If race was invented in the 1800s. Why were white enslaving blacks in the 1600s...

Whites were enslaving whites in Europe east of Elbe.

Turks had white slaves brought by Tatars.

Circassians were enslaved by quite a few groups.

Blacks were enslaved by Turks.

Because "race was invented in 1800" is a lie.

Nothing in your quotation shows that Muslims (Ubn Battuta wasn't an Arab) perceived blacks as a group, yet alone attributed inferiority to anyone with a darker skin tone.

wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Racism

There are countless quotes from Muslims throughout history that could be interpreted as "racist".

If you read Ibn Khaldun it's clear he considers the cultures in Ghana and Mali to be intelligent and civilised. The quotes everyone cherry picks are referring to more primitive tribes in the interior, it's obvious he doesn't consider all black people to be savages.

So Arabs enslaving blacks had nothing to do with "race". Just "culture". Sure thing buddy.

Interestingly, you copied my typo, it is Ibn Battuta. The wikipedia mentions that he was an Islamic judge sought after by muslims, so there goes your taqiyya 'he wasnt muslim lol' narrative. Furthermore let us have a look at more quotes of said person:
>Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament.
>[inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries] are people distant from the standards of humanity" "Their nature is that of wild animals....
>We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions.
>They [the Shu`ubiyya] maintain that eloquence is prized by all people at all times -- even the Zanj, despite their dimness, their boundless stupidity, their obtuseness, their crude perceptions and their evil dispositions, make long speeches.
Also, look up Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddasi, and Avicenna to observe their view on the negro. Let us know what you you have found.

Well Arabs would enslave other Arabs who weren't Muslim so yes.

Racism is a systematic and scientific. For every "racist" Greek account of the Persians, we have another source which depicts them in a favorable light.

From Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah:
“Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.”

“beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.”
The point was whether racism was present before the Atlantic slave trade since that would undermine the marxist narrative. To claim that racism was not present in the Arab world during the middle ages would be extremely unreasonable.

I've gotten into enough internet pissing fights to know that people get pissy if you don't use their spelling. I said that Battuta was a Berber Muslim from Morocco, not an Arab but still a Muslim. Also he makes a huge distinction between the non-Muslim "blacks" (Zanj) of modern Zanzibar and the Muslim "blacks" of Western Africa. In his account of a trip to Mali he writes that "small amount of injustice amongst them," and "the prevalence of peace in their country, the traveller is not afraid in it nor is he who lives there in fear of the thief or of the robber by violence. They do not intefere with the property of the white man who dies in their country even though it may consist of great wealth, but rather they entrust it to the hand of someone dependable among the white men until it is taken by the rightful claimant."
Basically the account of the most widely traveled and educated Muslim in the history of the Islamic shows that they didn't believe that all blacks were innately inferior, just that the tribal blacks who refused conversion were markedly inferior to enlightened Muslims.

from the same book:
>They saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world.
They clearly were distinguishing between different cultures, not lumping all black people in the same basket due to their skin color. Similar to the Roman treatment of Germania

This. Regarding blacks, Ibn Khaldun is one of the most radical muslim scholars. At-Tusi and ad-Dimasqi also consider them inhuman beings, closer to animals.

Also, as a whole it must be said that even Blacks are generally looked down upon by medieval muslim scholars, the latter do not say they exclude them from mankind.

*even though

Whites never enslaved blacks only other blacks did. Whites were merely customers.

Dark skinned Christian and light skinned Muslim? Care to explain?

You're confusing race and racialism, racialism had a scientific approach

Go visit the middle east user. There are plenty of muslims with pale skin and blue eyes like >our guy
Can only upload one picture at a time but Google 'egyptian christian' and you will find lots of pictures of brown skinned Christians

Attached: بشار-الاسد.jpg (2048x1366, 256K)

I don't know to which extent the "pale-skinned Alawites and Druzes" meme is true.

>Dark skinned Christians
Ethiopians and dark-skinned Moors, the people who inspired stories like Othello and the legend of Prester John.

You have to look at this from the perspective of the author. He explicitly compares Ghana to other black nations while Ibn Khaldun views blacks as barely human. For him, it is like pointing out which turd is the shiniest among a collection of turds.
Thanks for the nuance. I am not entirely sure of what exactly your point is. Because Battuta only describes East Africans in so negatively, it is not racist anymore for some reason? So, if a person only hates Chinese it is not racist, since he does not mind the East Asian race in general? It sounds a lot like damage control. Or is your point that all muslims view non-muslims as inferior people?

I have read some claim that it might be Galatians genes still affecting the population, but it seems far-fetched desu.

>Or is your point that all muslims view non-muslims as inferior people
It depends on the people. For example, Turks, even when only recently islamicized (or even still pagans) are thoughy highly of, much better than Berbers, who are looked down upon for different reasons (one of those reasons being their enthusiasm for Khawarij islam).

I'd tend to think more to a Neolithic strain, or even to crusaders.

>Or is your point that all muslims view non-muslims as inferior people?
Not inferior but there was biases. There's a reason why the Ottomans only genocided the Armenians and Lebanese despite being equally unfair to all their Muslim subjects.

I'll just leave this here

Attached: 1519904788351.jpg (1385x1822, 515K)

>I am not entirely sure of what exactly your point is.
I've clearly stated my point in my first reply.
>Because Battuta only describes East Africans in so negatively, it is not racist anymore for some reason?
It isn't racist because he's judging people by their religion and society, not the shape of their heads or the colour of their skin. My point is that this isn't real racism because he doesn't claim that all blacks belong to a single subhuman group like the racial "science" at the basis of real racism claims.
If you're just going to obfuscate further by making irrelevant anecdotes and trying to shift the conversation away from sources then don't bother replying.

Anyway the point is the crusaders would not have looked at >our guy and considered him 'one of us'. As a Muslim he would be the enemy regardless of skin.
Whereas our brown skinned buddy here would clearly be on board due to his faith

Attached: 160312-macdiarmid-iraq-christianity-tease_qhlw6s.jpg (1480x832, 105K)

Not trying to be a smartass, but regarding al-Jahiz (who had a black grandparent), it must be said he also wrote a book in which he explains blacks are superior to whites. But as far as I know (I may be wrong), he is one of the few islamic scholars that consider Indians black.

>It isn't racist because he's judging people by their religion and society, not the shape of their heads or the colour of their skin. My point is that this isn't real racism because he doesn't claim that all blacks belong to a single subhuman group like the racial "science" at the basis of real racism claims.
Not him, but a lot of muslim scholars (ibn Qutayba, al-Bakri, al-Andalusi, etc.) judge blacks by their colour/looks.

Adding to this, this is what he looked like...
>But as far as I know (I may be wrong), he is one of the few islamic scholars that consider Indians black.
I don't think he ever met an Indian.

Attached: Al-Jahiz.jpg (940x1404, 334K)

Yeah. Crusaders mixed to an extent with Armenian and christian Arab women.

>I don't think he ever met an Indian.
Are you basing this claim on what you know about his life or just stating that Indians aren't black?

>I don't think he ever met an Indian.
That's likely indeed.

true, there was no racial autism in the modern sense, there was no difference between a swarthy arab and a blonde german if they were both christian

ideas of nordicism and superior germanic aryans came in the 19th century, if anything before that germanics were seen as culturally inferior to latins for example

>Not him, but a lot of muslim scholars (ibn Qutayba, al-Bakri, al-Andalusi, etc.) judge blacks by their colour/looks.
All cultures do this, but without using those judgements to create a system that allocates superiority and the power that goes with that to one group while disenfranchising another then it isn't real racism.

>a system that allocates superiority and the power that goes with that to one group while disenfranchising another
Sound like the correct definition for the Umayyad caliphate :]

"racism" is an arbitrary meaningless term, it's only value is political slander

>Are you basing this claim on what you know about his life
What I know of his life and the region.

Him being born in Iraq and migrating to Iran as well as India not being part of the Caliphate (apart from Sindh iirc) makes it unlikely.

You forgot the important, "using those judgements" part. The Islamic Caliphates didn't discriminate along non-existent racial lines, just easily apparent genealogical, cultural and religious ones.
>:]

Attached: 1475086548509.gif (320x240, 164K)

The Islamic Caliphates didn't discriminate along non-existent racial lines, just easily apparent genealogical, cultural and religious ones.
Yes they did, at least regarding the Umayyads. Discrimination was justified by ethnicity.

*
>The Islamic Caliphates didn't discriminate along non-existent racial lines, just easily apparent genealogical, cultural and religious ones.
Yes they did, at least regarding the Umayyads. Discrimination was justified by ethnicity.

Ethnicity is distinct from race. For example, we've been talking about how the Islamic world differentiated West Africans from in East Africans for the better part of an hour. Under a racial system, both of those people would be considered equally inferior. I'm not claiming that the Umayyads did not discriminate, but claiming they did according to racial categories is wrong.

>I'm not claiming that the Umayyads did not discriminate, but claiming they did according to racial categories is wrong.
Berbers were considered black from the 7th to the 10th century according to Roger Botte, who is an expert on islamic slavery ; being from Africa, they were seen as children of Cham, and therefore black. And of all the mawali (non-Arab muslims), they were thoses who faced to most fierce discrimination, for different reasons. Umayyads even forged hadith in order to treat them as second-class citizens and to enslave them.

But that "blackness" was religious and cultural, not racial. As Berbers began converting later on into the reign of the Ummayads they could "lose" their blackness, something that isn't possible under racial discrimination on "scientific" grounds.

Now you are just playing word games. I already gave quotes full of outright racism here
You new criterium for racism you are bringing up is the issue of skull measurements and head shapes. Your modified definition of racism is highly selective and ends up with ridiculous consequences. An individual that zealously hates all Jews for their religion and society is not a racist by your standards. Or an American that intents to kill all Japs is not racist either. Do you not see how absurd the situation is? Also, it is a safe bet that the bulk of European racism towards blacks derives from their adversity to their utterly primitive societies and belief systems as well, with skull and head measures only playing a minor role if any.

>As Berbers began converting later on into the reign of the Ummayads they could "lose" their blackness
Nope. Even after they converted to islam, Arabs continued to enslave them and to treat them as second-class citizen on every level. Therefore, the Umayyad discrimination was not" religious and cultural". Long after Berbers converted to islam, scholars such as Ibn Qutayba and Ibn Khaldun still describe them as sons of Ham/Cham. Not to mention Berbers were looked down upon by allmost of the islamic scholars that wrote about them, except for Ibn Khaldun and al-Hamadani. Even Ibn Hawqal, who was interested in their culture, eventually said they suffered from a lack of intelligence.

It’s not true at all. Ashkenazi Jews and Circassians are the only relatively light-skinned ethnic groups in the Middle East.

Why were Romans enslaving Northern Europeans if they are all white?

>Why were Arabs enslaving blacks in the 800s

It was not a race-driven enslavement, it was driven by Islam, for example, you can't enslave converted people, I'll let Ahmed Baba(Black scholar of Timbuktu) give his opinion :

>In regards to the enslavement of Africans in 1615, Ahmad Bābā discussed the legitimate reasons of how and why one could become a slave. The driving force, mainly being religious and ethnic, were that if one came from a country with a Muslim government, or identified with specific Muslim ethnic groups, then they could not be slaves. He claimed that if a person was an unbeliever or a kafara, then that is the sole factor for their enslavement, along with that being “the will of God.”

>In the piece Ahmad Bābā and the Ethics of Slavery, he claims that his beliefs fueled the thought that those who identified as Muslim no longer had to be enslaved, but anyone that was an outsider (or nonbeliever) would then be enslaved by Muslims. These were not simply beliefs these were the rules that are given by God Most High, who knows best. Even in the case that the people of the country were believers but their belief was shallow then those people could still be enslaved with no questions asked. According to Ahmad Bābā, it was known that the people of Kumbe were shallow in their beliefs. He goes on to use the analogy that when one country is conquered and contains nonbelievers, then those persons could be enslaved as part of his stance on any other outsider or religion besides Islam.

Arabs took slaves wherever they could buy/acquire them, idiot.

Including other Arabs.

Well they just took everyone they could to sell off or use. Whats your point?
Blacks were favourable as work horses or "Amusement" aka let them fight to the death or something. Whites were used as fucktoys and servants most of the time.

t. never been to the middle east
I've worked out in Saudi and the Emirates, visited the safer places like Jordan (can't go to Israel though). Plenty of the locals would pass as white back in the US. Working out there is a good eye opener about how we have this construct of 'Muslim' in our culture that doesn't match the reality
>inb4 la cretura memes

>Blacks were favourable as work horses or "Amusement" aka let them fight to the death or something. Whites were used as fucktoys and servants most of the time.
Source?

Subsaharan Africans were used as farm workers, domestic servants, or soldiers (most of the time as infantrymen). Europeans were employed as servants, bureaucratic staff, or soldiers. Slavs were seen as excellent foot soldiers, and Franks as great cavalrymen, especially in the Maghreb.

this is so fucking untrue. Can you shut the fuck up?
t. middle east mutt

>Plenty of the locals would pass as white back in the US.

That’s because American “whites” are a bunch of Judeo-Latino-Negroid mongrels.

Why do you want to be considered light-skinned so much? Why do you hate yourself and your people?

Middle easterners and north africans can range from the whitest blonde to the blackest black. We're not some uniform brown "race" like you westerners like to paint us.

That doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of you are brown.

And? We don't believe in the made-up races the west came up with
Culture, ethnicity and religion are what matters, not racist pseudo-science used to justify colonialism

>t. never been to the middle east

>We don't believe in the made-up races
>ethnicity matters

?

Mein Gott, another Middle Easterner who desperately wants to be considered white. What’s wrong with you, cucks?

>Ethnicity is race
Are you retarded? Western race categorizations are completely detached from cultural and ethnical realities

The negroes possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. Their sultan shows no mercy to anyone who is guilty of the least act of it. There is complete security in their country. Neither traveller nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence. They do not confiscate the property of any white man who dies in their country, even if it be uncounted wealth. On the contrary, they give it into the charge of some trustworthy person among the whites, until the rightful heir takes possession of it. They are careful to observe the hours of prayer, and assiduous in attending them in congregations, and in bringing up their children to them.

Source of quote?

African slaves happened to be black

All humans enslaved each other

Arabs regularly justified enslavement through religion, so yes it was just culture. Otherwise they'd keep enslaving them even after they converted.

there's also that Non Bantu Blacks weren't enslaved for several reasons

heck Somalis even helped in the Slavery

Niger congo people enslaved Bantu and eastern africans

so when /pol/ hears about Greek and especially Roman slave societies do they just imagine a handful of nordics lording over cotton-picking sub-saharan africans or what

OI we are all one race all differences are purely cultural

Attached: 1521741978317.png (1317x1652, 539K)

Exactly. If racism was "invented" in the 1800s. Anyone prior to 1800 could not be racist including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, all the slaveowners, the Arabs, the Persians, the Greeks, the Chinese, etc no matter how obvious it was.

>If race was invented in the 1800s.
what?
The ancient Greeks talked about race, well ethnicity I guess.
Race as in the 4 main races that can then be broken down into ethnicities was maybe thought of in the 1500s when Europeans had traveled to Africa, Asia, and the Americas and noticed people there looked similar to each other, but very different from the people on other continents.

It's become a popular meme in academia to claim racism (or at least "scientific" racism) didn't exist until the 1800s when Europeans who were bored came up with a way to feel superior to other races.

Arabs enslaved everyone, they had Chinese and Indian slaves

East Africa doesn't have Bantu's they have nuba

>IQs "discovered" by Lynn etc circa 2000
my sides are in orbit, what fucking brainlet made this map?

>Poland
Oh wait, this is bait.

>IQs "discovered" by Lynn etc circa 2000
is this wrong im afraid i wasn't aware ? does it matter though ?

It's all just one big coincidence because dark skinned people happen to be the same people as oppressed people. It has nothing to do with biology lol. Oppression = Bad performance on white designed IQ tests. Hail Marx.

precisely these brave souls were so oprresed that by the time the Europeans got there all that the Africans knew was how to be oppressed honestly brings a tear to my eye

>It's become a popular meme in academia to claim racism (or at least "scientific" racism) didn't exist until the 1800s when Europeans who were bored came up with a way to feel superior to other races

No it isn't.

First of all, "discovered" is not the word you'd use here and only a child or a high school dropout with a shaky grasp on elementary English vocabulary could make that mistake. Another barbarism is "circa 2000" in this context, the entire sentence reads like it was written by an actual cretin aping some style without understanding when it should be used.

More importantly, the IQ scores they used as a basis for their calculations/fabrications were usually much older than the 00s, IIRC this was basically a snapshot of the world in the 70s-80s. I don't even understand why he bothered to include the date if he couldn't be assed to give a precise one, let alone a correct one. All the clumsiness is just droll.

The text is not implying Lynn etc. actually discovered the concept of IQ in 2000, if that's your problem.

No, the fact that it vaguely sounds like it just make it funnier.

*makes

i see but that's not really the point of the pic thanks anyway