Even medieval Arabs were aware of the existence of race

And yet he managed to anyway.

>>They cannot be considered human beings
Which meant that they needed to be saved from their savagery by taking them as slaves and bringing them into the light of Islamic civilization.

You read it as saying their blackness is the prime reason they're savages when to the Arabs their being black was just another consequence of living so far south in the jungles.

Can you please stop trying to reinterprete their writing? It’s pretty obvious that they considered black Africans to barely human.

Attached: 5B73C917-D1AC-46F7-A145-04E650F31998.jpg (1385x1822, 522K)

How about you read their actual work and stop reading others' reinterpretations, especially in greentext form.

>implying white europeans were not savage mud cabin dwellers when Egypt and Mesopotamia were civilized
>implying it is because of race

>They however believed that was a result of climate not inherited genetic traits
You're confusing Jared Diamond with medieval Arab scholars

Europeans were studying astronomy actually

>But for some reason, we still deny it.
Because human traits don’t vary concordantly you dumb stormshill.
discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444

Show me the full context then.

>Jared Diamond

Attached: 2CAE462E-BC04-44F8-A09B-F9C0FC7F6312.jpg (1538x429, 115K)

He's not.

Read the book you retard. Spoonfeeding quotes is what got you into this stormweenie attitude in the first place.

>East Asian
>least ape-like
Are they the most advanced human race?

If you’re claiming there’s a context behind this, then the burden of proof is on you.

What do you mean as most “advanced race”

Most evolved.

That’s pretty subjective. I believe each and every specie is best suited for their environment.

No, I'm claiming you haven't read the whole thing and telling you to do so. You're the one with the burden here, but you're not even equipped to handle it.

There is always a context. That's not something that needs proof, mate. What does is the claim that what you're quoting is in fact similar to modern race theory. In any case, he's already provided context: the cultural elitism of Muslim thought. Unless you have an argument that contradicts this point, it stands as a reason why you're wrong.

I’m not going to read the entire book. Just show the page or chapter where they claim that zanj’s are redeemable

If Arabs were just cultural elitists then how come they considered Berbers to be inferior even converting them to Islam?

what makes a place like, let’s say, Iran, more conductive to civilization than central Africa? I’m genuinely curious as to what geographical prerequisites are needed for civilization
t.brainlet

>gets btfo'd in
>makes a new thread instead of learning from their mistakes and growing as a Veeky Forumstorian

Attached: 1519743650069.jpg (421x510, 41K)

That wasn’t me and no got btfo in that thread

>I’m not going to read the entire book

>Even medieval Arabs were aware of the existence of race
Proof?
What does that have to do with race?

then why aren’t native Brazilians, or Southeast Asians black? Just living in a jungle near the equator does not mean you will be black. Being black is part of the special identity of those who live in the homeland of Africa. We are genetically, and physically stronger than other peoples, it is just a fact.

Because Arabs considered Berbers to be an inferior people despite culture.

Modern Arabs descriminate quite a bit against black Muslims. Civilization has nothing to do with it, because African American Muslims are discriminated against commonly at Mecca, and Americans undoubtedly have a greater “civilization” than most Arab states.

The medieval arabs saw the shitty tribes for what they were being shitty spear chuckers and respected the developed blacks like the ones in mali and somalia.

According to the ancient Greeks and thus the Arabs who studied them, a temperate climate was necessary for the development of civilization.

The Arabs considered Berbers inferior precisely because of their culture. They did not wholly trust their conversion to Islam and Islamic culture and even justified continuous enslavement at times due to their being deficient Muslims.

How about I BTFO you here, too.
muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_03.htm

>Negroes of the first zone dwell in caves and thickets, eat herbs, live in savage isolation and do not congregate, and eat each other.
>The same applies to the Slavs.

>because he was autistically obsessed with material culture as a standard of development
What an idiot. Everyone knows that living in huts and eating mud is a "valid lifestyle". Weath and culture doesn't mean anything.

>Arabs considered Berbers to be an inferior people despite culture.
>Arabs and Berbers
>despite culture
Brainlet

I'm not interested in your pseudoscience, only that of Ibn Khaldun

>Genealogists who had no knowledge of the true nature of things imagined that Negroes are the children of Ham, the son of Noah, and that they were singled out to be black as the result of Noah's curse, which produced Ham's color and the slavery God inflicted upon his descendants. It is mentioned in the Torah 219 that Noah cursed his son Ham. No reference is made there to blackness. The curse included no more than that Ham's descendants should be the slaves of his brothers' descendants. To attribute the blackness of the Negroes to Ham, reveals disregard of the true nature of heat and cold and of the influence they exercise upon the air (climate) and upon the creatures that come into being in it. The black color (of skin) common to the inhabitants of the first and second zones is the result of the composition of the air in which they live, and which comes about under the influence of the greatly increased heat in the south.
muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_03.htm

why is Veeky Forums full of so many salty shitskins? lol get out subhumans, you were inferior animals in 1000 ad and you're inferior animals in current year

>greece
>temperate
Bullshit
t. New Yorker who travelled to Greece

Most of africa isn't jungle like southern america though.
Also that change takes tens of thousands of years if not more.

The name "Abyssinians," however, is restricted to those Negroes who live opposite Mecca and the Yemen, and the name "Zanj" is restricted to those who live along the Indian Sea. These names are not given to them because of an (alleged) descent from a black human being, be it Ham or any one else. Negroes from the south who settle in the temperate fourth zone or in the seventh zone that tends toward whiteness, are found to produce descendants whose color gradually turns white in the course of time. Vice versa, inhabitants from the north or from the fourth zone who settle in the south produce descendants whose color turns black. This shows that color is conditioned by the composition of the air.
muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_03.htm

Hey man, I'm not saying it was good science or anything. But it matters that we distinguish one bad science from another.

Really? Islamic travelers seem to have a positive outlook on the Kieven Rus

Okay and where’s your evidence

Arabs are from the Arabian Peninsula and Berbers are indigenous to North Africa. Do you honestly beleive they’re the same thing?

Nationalism has existed for millenia, albeit in different forms associated with different political entities. Never got why people claim its a 19th century invention. Greeks, Romans, Chinese, all believed that their nation or their people were superior. But at the time they also believed the earth was the center of the universe. Just because they believed it 1,000 years before us doesn't make it true. Sortof reminds me of arguments where people say "look even CHILDREN think x!" Its just flawed. And that's coming from somebody who really doesn't think all races are equal.

im memeing about Greece user. Of course the Mediterranean would seem more temperate than, say Europe to the north, or Africa to the south.

Like almost all of these accounts, they're mixed with a heavy correlation between negative stereotyping and the author having never visited the places they describe and relying on Classical memes.

>Nationalism has existed for millenia, albeit in different forms associated with different political entities

Attached: DQh_XBTUEAE_4di.jpg (900x729, 57K)

>One may compare what has happened in this connection in Ifriqiyah and the Maghrib from the beginning of Islam to the present time. The inhabitants of those lands are Berber tribes and groups. The first victory of Ibn Abi Sarh 52 over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident (Kharijite) religious opinions many times. Ibn Abi Zayd 53 said that the Berbers in the Maghrib revolted twelve times and that Islam became firmly established among them only during the governorship of Musi b. Nusayr and thereafter.
muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter3/Ch_3_09.htm

That's my entire point, Arabs and Berbers are different culturally

Can someone explain wtf is going on with the Aborigine skull? It looks like a Neanderthal skull, are they some kind of leftover of Archaic Humans?

Why is 56% "whites" are so obsessed with race?

not an argument

''Nationalism is the core of the Enlightenment’s notion of liberal democracy. It asserts that the multinational dynasties that ruled autocratically denied basic human rights. Among these was the right to national self-determination and the right of citizens to decide what was in the national interest. The Enlightenment feared tyranny and saw the multinational empires dominating Europe as the essence of tyranny. Destroying them meant replacing them with nation-states. The American and French revolutions were both nationalist risings, as were the nationalist risings that swept Europe in 1848. Liberal revolutions were by definition nationalist because they were risings against multinational empires.''

of course they do, race exists as a social concept, to suggest people claim otherwise in order to support race realist beliefs is strawmanning.

Because we live among minorities in a regular basis. Must feel pretty good to live in a homogeneous European country.

Try living in a black neighborhood for a year and come back to say that again.

Another OP btfo because he doesn't like reading books but thinks his (memed) opinion matters.

how is op BTFO?

>OP claims Medieval Arabs were aware of race
>Veeky Forums claims their views on blacks had more to do with climate not genetics
>OP demands proof, and gets dick slapped by paragraphs of it

There is no more or less evolved, evolution is not an arrow moving towards a specific goal.

But race is a matter of climate

>it's more cultural than Racial
>more cultural than Racial
>cultural than Racial
>than Racial

Attached: 438657.jpg (746x870, 86K)

If a change in climate means a change in qualities, then it's not race but culture and environment.

>But to generalize and say that the inhabitants of a specific geographical location in the south or in the north are the descendants of such-and-such a well-known person because they have a common color, trait, or (physical) mark which that (alleged) forefather had, is one of those errors which are caused by disregard, (both) of the true nature of created beings and of geographical facts. (There also is disregard of the fact that the physical circumstances and environment) are subject to changes that affect later generations; they do not necessarily remain unchanged.
>Ibn Khaldun

Seems like race to me...

What? That's precisely how they saw things.

If you're willingly not reading, like OP, maybe

>Even if the genealogical construction were correct, it would be the result of mere guesswork, not of cogent, logical argumentation. It would merely be a statement of fact. It would not imply that the inhabitants of the south are called "Abyssinians" and "Negroes" because they are descended from "black" Ham. The genealogists were led into this error by their belief that the only reason for differences between nations is in their descent. This is not so.

I'm not following desu. Race is real and this guy seemed to understand it.

Ibn Khaldun spends an entire section of his book specifically shitting on the idea. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

>The genealogists were led into this error by their belief that the only reason for differences between nations is in their descent. This is not so.
>Negroes from the south who settle in the temperate fourth zone or in the seventh zone that tends toward whiteness, are found to produce descendants whose color gradually turns white in the course of time. Vice versa, inhabitants from the north or from the fourth zone who settle in the south produce descendants whose color turns black.

I don't care what nonsense you personally believe. But don't come here telling me someone you've never read believes the same thing because he said mean things about black people once.

He seems to be explaining evolution desu, divergent climates lead to divergent races. He was definitely a race realist.

Except he's not, because race realism tries to posit the existence of black and white races whereas Ibn Khaldun sees that distinction as an error, of cultural context over anything genetic.

>evolution
>over a few generations

He's fundamentally talking about evolution. It doesn't matter he was wrong about the time required. He simply describes the time frame vaguely as "over the course of time". He's definitely a race realist realist. Any questions?

First he's fundamentally talking about racial genetics, and now he's talking about evolution. Is there anything you won't try to misappropriate this dude for?

>But to generalize and say that the inhabitants of a specific geographical location in the south or in the north are the descendants of such-and-such a well-known person because they have a common color, trait, or (physical) mark which that (alleged) forefather had, is one of those errors which are caused by disregard, (both) of the true nature of created beings and of geographical facts.

>Khaldun describes how shitty black people are
>"b-but he had crazy ideas about how they'd stop being black if they grew up in a different climate!"

And this invalidates racial observations how exactly?

>...the child does not know his father

kek some things never change

Again, he's clearly talking about evolution. Divergent selection pressures lead to divergent races. If the negros were to move from the climate that produced them they would over many generations change into something else. This is a spot on description of natural selection and racial divergence. Doesn't seem too difficult to get.

> It’s pretty obvious that they considered black Africans to barely human.
I already said it in another thread, but then again : it depends on the authors. Most muslim scholars who go on about blacks being savages do not say however they're not human. Ibn Khaldun indeed considers black inhumans, along with at-Tusi and a few others, but they're not that representative of islamic scholars.

It invalidates the idea that he understood the differences in tribes and nations the same way modern racialist pseudoscience does.

You're the one who's bullshitting or more likely, talking about of his ass here. Read the source or get some real understanding of Arab culture and history. This is a real problem on Veeky Forums, where people read a little about something, and are so damned confident with what they conclude. Can't people be a little more humble?

Must be an American thing.

Okay, but is anyone claiming he understood different races according to modern ideas? We're just having a discussion on how easily anyone can see how shitty blacks are. Saying he thought they'd morph into Arabs in a different climate seems as relevant as saying he thought some god created them that way. Assumptions or theories regarding origins or future events has little bearing on simple observations.

>muh read it in Arabic you have to read it in Arabic!
Never change, m*slimoid. Next you will claim people who are replying to your brain dead posts itt have to read them in Arabic too.

It doesn't invalidate it all. He's describing evolution if he believes over time negros would evolve into something else if subjected to the correct selection pressures. This is not pseudoscience, this is elementary biology.

Who are you quoting?

(You)

>Okay, but is anyone claiming he understood different races according to modern ideas?
>Even Medieval Arabs
>but we still deny it

If this was at all an honest discussion of historical attitudes towards blacks, you might have had a point. But from the start this was clearly an attempt to tie modern racialist views on blacks with a historical one, and failing miserably at the slightest challenge.

You are now, but the person you were quoting said nothing about reading anything in Arabic. The source that was provided in this thread is even written in English.

>>muh read it in Arabic you have to read it in Arabic!
You just made that up right now.

> We're just having a discussion on how easily anyone can see how shitty blacks are.
Are we? I doubt it.

Not the guy you're replying to, but actually the discussion is very relevant. Yes, people here seem to be implying that the modern, western conception of "race" is some sort of universal (I'm not saying it doesn't have truths in it though). It's not - historically people thought of ethnicity and race in varied ways.

> being not American implies you're Muslim
the fuck?

I'm not him.

Who failed? Ibn khaldun described race realism to a tee, right down to evolutionary divergence.

These Arab descriptions of blacks seem to line up surprisingly well with modern data and stereotypes. Just because you are uncomfortable with discussions of race and want to safely frame everything as discussion about "historical attitudes" doesn't mean blacks don't have a disposition for these traits.

>Even medieval people were aware of the existence of humors but for some reason we still deny it

Attached: CPoupqOUAAAifKQ.jpg (500x504, 26K)

>Not the guy you're replying to, but actually the discussion is very relevant. Yes, people here seem to be implying that the modern, western conception of "race" is some sort of universal (I'm not saying it doesn't have truths in it though). It's not - historically people thought of ethnicity and race in varied ways.

Sure, for starters I'd say lumping in the various accomplished Northeast Africans, such as Ethiopians, with all the various primitive black lineages is a bit unfair. Obviously they weren't perfect. But it's actually incredible how well it matches modern day perceptions, and even positive depictions of Zanj by people like Al-Jahiz don't really conflict with the negative, i.e. trying to claim Zanj are intelligent.

>comparing humors to the reality of radically divergent human populations
oh am I laffin

Noting differences between populations is not the same thing as race realism. He specifically goes against categorizing blacks as a race (i.e. of a common ancestor) and instead says the Abyssinians and the Zanj only share black skin because of climate. He, by the way, does not express the same disdain at all for Abyssinians.

So here we go, guess it wasn't an honest discussion after all. Glad we settled that lie.