AH challenge:Reverse racism

Just wondering.The world that we live in has definitely become this way due to in part by racism.E.g,Without a racist Nazi Germany that definitely hated the Jewish people the Nazis could have done better since at the time many Jews were very skilled.I realized that many times in recent history or even popular culture,racism against darker-skinned by lighter-skinned people has in one way or another been normal.


So i propose a challenge how and what whould happen if racism against darker-skinned by lighter-skinned people was reversed?.:confused:
 
Racism has been (and is) pretty much mutual between whites and blacks. Or do you mean that blacks would dominate society and thus be the privileged majority?
 
Actually racism in this sense in quite recent...no earlier than the Middle Passage slave trade.

The ancient world was colour-blind as were all cultures up to about 1650 apart from the Chinese and Japanese who have always regarded themselves as special biologically.
 
Actually racism in this sense in quite recent...no earlier than the Middle Passage slave trade.

The ancient world was colour-blind as were all cultures up to about 1650 apart from the Chinese and Japanese who have always regarded themselves as special biologically.

Isn't there a Koran story about a black man who was favoured by Allah and made white? Or is that my civics/history book back from high school being uninformed?
 
Well, as I recall ancient Greece and Rome were race-blind, but highly prone to cultural chauvinism. In those societies skin color was a non-issue; what was important was whether or not you were “civilized.”

But that was because the Greeks and Romans really had little contact with people of a significantly darker coloring then they were. Racism tends to arise when there is large-scale contact between people of different races. That's why, for example, black people tended to be discriminated against in the American South, while Hispanics and Asians tended to be the objects of discrimination in the American West (both of these groups were, for the most part, treated well in the South).

A few people of a different race, mixed in with a large, relatively homogenous majority, tend to be regarded as a curiosity. Large numbers in constant, close contact with the majority race are more likely to be seen as a threat. And that is what usually breeds racism.

If the Romans had conquered some territory in sub-Saharan Africa...perhaps they go into Kush and Ethiopia and stay there...then you would likely have seen anti-black racism arise in Roman civilization as well.
 
If the Romans had conquered some territory in sub-Saharan Africa...perhaps they go into Kush and Ethiopia and stay there...then you would likely have seen anti-black racism arise in Roman civilization as well.

No. Modern racism as we would call it was a product of late 19th century biological studies. Before that you have what might be considered "culturalism". It was perfectly possible for someone to be a good Roman so long as they obeyed certain cultural norms and taboos. It was the fact you didn't obey these cultural norms that marked you as other, a barbarian and, as such, inferior.

You can see it in Europe. They first find these Asian states that have a culture which is if anything superior to theirs and they are impressed. Then once they subdue them by force of arms they start to view their culture with contempt on the grounds that it failed to oppose European might. It is only later on when they start adding in dubious biological theories to explain the sentiment of *Oh ofcourse the African or the Asian was defeated, because their skin was of such and such a colour and thus it was inevitable/God's will that we would conquer them and thus they deserve their fate*.

So while it is possible for Romans to take the same step but rather unlikely. They don't have the same psuedo-biological route. The hatred of blacks solely because they are black is unlikely to occur.
 
No. Modern racism as we would call it was a product of late 19th century biological studies.

So antebellum Americans weren't racist? 16th, 17th, and 18th century slavers weren't racist? I think you would have a hard time convincing most people of that. All these people were around before the late 19th century pseudo-science of which you speak. To narrowly define racism in those terms is simply not valid.
 
So antebellum Americans weren't racist? 16th, 17th, and 18th century slavers weren't racist? I think you would have a hard time convincing most people of that. All these people were around before the late 19th century pseudo-science of which you speak. To narrowly define racism in those terms is simply not valid.
He was talking about modern racism. In the 1700's "white" slavery in the form of serfdom was just as common (and more common in some areas) compared to "black" slavery. For example, Russia didn't abolish serfdom till 1861. During this period, balck slaves were kept because of the ease of gaining them in Africa. Native Indians were too little in number, while rich aristocrats in Europe held the white serfs. So Slavery wasn't based on color mostly up to the 18th century.

The modern racism in which people argue that blacks deserve their fate came from changing views in which people began to view all humans as equal. With the abolishment of serfdom, rich landowners needed a labor force to keep their farms, and arguing that blacks being "non-human" provided the perfect excuse to keep slavery going.
 
Indentured servitude also bears mentioning; in many cases in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century in English/British North America lily-white indentured servants were treated every bit as badly as non-European slaves.

On a semi-related note, while trying to find out when the US abolished indentured servitude I came across this.
 
I wonder what would have happened if the Ancient Romans had been (colour) racists. They could have made an imaginary pyramid in which "Mediterraneans" (they and the Greeks) were at the peak, Semitic peoples came second (Carthaginians, Phoenitian, Jews), and both "Nordic" pale-blue-eyed blonds and black-skined "Africans" were at the bottom. After all, their (inmediate) Southern and eastern neighbours were more or less civilised, lived in cities and obeyed their kings. But both their Northern and their distant Southern neighbours lived like beasts in untamed forests and knew no cities nor kings...
 
Top