So was the Enlightenment a racist/white supremacist project

if you meet barely clothed weird looking men who lube in straw huts you'd probably make the same conclusion

the view was more nuanced than that since they were encouraged to convert

>lube in straw huts
woops

There are many reasons for why Europe got ahead of everyone else in the 17th century and Secularization is not one of them. Secularization of states and policy only really happened in the United States and the radical period of Revolutionary France during this period.

it wasn't exclusive to whites, any area which had an ethnic group as a ruling class would naturally come to the conclusion of their superiority, like the Indian caste system

whites ruled the world anddd .. felt supreme

Every ideology/philosophy period promoted the supremacy of the race that originated it. This isn't a uniquely Western thing; Middle Easternerers and East Asians were just as racially chauvinistic in their outlooks because prior to globalization racial solidarity was a given.

Racism was largely a consensus among intellectuals at the time.

>Every Western philosophical or ideological movement was "white supremacist".
That's not true.

It absolutely was to the very core a white supremacy project as evidenced by simply referencing this period, centered entirely from a white frame of reference as an enlightenment. This wasn't simply about reform isolated to barbaric white populations. That is a false history, a legacy of white supremacy. The instruments of oppression that had always defined the brutal societies of whites did not give way to real enlightenment, the indisputable equality of all people without social constructs that privileged some and kept the rest under boot. Especially as this would concern the most visibly vulnerable, women.

There was no "enlightenment". There was only a precision refinement of brutal racist structures of white Europeans that were unleashed on the actual free, enlightened people who did not know how to respond to such a force.

>"Why, that is, have we chosen to go with Hume and Kant, rather than with the pre-racial conception of humanity espoused by Kraus[?]"

Why? Because they observed something that was an empirical truth. They mislabeled it 'race' and 'racial superiority', but the phenomenon they spoke of really does exist. Human biological diversity.

It is an empirical fact that geographically isolated breeding populations of humans (of any species!) develop physiological, mental, and biological differences.

The only thing that is controversial about this idea is that people would use it to justify harming others.

except no:

>The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was the first corporate body in Britain and North America to fully condemn slavery as both ethically and religiously wrong in all circumstances. It is in Quaker records that we have some of the earliest manifestations of anti-slavery sentiment, dating from the 1600s.

trilogy.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/

lol. nice one, troll.

....you are trolling....right?

what a sad, tiny, angry world you live in.

Let's hope is dies off with you.

No, but it literally invented modern racism and white superiority.

Complete bullshit post. Ancient philosophers didn't even have a concept of "whitey" similar to ours.

Do you have to not believe in racialism to think slavery is morally wrong? I think you're conflating the two

>The only thing that is controversial about this idea is that people would use it to justify harming others.
I don't know, I feel that among very staunch "anti-racists" (for lack of a better term), there is a moral grounds for denying any intrinsic differences between racial groups that is very much aside from interracial violence. That's to say, I feel like most anti-racists feel that acknowledging intrinsic racial differences results in a moral breach that may prefigure, but doesn't necessarily include, interracial violence. I feel that for many people who are adverse to the idea of recognizing inherent racial distinctions, the sheer, tacit divisiveness that this entails is morally damaging, even if violence or any sort of institutionalized discrimination doesn't follow.

>Ancient
>that time

you guys and your quick fingers

White/European exceptionalism was everywhere during Kant

In his defense, the ancient Greek philosophers believed, alongside pretty much all of ancient Greek society, that Greeks were inherently superior to the barbarians, so while they obviously didn't have any concept of "white supremacy" as we understand it, they did have an analogous concept of supremacy based on descent.

someone actually put effort into this stupid post
I'm astounded

wasn't just greeks, it's a common phenomenon everywhere

also
>greeks
>white
:^)

Wow it's almost like humans universally prefer their own culture to foreign ones.

Really made me think.

Yeah, I'm just defending the notion that ancient philosophers were essentially "proto-racialists" against someone implying that they weren't simply because they didn't have exactly the same concept of race as us. I'm not trying to make any wider point than that.

>hume
>determinism

LOL. You really have no idea who the Quakers are, do you?

quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/161

Yes. But you fail to mention that their moral system is garbage. Their cowardly fear that the truth will lead to bloodshed actually makes it more likely.

The psychological term is 'enabling.' The American elites are experts at realizing their own fears.

Exhibit A: the MSMs coverage of Donald Trump during the presidential election.

I said 99% :)

Nuh uh, evolution just completely stopped affecting the human brain when we dispersed from Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago

The Enlightenment thinkers weren't cucked and didn't lie, thus indeed they were supremacists because it is true that the White Race is the most the Superior race on this planet, we literally carry the world on our shoulders and we brought civilization to these savages, but savages will always be savages(pic related)

>we literally carry the world on our shoulders and we brought civilization to these savages

I imagine a thousand fedoras tipping as the sound of WE WUZ pierces the sky

Kek

I wasn't talking about them in particular, you simply pointed out an example that was talking about abolitionists, not necessarily people who didn't hold racial views

No, I was speaking directly to an earlier comment that "Every Western philosophical or ideological movement was 'white supremacist'."

I think the Quakers, among other groups, prove the above statement false.

ah, but from the tiny acorn grows the mighty oak!

Obviously you haven't given us proof about your 99% comment. I just pulled the Quakers out of my hat because I knew about them. It took no special research on my part to provide a counter example.

I have a suspicion there are many others. And that your 99% claim is just as false as what you said next, "Every Western philosophical or ideological movement was 'white supremacist'."

Patently false.

Niggers and Latinas can use English well enough.