What are the origins of classifying human "races" and of "White supremacy"?

I'm currently reading a biography on the French General Alexandre Dumas and it gives details on about his life which involve himself being the sone of a native French nobalmen and a haitian slave of African origin. In the book it state that the concept of classyfing human populations into races based on their physical charateristics was new at the time. So I'd like to know who where the first to use of the concept of human races to classify human populations with differing phenotypes.
 
A primitive concept of Race goes back to the Midle Ages, however the modern concept came about in the 17th century.

White Supremacy is a dinstinctly American thing that developed in the 19th century; Europeans did have the concept of the White Mans Burden and viewed Africa as inherently primitive, but these notions were tied to religion and technological progress rather than race, hence in the European view Africans could be 'civilized' by adopting Christianity, learning a European language and the systems of governance used by the colonial power and made equal to Europeans.
 
A primitive concept of Race goes back to the Midle Ages, however the modern concept came about in the 17th century.

White Supremacy is a dinstinctly American thing that developed in the 19th century; Europeans did have the concept of the White Mans Burden and viewed Africa as inherently primitive, but these notions were tied to religion and technological progress rather than race, hence in the European view Africans could be 'civilized' by adopting Christianity, learning a European language and the systems of governance used by the colonial power and made equal to Europeans.

Maybe in the beginning, but sadly I can tell you after reading a lot of primary sources that this was definitely not true by the 19th century. Even anti-slavery tracts in the mid 19th century made reference to things like differing "levels of intelligence" and "capabilities for civilization" between African peoples (with more white-looking Moors at the top, and black Africans at the bottom, of course). Even before "scientific racism" reached its heyday, precursors to it were widespread. But I don't mean to imply that all Europeans back then were racist, because some of them certainly weren't.
 
The origin of "white supremacy" is slavery, pure and simple. The reason the whites of the time considered white supremacy to be self evident is because from their cultural point of view, it was self evident. That was the way their society was structured, and they assumed, incorrectly, that it was structured that way because it couldn't possibly be otherwise.
 
A fascinating question, but one which would easily trigger a flame war!

Spontaneously every population everywhere thought itself as 'different' [to clearly separate 'self' from 'non-self' is a basic requirement of Life] and automatically 'superior', the Sons of The Sun-God or whatever. But with *huge* differences when it came to practical application. Because the concept of 'race' was generally absent.
The Chinese always saw themselves as 'superior', but knew well China has be repeatedly invaded and that the current ruling class was made of half-breeds of the foreign invaders.
Many North American tribes saw themselves as 'superior', even the only 'true' humans, but they adopted in their tribe the 'best' of the enemy POW, and anyway took women of conquered tribes as wives.
The Romans thought they were chosen by the gods to lead humankind to civilization (the White Man's burden) but they knew their own (if mythical) history: that the founders of Rome had to take wives from another 'nation'; the Roman citizenship has be progressively extended from the inhabitants of a small town to whole Italy and beyond, most of the contemporary 'Romans' without a single drop of 'true Roman' blood in their veins. Thus every 'barbarian' was potentially a Roman: serve in the auxiliaries, or do an outstanding service to Rome and you get full Roman citizenship, your children, your bloodline is definitively Roman.
The point is there was no concern at all about 'racial purity': only the Arya of India, their society frozen into castes, took 'blood purity' seriously.
Universal religions, Christianity and Islam, kept the emphasis on culture, not 'race': the division was between faithful and heathens, but heathens are brother humans waiting for conversion; nothing to do with skin color.

When and where did modern racism appear? Progressively from the 2nd half of the 16th C. on, in oversea populations of European ascent.
Because of the unique combination of 2 factors: Reformation and slavery (an colonization).

Reformation: Protestant culture is far more deeply rooted in the Old Testament (see the traditional choice of christian names in religious Protestant communities). And in the Old Testament one finds the concept of 'Chosen People', and that to be part of the Chosen People you have to be born in it. The difference is hereditary, in the blood, definitive, irrevocable. Colonizations involving major population displacements: North America, Australia, New Zealand... were done mostly by Protestants; and think of the Afrikaners. Compare with how the Portuguese sired abundant populations of acknowledged half-breeds everywhere they went, with the blood mixing in all Latin America (and to some extent in French Canada, remember Riel).

Slavery: it exploded in the new colonies; now, if you treat people like beasts of burden, it's far more comfortable to think of them as beasts of burden rather than as 'true' humans. The same when you are to chase 'savages' from their lands. Ancient cultures had slaves, of course, but a citizen could be enslaved for debt: no 'racial' connotation.

Hence racism reached its maximum in oversea Protestant countries with a rich tradition of slavery, or where a native 'not White' population was largely eradicated such as Australia. Of course once known racism was so convenient that many Catholic 'elites' adopted it.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Reformation: Protestant culture is far more deeply rooted in the Old Testament (see the traditional choice of christian names in religious Protestant communities).
You're generalizing. Calvinist protestantism is much rooted in the Old Testament, but Lutheran and Anglican Protestantism really isn't.
 
Maybe in the beginning, but sadly I can tell you after reading a lot of primary sources that this was definitely not true by the 19th century. Even anti-slavery tracts in the mid 19th century made reference to things like differing "levels of intelligence" and "capabilities for civilization" between African peoples (with more white-looking Moors at the top, and black Africans at the bottom, of course). Even before "scientific racism" reached its heyday, precursors to it were widespread. But I don't mean to imply that all Europeans back then were racist, because some of them certainly weren't.

It's not that simple. Both views existed at the same time.
Progressives tended to have the idea of white man's burden, they attempted to explain other people being less developed as white people just being lucky/blessed/whatever and the others were fully capable of reaching the same level of development and it was European's duty to help them.
On the right of the political spectrum however you had those who saw non-Europeans as inherantly inferior and beyond hope and it was just the natural order that Europeans should rule over them.
 
Last edited:
A fascinating question, but one which would easily trigger a flame war!

Spontaneously every population everywhere thought itself as 'different' [to clearly separate 'self' from 'non-self' is a basic requirement of Life] and automatically 'superior', the Sons of The Sun-God or whatever. But with *huge* differences when it came to practical application. Because the concept of 'race' was generally absent.
The Chinese always saw themselves as 'superior', but knew well China has be repeatedly invaded and that the current ruling class was made of half-breeds of the foreign invaders.
Many North American tribes saw themselves as 'superior', even the only 'true' humans, but they adopted in their tribe the 'best' of the enemy POW, and anyway took women of conquered tribes as wives.
The Romans thought they were chosen by the gods to lead humankind to civilization (the White Man's burden) but they knew their own (if mythical) history: that the founders of Rome had to take wives from another 'nation'; the Roman citizenship has be progressively extended from the inhabitants of a small town to whole Italy and beyond, most of the contemporary 'Romans' without a single drop of 'true Roman' blood in their veins. Thus every 'barbarian' was potentially a Roman: serve in the auxiliaries, or do an outstanding service to Rome and you get full Roman citizenship, your children, your bloodline is definitively Roman.
The point is there was no concern at all about 'racial purity': only the Arya of India, their society frozen into castes, took 'blood purity' seriously.
Universal religions, Christianity and Islam, kept the emphasis on culture, not 'race': the division was between faithful and heathens, but heathens are brother humans waiting for conversion; nothing to do with skin color.

When and where did modern racism appear? Progressively from the 2nd half of the 16th C. on, in oversea populations of European ascent.
Because of the unique combination of 2 factors: Reformation and slavery (an colonization).

Reformation: Protestant culture is far more deeply rooted in the Old Testament (see the traditional choice of christian names in religious Protestant communities). And in the Old Testament one finds the concept of 'Chosen People', and that to be part of the Chosen People you have to be born in it. The difference is hereditary, in the blood, definitive, irrevocable. Colonizations involving major population displacements: North America, Australia, New Zealand... were done mostly by Protestants; and think of the Afrikaners. Compare with how the Portuguese sired abundant populations of acknowledged half-breeds everywhere they went, with the blood mixing in all Latin America (and to some extent in French Canada, remember Riel).

Slavery: it exploded in the new colonies; now, if you treat people like beasts of burden, it's far more comfortable to think of them as beasts of burden rather than as 'true' humans. The same when you are to chase 'savages' from their lands. Ancient cultures had slaves, of course, but a citizen could be enslaved for debt: no 'racial' connotation.

Hence racism reached its maximum in oversea Protestant countries with a rich tradition of slavery, or where a native 'not White' population was largely eradicated such as Australia. Of course once known racism was so convenient that many Catholic 'elites' adopted it.

As a previous poster said, you're generalising about Protestantism but you're also generalising about the caste system which varied hugely from place to place and time to time across India
 
My suspicion is that the origin of white supremacy is part biological, part historical. Biological, in that I think an innate part of the human existence is trusting and preferring people like themselves. In other words, I think there is a human tendence to divide into in-groups and out-groups, and for evolutionary reasons (the selfish gene) this tendency is linked to biological relatedness (of which common outward appearance is a major sign). The white supremacy part comes about for historical reasons--specifically, you had European populations that were on top of the world, conquering other peoples left and right, plus their exposure to other peoples made their own 'whiteness' more apparent.
 

Flubber

Banned
After reading your username, I somehow guessed you'd blame it on bouncing chemical goo.


Flubber refers to my waistline. :D

When you have the time, read Monte Cristo's posts. There are only ten of them and his particular hobby horse shines through very clearly.

I'm not defending Protestantism, far from it actually because all religions are equally silly. Religious belief, depending on it's fervor, ranges from being merely risible to being an acknowledged indication of a variety of psychiatric disorders.
 
The problem is that every culture views itself as 'true people', and its neighbours as 'half people', 'dog people', whatever.

With luck, one can expand the idea of 'us' from a group of hunting bands totalling about 200 people to 'everyone i can understand' to 'everyone matching some characteristic'. 'White supremacy' is actually a major step up from 'british supremacy', let alone 'village supremacy'.

Scary thought, isnt it.
 
The problem is that every culture views itself as 'true people', and its neighbours as 'half people', 'dog people', whatever.

With luck, one can expand the idea of 'us' from a group of hunting bands totalling about 200 people to 'everyone i can understand' to 'everyone matching some characteristic'. 'White supremacy' is actually a major step up from 'british supremacy', let alone 'village supremacy'.

Scary thought, isnt it.

This is very true, although I'm not sure "step up" is the way to describe the move to racial supremacy, since it creates a bigger power base for abusing the "not-us" people.

But it's so true, tribalism is the biggest problem facing humanity.
 
The problem is that every culture views itself as 'true people', and its neighbours as 'half people', 'dog people', whatever.
True -to distinguish 'self' from 'not-self' is a basic requirement of life; yet not that simple, because e.g. in most cultures half-breeds sired with captive women from another group were fully integrated (and remember the Sabines in Roman mythical history). The concern about 'blood purity' (except in imperial bloodlines of godly origin having to resort to incest to preserve it) requires something more; slavery with a blatant difference -skin color, e.g.- between the 'free people' and most of the 'slaves', for instance.
 
I'm currently reading a biography on the French General Alexandre Dumas and it gives details on about his life which involve himself being the sone of a native French nobalmen and a haitian slave of African origin. In the book it state that the concept of classyfing human populations into races based on their physical charateristics was new at the time. So I'd like to know who where the first to use of the concept of human races to classify human populations with differing phenotypes.

Nineteenth century biology had a hand in it because it had the tendency to categorize absolutely everything, including humans. Separating humans into categories was a first step. Then there was the belief in superiority due to vastly superior technology and a religious revival that reinvigorated the thought that Christianity was superior to all other religions.

Thirdly, there was the very strong notion in the social sciences that societies evolved and would all end up in the same place, the place where Europe had ended up, the theory of social evolutionism. August Comte famously wrote that there were three steps in social evolution that corresponded to the development of a single human being: the Theological Stage (childhood), the Metaphysical Stage (puberty) and the Positive Stage (adulthood); other races were inevitably stuck in one of the first two, meaning Europe (and America) was more 'mature' than them because it was the only part of the world to be 'mature'. That quickly encouraged a paternalistic attitude toward other races/nations.

In short Europe felt superior due to Christianity, industry and being more 'mature'. Other groups of people were almost inevitably non-Christian or less developed or less 'mature', and it so happens that they were almost invariably non-whites. That quickly led to racism.
 
Rome had the technological advance over most 'barbarians', had the 'divine mission' to lead the entire Humankind and a lot of slaves, yet was not concerned at all about a 'Roman race'. It was converting non-Romans into Roman citizens since its mythical founding, Christianity merely added another aspect to this conversion. While the heritability of racial features was of course well known.
From the Renaissance on new distinguishing factors appeared: the technological gap between the European society and the newly discovered peoples was steadily widening, slaves and masters were now of different ethnic origin... Cultural factors were also at work, and one may be a paradoxical effect of growing ethical concerns: when you treat people like expendable beasts of burden, butcher populations to chase the survivors from their lands, it's far more comfortable to think of them as genetically, naturally and irreparably inferior than to consider only cultural differences that education would erase.

When phrenology contaminated with physiognomy claimed that the working classes were genetically inferior, it enjoyed a great popularity in the upper classes.... Of course such form of phrenology also 'demonstrated' the superiority of the European race:D
 
Top