Race, Racism and the Middle Ages

These are some pretty interesting articles

publicmedievalist.com/race-racism-middle-ages-toc/

What does Veeky Forums think?

Other urls found in this thread:

publicmedievalist.com/uncovering-african/
publicmedievalist.com/medieval-people-racist/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

wtf is that site?

Just another anti-european (((academia))) outlet. That other medievalist website is also notoriously liberal. It's subversion.

>Still no argument

is this from the same person that does medieval pickers of cotton?

The usual fabricated liberal nonsense

>Still no argument

>Still no argument

You haven't made any statement or presented any facts for me to make an argument against, you faggot, all you said was "what does Veeky Forums think"

>middle ages
>posts the queen of fucking sheba
you aren't right in the head, are you m8

I'm not OP
Here you go for actual, sourced proof that Africans were in Europe
publicmedievalist.com/uncovering-african/

You're just here because KCD pissed you off, aren't you?

>Not an argument
It's almost as if I simply enjoyed Veeky Forums getting BTFO the moment you have proofs for a controversial (on 4cuck) thesis

Revisionism. Any actually qualified Medievalist will tell you that "race" and "racism" are post-Enlightenment constructs, there was no "white" European identity, identity was much more localized and based in religion on the civilizational level, i.e. notions of Europe were constructed due to the opposition of the Islamic world, Christendom rose as a unified idea to combat Islam. There simply weren't enough "non-white" people in Europe for "racism" to really be a concern. Europeans were probably about as racist as anybody else at that time, i.e. suspicious or ignorant of people of other cultures who spoke unfamiliar languages or looked different. I don't know how Medieval studies or Medievalists can be racist, except that maybe they refuse to apply some half baked post-colonialist methodology to a field that is heavy on texts and study of medieval worldviews, where that methodology is useless. Basically because of the past 4-300 years of European expansionism the school of resentment wants the defining theme of European history and identity to be muh raycism

>Veeky Forums getting BTFO
What? You're thinking of /pol/, most people here would agree that nogs existed in medieval europe.

He literally claims that "racism" exist in the Middle Ages, it was cultural prejudice if anything
publicmedievalist.com/medieval-people-racist/
You should have read KCD threads then. Also this thread also reeks of butthurt

>africans
2 or 3 people don't exclude a whole race

So what if they were, Europeans were always in Africa too.

>KCD threads
the people posting about how 14th century bohemia didn't have any black people in it were right though

>2 or 3 people
It includes their Kangz and their big entourage, and provides a point that Africans knew of Europe and frequently traded with them, given how pilgrimages literally didn't happen outside of somewhat known and visited places. Another thing is, Ethiopians were very well known, given the number of their embassies and otherwise Prester John memes
They frequently deny ANY African presence in Europe

>knew of europe
>were in europe

I suppose Marco Polo n sheeeit doesn't really prove European presence in medieval China :)

>Tearing Down the “Whites Only” Medieval World

Dropped

Are you dumb?

>actual, sourced proof

"a detail he was unlikely to have made up, which means that it likely was true."

>Ethiopians were very well known, given Prester John memes
>Ethiopians were very well known, given this wildly inaccurate myth that might or might not be about them

Have you read the article? It mentions two instances of sources which claim that Nubians were among pilgrims to Santiago de Compostela. It does not in the least confirm that black people were part of medieval European societies.

>By contrast, we know less about the African presence in Medieval Rome. We have not yet found any evidence of Nubians in Rome—though that, of course, does not necessarily mean they did not come.

>The absence of Africans in many medieval sources does not necessarily mean that they were completely absent from society.

What really is the truth is that they're lacking evidence for people of colour being part of medieval societies.

So what you're telling me is that there were (eastern) nigs going on pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela?

>There was no such thing as the homogenous, insular medieval Europe

>Al-Andalus, aka Muslim Spain, was right next to France

Spaniards took it back.

>Parts of France were also England, and vice versa.

Frenchies took it back.

is that retarted shit teached in us unis? ''Medievalist '' aa,,,

user the french at the time didn't even speak one common language.
Regional cultures with distinct but related languages were far more common than now.

Everyone with half a brain spoke and wrote in latin

You're falling for leftist bullshit. Of course racism and race existed back then. These are biological constructs, these are normal behavior, its the leftists who are pathologically adnormal by claiming this is a bad thing.

We need to purge leftists from history. Or their demented anti-white minds do this.

I don't know I went to uni in Quebec.
You're just as bad as they are.

>muh leftists
I wonder if people complain about muh weftists actually know what "leftism" is and not confuse them with liberlels

Not that guy (I'm the guy he's responding to actually) but Social Justice is more "leftist" than "liberal." Just because neoliberalism and idpol often align doesn't mean the latest wave of "activism" is liberal in any sense. Nothing more ironic than a "leftist" sneering at the idpol "neoliberals" while the organizations pushing hardest for "racial justice" define their paradigm as being anti-neoliberal. Any kind of classical liberalism based on universal rights is anathema in their eyes and on level with white supremacy (I'm not kidding about that last part, spend some time on an American campus if you're skeptical). What a fucked up time to be alive, the internet generation resurrecting a bunch of dead spooky modernist ideologies all in order to assert and protect their "identity."

Europe is a fucking continent , dipshit. Of course all sorts of marginal figures might have ended up in one corner of that continent or another for some small amount of time in the 500 year span that is the middle ages. Any African outside of Southern Europe is ridiculous though.

But identity politics does not determine what political ideology you belong to.

Of course, a lot of leftists tend to be socially progressive, but examples like the soviet union or Nazbols show that leftists can also be conservative. Vise versa also exists. Obvious right-wingers such as Dick Cheney believes in stuff like gay marriage.

>Of course, a lot of leftists tend to be socially progressive, but examples like the soviet union or Nazbols show that leftists can also be conservative.
>using historical examples to talk about contemporary politics
Regardless you're throwing all kinds of spooky terms around without anything to base them on, i.e. what exactly is your left-right axis based on? Economics? It seems so, if only that was the only way of defining ideologies as "left" or "right" lmao.

>Queen of fucking She a
Which in itself is proof there were no blacks in Medieval Europe as the artist would know that no black woman has hair like that naturally.

This. The fact that they gave her flowing straight blond hair is proof that about as many Blacks lived in Europe as lived in Japan during the middle ages.