Would a world with no Protestantism and instead a mass Catholic Reformation be less racist?

Less racism with no Protestantism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 34.8%
  • No

    Votes: 88 65.2%

  • Total voters
    135
Considering the solid laws against miscegenation in the United States and the lynching that went on until the 1960s, the paternalistic ideal of the White Germanic Protestant supreme over all races, and slavery that was held as an ideal, I'd say probably not.

I have no more love for the Prots myself, but racism is not a religious thing.
 
Since someone just got kicked, I think I am done with this thread. Somebody please close it. I am scared out if my wits now, I just wanted to see if Catholicism would be less willing to segregate or use apartheid. Not to see if it would cause NO racism but LESS. But, this is my fault, I should have clarified, but my time was limited and I had thought I was clear with the LESS Racism, but it seems most interpreted it as no racism at all, which I know is impossible.
 
I definitely think that how racist the world is depends more on Enlightenment ideas than it does on the Reformation. I think that the result of the reformation, on its own won't determine how racist the 19th and 20th centuries are, but that a lot will be determined mostly by what ideas are developed in the intervening centuries.

So I think it should be plausible to write TL where a successful counter-reformation leads to a Jesuit Enlightenment which holds that all Catholic men are equal regardless of their ancestry. Note this world would not be less sexist or less intolerant in general, but just less racist specifically (as xenophobia would be directed into religious rather than racial intolerance).

At the same time, I think it's equally plausible to write a TL where a triumphant Counter-Reformation only serves to further entrench traditional hierarchies, creating a more stratified society which is more intolerant in every way.

I think that really the beauty of AH is that the POD on its own doesn't determine the outcome but that it's how history unfolds after the POD that really makes the difference. So, WalterWilliams, I'd be happy to read a TL you wrote where a different Reformation led to less racism but I recognize that less racism isn't the only possible outcome.
 
"Would a world with no protestantism and instead a mass Catholic Reformation be less racist?"

Short answer: It depends upon how many of the grievances against pre-reformation Catholicism would be adressed and how many of the 'Protestant' ideas would be incorporated. In an ultimate scenario you would have Vatican II 400 years early, or have virtual Protestantism just with a pope on top as central authority. In a worst case, you would have a rigid authoritarian system that would make Literal Sharia look progressive.

One thing you woud have regardless are no splinter groups like 200 flavors of evangelism. There would basically just Catholic and Eastern Orthodox christianity. In the end this may result in a more widespread Mormonism, even with larger numbers American and European Jews and Muslims.

As for the effect on racism and slavery, it can go both ways. Catholicism didn't stop colonialism in Africa, but individual missionaries did stand up against the most outrageous practices of the colonial powers, most famously in the Americas.

So in the end I don't believe religion, Catholic, reformed Catholics, protestantism, Islam or Mormon did play a major role in beliefs about race and slavery, the occasional outrageuos behavior in so-called Holy States notwithstanding.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
and Nestorians, and Copts, and Assyrian Church of the East, And Catholic Church of the East and. . .

I could go on for hours about the various sects of christianity. . .

But I don't need to.
 
(...)


Hm. Regional Popes?

The Roman Catholic Church has a very clear hierarchy, there's only one Pope; but some powerful countries, like the kingdom of France, could acquire some regional autonomy with the Gallican Church. Moreover the Catholic Church was reformed after the Council of Trent, it wasn't just a counter movement against Protestantism, it did address long overdue internal issues too.
At the same time both Catholics and Protestants had slaves (like other cultures and religions), for instance my native Netherlands was amongst the last European countries to abolish it. In fact revenues from the Dutch East Indies were used to compensate the former slave owners in Surinam and the Dutch Antilles. Curiously a relative high percentage of slaves and thus former slaves were and still are Catholic, whereas their owners were often Protestant. (In the period between the Dutch Revolt and the French Revolution Dutch Catholics were second rate citizens, they actual emancipation took longer).
In Catholic countries, sure everyone would be Catholic, but there would still be a de facto Class system. In Protestant countries, especially looking at my native Netherlands, Protestantism actually consists of a lot of denomination, some with a tendency to split, if they disagree on certain issues (the Catholic Church by nature has a tendency to keep it internally); so being Christian would be a close thing, sure they disagreed with Catholics, but it's not like every Protestant denomination got along fine with each other either.

Still @fernerdave has a point that some people will be dicks regardless of faith. So perhaps less Racism, but I'm a Dutch Roman Catholic BTW, there might still be just as much Discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Since someone just got kicked, I think I am done with this thread. Somebody please close it. I am scared out if my wits now, I just wanted to see if Catholicism would be less willing to segregate or use apartheid. Not to see if it would cause NO racism but LESS. But, this is my fault, I should have clarified, but my time was limited and I had thought I was clear with the LESS Racism, but it seems most interpreted it as no racism at all, which I know is impossible.

Someone got kicked because someone was bad. It had nada to do with the thread poll. Relax. Most of us understand the question and where you were going. We're discussing and some cannot keep on topic.
 
It would depend on the nature of the reformation. The idea of regional Popes as posited earlier in thread was absurd; the best you could do there is some kind of Gallicanism with devolved/pastoral theological synodal decisionmaking, which is super unlikely. In that event, it won't matter anyway, because with that kind of nationalist thinking the national bishops will support the concept of the "civilizing mission"/burden/etc.
 
I answered the poll with a yes, although the specific suggestion of regional/national Popes wouldn't be that different from Protestantism. Also of course there was/is still racism in Catholic societies and still would be without Protestantism, but IMO you'd be far less likely to see the likes of segregation/apartheid. You'd likely see more religious intolerance than in OTL in such a scenario but less racism strictly speaking.

It comes down to difference in church structure. The Pope/Catholic Church by its nature strives to be a global/international faith that is logically inclusive to all ethnicities/nations/races. With the rise of Protestantism you see, in comparison to Catholicism, more "nationalist" religion harboring greater excuses for separation of Protestant followers from "other" people.
 
Regarding the poll I answered "no". I can't buy into the idea that "Institutional" racism such as Jim Crow laws or Apartheid is "more", or their absence less. A big chunk of the US didn't have Jim Crow laws, yet neighborhoods all over the country became segregated. In other parts of the world, the Japanese did a number on the Ainu, and the expansion of Russia (Orthodox) could be full of racial injustice, only less well documented. And while it may not be strictly speaking racism, modern France doesn't simply get a pass on Algeria, and nor can Belgium dodge Rwanda.
 
Racism, as most people understand it today, was a construct of the late 18th/early 19th century later elaborated upon by such thinkers as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and many many others in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Having said that, in one sense the Reformation and the argument over Christian doctrine is not totally relevant. Many, not all missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, were willing to overlook huge abuses of natives as long as they had been Christianized since they would get their reward in the eternal hereafter. The example of what might happen in a western world that was firmly Catholic I suggest the novel "Pavane" which discusses a world where the Armada succeeded and Catholicism was reimposed everywhere in Europe. IMHO you'd see a world where "skin color/race" would be less important than OTL, although still an issue varying from place to place, but where any deviation from Church doctrine and teachings would be ruthlessly suppressed.
 
Modern concepts of race didn't exist until the 19th century at least. Also the Spanish had just finished driving out the moors. And you have to understand the reasons were complex but medieval Europeans had a lot of reasons to be suspicious of the Jews.

.... Like what?
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
.... Like what?
Becuase of land ownership laws Jews couldn't own land-they became more oriented towards finance, banking, lending-reasons why anti-Semitic ideas like Jewish bankers came into being.

Also the Church stated the Jews were responsible for you know killing Jesus.

Also by the fact that the Jews traveled a lot(landownership again) and weren't really part of Christendom they were always going to be viewed negatively.

Not saying it was right or anything but that's why.

Also the expulsion of Muslims from Spain following the conquest of Grenada-like it or not made sense to the Spanish on national security grounds, a remnant population of a hostile power we have just driven out of are lands "hey their probably not gonna be loyal and that follows they will be a threat". No racism, religious war and fear of a fifth column.
 
The reason that the Roman Catholic church largely adhered less to scientific racism was because it saw itself as a universal church, above nations and kings. The fact that church doctrine recognised non-whites as having souls made the Catholic church challenge anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, arguing that these laws violated the religious liberty of Catholics. One of the primary goals of the church was to evangelise and seek out converts, all over the world, establishing a Catholic (universal) church under the Pope.

Protestant churches being independent could adapt and create their own theologies to the whim of preachers or parishioners, often choosing to focus or ignore parts of the bible to the suit their own ideologies. In the United States for instance, this led to various new sects and branches being invented, often able to justify or ignore institutionalised racism. During the 19th century the Baptist churches in the south began to provide biblical evidence supporting slavery, in contravention to Methodist and Quaker teachings, making the church popular in the region. Because the Baptist Church lacks a hierarchy, it was able to split into different factions, with the Southern Baptist Convention being founded in 1845 and with African-Americans forming their own sects after the Civil War. The white dominated SBC opposed desegregation and anti-miscegenation laws during the 1950s and 1960s.

In South Africa, the Dutch settlers adopted the Calvinist mindset based on a theology of predestination, that unlike in Europe, remained largely unaltered by the Enlightenment. This was a fatalistic viewpoint, whereby salvation cannot actually be guaranteed, leading people the Afrikaners to equate success with being in God's esteem, and thus included in His foreordained elect few. Whereas Calvinists in Europe seemed to base their evidence of being in God's favour on economic success, in South Africa the Boers based this on being successful in battles against the non-white population. The following quote does seem to illustrate the mindset that came to permeate the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa:

"The Afrikaners saw in their own lives reflected in the Chronicles and Exodus of the Old Testament and, like the Hebrew tribes, came to feel that theirs was a special destiny. Like the ancient Israelites, the Afrikaners were patriarchal and semi-nomadic pastoralists, wandering in a harsh environment, and they too developed a sense of mission as representatives of the true Faith in confrontation with hostile disbelievers. Because of this Biblical identification, the Old Testament became a virtual manual of behavior as the Afrikaners moved increasingly away from the theological guidance of the organized church."

It is not difficult to see how being a member of such an exclusive religion rather than a more inclusive one would lead its adherents to believe that they are not only superior to other groups and that therefore keep interactions with them to a minimum.
 
@Viriato: in defence of the Afrikaners British occupation and annexation of the Dutch colony didn't help either. The quote is probably about the Trek away from the British occupied Cape. Continued contact with the Motherland might have made trickled down influences easier. OTOH though dominant the Calvinists never had more than 50% of the population in the Netherlands, though maybe people who migrate have nothing to lose and/or are more radical.

That doesn't alter that by nature, the Roman Catholic Church is a World Church, so by nature they are more inclusive than certain more national/regional orientated branches of Protestantism. Sure the Catholic world has plenty flaws of their own, including discrimination of others, but also of fellow Catholics.
 
Even if the Catholic church became colour blind with respect to slavery and legal rights (Jesuits and Del Casas) I don't think they would ever be colour blind with respect to opportunities. So no black cardinals and no support of anti-discrimination laws.

The first black cardinal wasn't created until the 1960's and there still isn't any place for women.

So a more tolerant Catholic church would still permit penal servitude and I suspect the inherent racist bias of most colonial systems would end up with more black slaves than white
 
Even if the Catholic church became colour blind with respect to slavery and legal rights (Jesuits and Del Casas) I don't think they would ever be colour blind with respect to opportunities. So no black cardinals and no support of anti-discrimination laws.

The first black cardinal wasn't created until the 1960's and there still isn't any place for women.

So a more tolerant Catholic church would still permit penal servitude and I suspect the inherent racist bias of most colonial systems would end up with more black slaves than white

Meh, it's no worse than the modern world systems we have.
 
Top