had no trouble condemning majority-Christian populations at numerous times- see the historical prejudice against the Irish or the Polish (which still lingers to some extent in places). And Christianity was explicitly used to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War South. Of course, that does not mean all Christians are racist. Christians are diverse individuals who should be judged as individuals, like all people. But by the same token, Christianity is not a magic anti-racism button.

>sexist

This one is harder, because unlike races, the sexes are not equal.
Also, a lot of what we call equality was very much abeited and helped by technological advancements.

Bull. Shit.

"Different" is not the same as "not equal". I am objectively distinct from every other person on the planet. I am still their equal.

Here, I'll make this simple: "5+3" is a different equation than "6+2". They both equal the same amount. They are different. They are equal.

Technology has helped to improve conditions for women in certain respects, yes (lower infant mortality rates and fewer deaths in child birth are the obvious ones, as they mean that there is no longer a need for most women to spend the bulk of their lives having as many babies as possible to make sure one or two make it to adulthood). This is the one semi-valid point that you have made thus far.

>homophobic

Hard, because people seem to be straight-out repelled to homosexual activity. I once read up an study where seeing men kissing is as repellent to hetero men as maggots.

That is a hell of a generalization. In any case, its easy to skew a study to get the result that you want, and it sounds like that "study" was designed by someone trying desperately to justify their own bigotry via an Appeal to Nature fallacy. In the absence of a source or confirmation of peer review, I'm not going to give this "study" any weight whatsoever. But even if it were valid, it would not follow that homophobia is an inevitable or unchangeable part of human nature. The whole point of being self-aware beings is that we can be aware of our biases and consciously choose to reject them when they cause more harm than good- that we can be more than our base natures.