Racism is a recent invention by the white m-

You can tell the arabs never met the cousins of African Americans in the jungles of West Africa because what Negroes in Negroland says compared to this is constrast is incredible.

>objective truth is racist
sounds about right

Arabs are fucking racist retard they hate non-arabs in their own countries. The majority of muslim on white crime in Europe is due to arabic racism they simply hate white people.

>objective truth is racist

Explain yourself.

Contrast with the journals of explorers like David Livingstone, Mary Kingsley, A.B. Ellis, Alice Werner, Henry Calloway, Sutherland Rattray, James MacDonald, Leo Frobenius, and Mungo Park

Different people had different opinions and experiences

Not an argument

You people need to learn to read and contextualize things.

This is about West Africans of West Sudan
This is of non-muslim Southeast Africans of the Zanj range not all africans, In Battuta spoke positively of the Muslim Zanj.
There is a relatively large black American population in Saudi Arabia and the gulf state and they are generally admired at about the same level as white Americans.

Most work as educators, in oil or as importers.

They didn't enslave Africans they simply bought slaves, their religion does not allow them to enslave others so they payed other Africans to do it. They bought slaves from europe, south and east asia as well.

> their religion does not allow them to enslave others

Islam encouraged freeing slaves but no enslaving others wasn't forbidden.

seething

I think in this thread racists and racists claiming not to be racist are arguing against each other

"racism" was coined by a jew in the 1930's that was trying to push race-mixing. it's a way to inject morality into hundreds of thousands of years of evolution--it's basically a rip off of original sin. Slavery is wrong because it's a theft of liberty. Taxes are wrong because they are a theft of of property. You can derive these ideas from the declaration, only state apologists would try to argue around these enlightenment ideals.

this is demonstrably wrong

No, I'm trying to tell people that Ethiopians, Zanj, Soudan while literally translating to burnt/black face, black and black respectively existed they weren't terms to denote ALL black people merely certain populations and it's not necessarily racism because they distinguish between different African populations in cultural groups rather than mere coloring.

>"racism" was coined by a jew in the 1930's who was trying to push race-mixing
fucking source
>hundreds of thousands of years of evolution
>To date, there is little evidence in human genome research which indicates that race can be defined in such a way as to be useful in determining a genetic classification of humans.[9][10][11]

hating other people and believing that the world is divided up into distinct races which can be categorized and identified are two very different things. Most people throughout history have hated anybody who doesn't belong to their tribe or kin group, but as far as there being established races like there is believed today (white race, black race, yellow race, or whatever americans believe in), is a different concept

It really isn't.
Birds of a feather flock together.

>No, they were racists. Even if you accept the sociological/critical theoretical definition of racism, they were racist, since Arabs were the majority group and they enslaved Africans.
So a minority can't be racist towards a majority? Also, slavery and racism has nothing to do with anything.

>The only reason white Europeans are the ones who are the scapegoats for racism, is because the Arabs lost every single war against them and were wiped from history.
Probably.

True.

>le meme intellectual
>prefers soviet oppression over eating a burger in Brooklyn

Brooklyn is a shithole. Unironically the most dreadful place I've ever witnessed and I've been to several Eastern European and North African nations.

If you treat each person as a sovereign individual and you allow them to freely associate with anyone they wish, then what's the problem? People tend to associate with members of their own identity be it racial, religious,trans-cis-gendered-kin, or anything of their own choosing. It's human nature.

>equating the modern western perception of all black people as belonging to a single race to the Arabic term "Zanj", which was used to describe a portion of Southeast Africa and its Bantu inhabitants

Anyways, recognize the contrast between the way Ibn Battuta describes the African Muslims in Eastern and Western African versus how he described the non muslim Africans in the area as cannibals/savages without civilization

Mogadishu, a Somali muslim city in modern day Somalia:
>When Ibn Battuta arrived in 1331, Mogadishu stood at the zenith of its prosperity. He described it as "an exceedingly large city" with many rich merchants, noted for its high-quality fabric that was exported to other countries, including Egypt.[42] Ibn Battuta added that the city was ruled by a Somali Sultan, Abu Bakr ibn Sayx 'Umar,[43][44] who was originally from Berbera in northern Somalia and spoke both Somali (referred to by Battuta as Mogadishan, the Benadir dialect of Somali) and Arabic with equal fluency.[44][45] The Sultan also had a retinue of wazirs (ministers), legal experts, commanders, royal eunuchs, and assorted hangers-on at his beck and call.[44]

Kilwa in the Zanj:
>Kilwa is one of the most beautiful and well-constructed towns in the world. The whole of it is elegantly built. The roofs are built with mangrove pole. There is very much rain. The people are engaged in a holy war, for their country lies beside the pagan Zanj. Their chief qualities are devotion and piety: they follow the Shafi'i sect. When I arrived, the Sultan was Abu al-Muzaffar Hasan surnamed Abu al-Mawahib [loosely translated, "The Giver of Gifts"] ... on account of his numerous charitable gifts. He frequently makes raids into the Zanj country [neighboring mainland], attacks them and carries off booty, of which he reserves a fifth, using it in the manner prescribed by the Koran [Qur'an].[26]

see pic related, /pol/ pls leave

The people of the past were often definitely "Racist". But you have to understand that race is not a scientifically based fact based on any kind of genetics but a cultural mode of thought. What the different "races" are and who belongs to them is different based on time and place. Our current racial categories for instance only date to about the 1600's/1700's. If you told a Roman he and a Gaul belonged to the same "White Race" he would laugh at your face because the Gauls were obviously a different race than the Romans in his eyes. Similarly whether Jewish people were counted as white has always been more of a political question than a genetic one. Or take for Instance how Native Americans have always been considered their own race when they are genetically very closely related to certain East Asian populations that are categorized as "Asian".
In short while past people could be hella racist it would not be in a way that made sense to you and our racism would not make sense to them.

>But you have to understand that race is not a scientifically based fact based on any kind of genetics but a cultural mode of thought

not him but come on man i just posted this same quote
>To date, there is little evidence in human genome research which indicates that race can be defined in such a way as to be useful in determining a genetic classification of humans.[9][10][11]

Idiots use intuitive rebuttals to an archaic concept of race as proof for lack of genetic disparity between, say, west africans and Anglos. ie you're a fucking moron who doesn't think beyond terms defined for you

>Ignoring how I literally gave real world examples like Native Americans and Jews that prove the point.

do you expect me to read that entire fucking manifesto
kill yourself

>stop categorizing humans every other species on earth is capable of this but not us reeeeeee

Nice citations, retard.

jesus fuck stop regurgitating this same exact defence the quote only says there is no evidence to classify human races on a genetic basis

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

the absolute STATE of reddit

>btfo-ing shirkcucks and gifting away their wealth
Based as fuck

But that's completely wrong.
Maybe you should stop talking out of your ass?

literally scroll to the second post in this thread you retard

Gee, I guess I can pull fake quotes out of my ass and call it a citation too now.

do you believe a black race can be classified independently from other races based on the information there then

Every single cluster of humans can be classified independently if you split hairs enough.
Biodiversity applies to all forms of life.

faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h120/ibn_battuta.htm

either way a fake quote is more than anything youve cited so far

>Facts are now Reddit
Woah

that is true. so you agree that the concept of race and our divisions of such races are based on a cultural mode of thought rather than an actual genetic basis

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. It sounds like what you just said conflicts with what you're defending, if, as you say, the Arabs believed foreigners could degrade the quality of a civilisation with their uncivilised ways and would therefore not adapt to their climate.

Given a long enough timespan, yes. But like it or not the Banu Hilal basically ruined the Maghreb for agriculture with their completely illogical herding lifestyle.

Different user. I guess so, man, but like, this kind of cluster exists in lots of instances in nature and we still make subspecies classifications based on behaviour and traits, even when these traits exist on a continuum. So you could split hairs about how the current conception is set up by a human gaze, but it doesn't change the truth that there are real differences between these groups that create a common social necessity to draw lines in the sand.

I'd say it's a range of the differences between one cluster compared to the size of the whole. Stop trying to nail it down to one absolute definition or another in some bullshit "A-ha gotcha" gimmick you slimy weasel.

>fucking up is better than not fucking up

Full retard
Ever heard of the Barbary slave trade?

I don't agree with your opinion on race. Humans fall in to distinct sub-species due to separation over centuries giving rise to different adaptation. It's not a popular theory as any admittance of difference leads to discrimination. Most scholars refuse any evidence to the contrary as it would undermine all the efforts to get people to believe in the one race, the human race. We should honestly fund studies to determine the truth behind this as the truth matters while social equality does not. There are obvious physical differences between the races including skin color, skull structure, ect.. This doesn't make them less human it simply makes them different.

"The other post you replied to however is untrue. I couldn't find anything on a jew using it in the 1930's to justify racial mixing.

When two organisms can produce a fertile organism they are considered to be of the same race.

No. They are considered to be the same species.

I think the world is divided up into distinct races with differences in physical traits however I believe that everyone is equal regardless of physical or mental differences. You just want anyone who disagrees with your view to be a racist nazi who doesn't deserve an opinion contrary to your own.

>To date, there is little evidence in human genome research which indicates that race can be defined in such a way as to be useful in determining a genetic classification of humans
you're confusing race and racism. you people call it "unconscious racism" (a moral argument), I call it evolution (a rational argument).

>fucking source
"According to the second edition (1989) of the OED, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the OED records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 – Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the OED ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?

Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was a German-Jewish medical scientist whose major work was in the field of what came to be known as “sexology” – the scientific study of sex. Like Havelock Ellis in England and Alfred Kinsey in the United States, Hirschfeld was not only among the first to collect systematic information about sexuality but also was an apostle of sexual “liberation.” His major work was a study of homosexuality, but he also published many other books, monographs, and articles dealing with sex. He wrote a five-volume treatise on “sexology” as well as some 150 other works and helped write and produce five films on the subject."

>the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis
>implying
>An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "An earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it," and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14]

>Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?
>proceeds to talk about his works on sexology while conveniently downplaying his outspoken activism for homosexual rights and his founding of the Scientific-Humanitarian Comittee as "his major work was a study of homosexuality", none of which by the way answers the question the author just posed

where did you get this user

What you just gave is the definition of a species. A subspecies is a category below that which designates that the two can interbreed but more often than not don’t because of geography, behaviour, etc.. Race is a classification below that, but it’s only accepted by some and not governed by any formal boards. A racial classification, in Biology, does not allow for a formal scientific name. The term is now basically socially co-opted.

Birds of a feather do flock together, but there's a big difference between "Wow I am similar to my village folk", and dividing up the world into people categories which you can separate cleanly. Some English peasant isn't going to see somebody from Finland as being "muh racial brother :)" and divide up and organize the world into racial groupings, they'll just see everybody as strangers and won't assign them into arbitrary groupings

I literally said nothing about anything you said, I just said that in my opinion racism in the way we think of it today is a modern invention from the last few centuries. Maybe you are a racist nazi, but that's a different subject.

>they are considered to be of the same race.
No same species, race means subspecies.

>where did you get this user
it actually used to be on that wikipedia page:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism&diff=818069433&oldid=817955626

if you have OED credentials: oed.com/

if not, just use any etymological dictionary:
etymonline.com/search?q=racism

>They didn't enslave Africans they simply bought slaves, their religion does not allow them to enslave others
top jej

It’s kind of funny. It reminds me of how hardcore Jews sometimes like having goys on call to get stuff done on a Saturday.

>t-they aren't naturally stupid it's literally the most perfect storm of events

>implying Arabs weren’t white racists

> the only people who accept slavery are the negroes
> what was the zanj revolt

>hey didn't enslave Africans they simply bought slaves
So just like the US? retard