Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

But most of us are racist.
I don't believe that. I believe people are afraid of something that is strange or abnormal (abnormal: as something / someone that stands out from the norm), because it is a mechanical reaction. That reaction is common even in animal kingdom: anyone that lived around numerous animals / pets can testify. Once you know more about the thing or the person, you are not afraid nor have a general dislike anymore, and you coexist and even start to like.
Humans are social: you can taught them to counter their inner reaction, or change their ways by experience.

Racism is a set of beliefs, a some sort of ideology. Nobody is born racist: you become one. And you become one when it is taught. It is taught when you need to pretend that people are not equal, mostly to justify the domination of one arbitrary sort of people over one other arbitrary sort of people.

In France, I think the Racism theory started in the early medieval age to legitimise the reigning nobility (mostly germanic people) over the enslaved people (the gallo-roman)*. Feudal society was kind of a some sort of slave society back then.
Then... the Black Plague destroys this system. The people found out clergy was a mascarade (monks are not immune) and religion lost a lot of power. Catholicism cannot justify the death of so many people in all states of society: the nobility, the clergy and the third one. This lead to new pagan beliefs like the Grim Reaper. With less nobility, people started to act on their own. Basicly, the Black Plague lead to the Renaissance and the Reformation.

* : You will be not surprised that the belief become popular among germanic people, mostly Prussia, and used it and developed it. and leading to premise of WWII.

After the Renaissance, the Feudal system was not a slave society. All that racism theory was kind of forgetten because they didn't need aymore, or probably they could not use it anymore because nobility wasn't all that frankish anymore... Don't worry, it is making a come back! Racism theory was recycled to legitimise the slavery of black people. Normally, you cannot have a slave if they share the same religion (muslim had a lot of slaves, but slaves was automatically free if they converted), and christians should do the same. Except if you manage to say that some sort of people (the blacks) are in fact, not people! So you end up with humans converted to christianism that are not considered as people. Yeah, this is not making sense, but I guess it was good enough for the Pope back then.

What surprise me is that "germanic" protestant (English, Dutch) people were harsher on slaves than "latin" catholic people (French, Spanish, Portuguese). It is the other way when it comes to war. I guess the former saw the slaves as inferior people, probably inherited from the Vikings, but the latter saw the slaves as submitted people (like unlucky but equal), probably inherited from the Romans? I guess religion played a role: USA is far from being a mixed country, contrary to the rest of the new world, and it is the only one being protestant. Coincidence?
(I like being contraversial. The fact is: I don't know, I throw it out there. I am far from being knowledgeable on the subject. I just wanted to tease the Americans).


In brief: I believe that all people are naturally afraid of what is out of the norm, but it is not racism, just an instinctive reaction. With exposure, you find that thing "out of the norm" was harmless, symapthetic and relatable. Racism is a teaching, even an ideology. The purpose was to legitimate either the supremacy of something or the inferiority of something for a specific agenda. People are not born that way, those beliefs were learnt. And the beliefs pass on because parents tend to pass on their believe into their children. This is what I believe. I might be wrong, being cynical or idealistic. I don't know.
 
Some of what you said is right and some wrong. Americans as a whole aren't a racist people. (I'm not) In fact most of us aren't (or are in a different way).
Some people have become racist in trying to stop racism. (Essentially flipping the roles) There are some who hate non whites. However, they're a minority. For some reason however a lot of people hate whites (Bc according to them, we're awful humans),therefore being racist themselves. They embrace what they hate most. I'd say I'd fall into the majority who aren't racist at all. I see people as people and judge someone by their choices, not by innate traits from birth. In fact most of my friends are second or third generation Americans, half of them are four to 13 years younger than me as well. (Check my bio)

(Also, yes America is mostly christian.)

Also how is France right now. My friend went last summer and loved it.

You are right, maybe the way I spoke about Seminole isn't the best aproach.
Of course I agree the Seminole is an Ancient Nation, as all other nations. All humans alive have at least 5000 years of heritage.
I love Indian and Black history and try to realize how astonished I was when discover about Seminole.

About nowadays Seminole, we can assume this.
Oklahoma's Seminole have more Native American heritage.
Florida's Seminole is full mix Black/Native
Mexican's Seminole have more Black Heritage.

But, Civilization isn't as Pokemon, where Fire wins Grass, Grass win Water and Water wins Fire.
Don't matter if Seminole are black or Indian or Mix. They just need a leader, an unique unit and unique improvment to be a civ.
Negro Abraham was a Florida's Seminole leader, and fight and won many battles against Andrew Jackson.

Jest one question; do you hate Jackson? Because for all his faults he had some great qualities. (Loyalty was one of them)


Today I was thinking in about other Native-Mix race of South America.
Paraguay is full mix between Guarani and Spaniards, and José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, the first president of Paraguay, forbid any people of the same race to marry!:crazyeye:
Yes, While USA forbid interracial marriage, in Paraguay, at same time, was forbid same race marriage!

I'd go crazy in Paraguay, as the person I like is white.

Maybe Guarani and Seminole nations can appear together in some of next Civ Expansions as "No ethnic borders"-Expansion.

About Guarani I was think in 2 approach, it can have a Solano Lópes as leader and some ancient guarani warrior as an Unique Unit or a full blood Guarani leader (as Sepé Tiaraju) with a modern Paraguayan Unique Unit as used in the War against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Also your civilization ideas are pretty sound.
 
(Also, yes America is mostly christian.)

Not that properly observant of Christians - especially among the most vocal "religious leaders," and politicians, businesspeople, and especially career military who claim to be "Christian." Then again, many of the big edifices amongst Christian denominations in the modern world have fallen far from the true Ministry of Christ and are lead by wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock.
 
Some of what you said is right and some wrong. Americans as a whole aren't a racist people. (I'm not) In fact most of us aren't (or are in a different way).

I do believe than most american are not racist, support equality for everyone, and do not want to be evolved politically in the mess of what become the "race" debate. I will sound like a complotist (this sentence do not start well) but the biggest problem in USA is wealth distribution, and the biggest discrimination is against the poor.

I really have that feeling that USA is artificially divided, like something trying to "divide and conquer" the population. Men versus Women. North versus South. Republican versus Liberal. Black versus White. And what is a latino? Am I a latino because I am french? So latino are white? So it is just a new label as "white but not germanic/anglo-saxon"?

I may be wrong, but I think american still believe in the "American Dream" as getting rich is the consequence of being successful and deserve it, and being poor is the consequence of being a loser and deserve it. This is not that way of thinking in France, as getting poor is mostly the consequence of being unlucky or starting from bad environnement, and getting rich of being lucky, coming from high society or being corrupt.

Also how is France right now. My friend went last summer and loved it.
Great :) But I can't be impartial. It is my birth place after all!

If you are speaking about racism in France, be careful: France is not better. It has different views on things that have their advantages and their flaws. I cannot say France is setting a good example to follow. After all: stupidity is universal.

Contrary to USA, France was mostly white but with recent immigration, there is a lot of tension. The first mass immigration wave was from the neighboor country, like Spain and Italy. I can't say this is racism because, well, they are white (xenophobia? fear of the stranger?). But there is many example of how badly the italian was treated. And before that, between french themselves! A lot of breton (from Brittany) went to Paris to find job and were not exacty the treated well.

Something that many people in USA do not fully realise is that the culture can change drastically when moving 200 km away in the old word. My grandparent were french but french wasn't their native language, gascon / basque / occitan was because it was the local language back then. They needed to learn french in school and their parents barely spoke it. French unity of language is fairly recent. France is the mix of many culture, with of course the North / South divide, with Brittany (Celt), Normandy (Viking ancestry), Euskadi (basque), Alsace (germanic language) and so on.

It is amazing how France went in 100 years from a country ready to make war to his neighboor while being itself not united, to be united around a single language; be at peace to his neighboor and work together for a European Union. It is mindblowing, no?

The latest mass immigration wave was from maghrebi countries (Morroco, Algeria...). I can't say it is racism again because it is the same mechanic again. But I do believe arab people are treated more "fairly" than italian (I am not saying they are treated well). The french population is better educated than in 1800, and due to mondialism, are less susceptible to fall into hard xenophobia. But there is some fear of Islam. You have to understand that France is a secular state and the people are mostly irreligious. So people praticing religion openly is disturbing for most french people (praticing is kind of secret in France: you have to be discreet about your faith and beliefs). And due to the mess in middle-east and the rise of islamism, the arab community kind of face some mistrust right now. So yeah, France is not an example to follow.


As always, there is a rural mindset that are kind of afraid to stranger because they do not get the chance to face ethnic diversity in their every day life, because that diversity concentrate mostly in city. So urban people are more open minded in general. But I think this is kind of universal in all country?

Fun fact: if the president says he is openly atheist and get caught cheating on his wife, he is probably going to increase his rating approval. France is a weird place. The same thing happening in USA? Impeachment!
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that. I believe people are afraid of something that is strange or abnormal (abnormal: as something / someone that stands out from the norm), because it is a mechanical reaction. That reaction is common even in animal kingdom: anyone that lived around numerous animals / pets can testify. Once you know more about the thing or the person, you are not afraid nor have a general dislike anymore, and you coexist and even start to like.
Humans are social: you can taught them to counter their inner reaction, or change their ways by experience.

Racism is a set of beliefs, a some sort of ideology. Nobody is born racist: you become one. And you become one when it is taught. It is taught when you need to pretend that people are not equal, mostly to justify the domination of one arbitrary sort of people over one other arbitrary sort of people.

In France, I think the Racism theory started in the early medieval age to legitimise the reigning nobility (mostly germanic people) over the enslaved people (the gallo-roman)*. Feudal society was kind of a some sort of slave society back then.
Then... the Black Plague destroys this system. The people found out clergy was a mascarade (monks are not immune) and religion lost a lot of power. Catholicism cannot justify the death of so many people in all states of society: the nobility, the clergy and the third one. This lead to new pagan beliefs like the Grim Reaper. With less nobility, people started to act on their own. Basicly, the Black Plague lead to the Renaissance and the Reformation.

* : You will be not surprised that the belief become popular among germanic people, mostly Prussia, and used it and developed it. and leading to premise of WWII.

After the Renaissance, the Feudal system was not a slave society. All that racism theory was kind of forgetten because they didn't need aymore, or probably they could not use it anymore because nobility wasn't all that frankish anymore... Don't worry, it is making a come back! Racism theory was recycled to legitimise the slavery of black people. Normally, you cannot have a slave if they share the same religion (muslim had a lot of slaves, but slaves was automatically free if they converted), and christians should do the same. Except if you manage to say that some sort of people (the blacks) are in fact, not people! So you end up with humans converted to christianism that are not considered as people. Yeah, this is not making sense, but I guess it was good enough for the Pope back then.

What surprise me is that "germanic" protestant (English, Dutch) people were harsher on slaves than "latin" catholic people (French, Spanish, Portuguese). It is the other way when it comes to war. I guess the former saw the slaves as inferior people, probably inherited from the Vikings, but the latter saw the slaves as submitted people (like unlucky but equal), probably inherited from the Romans? I guess religion played a role: USA is far from being a mixed country, contrary to the rest of the new world, and it is the only one being protestant. Coincidence?
(I like being contraversial. The fact is: I don't know, I throw it out there. I am far from being knowledgeable on the subject. I just wanted to tease the Americans).


In brief: I believe that all people are naturally afraid of what is out of the norm, but it is not racism, just an instinctive reaction. With exposure, you find that thing "out of the norm" was harmless, symapthetic and relatable. Racism is a teaching, even an ideology. The purpose was to legitimate either the supremacy of something or the inferiority of something for a specific agenda. People are not born that way, those beliefs were learnt. And the beliefs pass on because parents tend to pass on their believe into their children. This is what I believe. I might be wrong, being cynical or idealistic. I don't know.


I really agree with everything Aurelesk said.
About Germanic-Viking issue, they are also kings in Russia, Spain, Brazil and Mexico. Any of this countries had a strong germanic heritage, but for some reason the nobles of this kingdoms had Germanic heritage (the blue blood). I guess our modern racism is not just pointed to white, but inside white community, it is pointed to the Germanic. Civilization game also do it, as it have almost the same numbers of Germanic Leaders than No-Caucasians leaders.


Some of what you said is right and some wrong. Americans as a whole aren't a racist people. (I'm not) In fact most of us aren't (or are in a different way).
Some people have become racist in trying to stop racism. (Essentially flipping the roles) There are some who hate non whites. However, they're a minority. For some reason however a lot of people hate whites (Bc according to them, we're awful humans),therefore being racist themselves. They embrace what they hate most. I'd say I'd fall into the majority who aren't racist at all. I see people as people and judge someone by their choices, not by innate traits from birth. In fact most of my friends are second or third generation Americans, half of them are four to 13 years younger than me as well. (Check my bio)

(Also, yes America is mostly christian.)

Also how is France right now. My friend went last summer and loved it.

I think it is very hard to don't be racist if you born in XX century, I'm not saying we are this kind of racist.
But it is possible to have smooth racisms everywhere, as said Aurelesk, it is a sort of ideology, you can have full pack or just a few of it.

The Brazilians have the "3 races myth" of Gilberto Freyre, but Brazilian Black Movement hate it because they think it build brazilian way of racism.
How is the Brazilian racism? First of all, it is smooth.
Freyre often say in his book how Brazilian isn't racist if we look to the USA. (Black Movement would reply one error don't justify another).
Freyre also say, as a mix race, we are all already as a big familly.
And despite the Black have a lot of troubles in his life just because they are black, a lot of Brazilian will say racism isn't a thing in Brazil, they understand racism just "Us-American" way to be racist, they though to be racist we need to have a KKK uniform or something as that.
Of course the KKK members are the most racist possible, but it isn't the only way to be racist.

For example of this game Civilization, it is clear this game don't want to be racist, they at least have some Civs from Africa and Native-America. (Other games as Rise of Kingdoms just have Euro-asiatic civs).
But, despite the Civilization had give the first steps against racism (and also against machism), it still need to give a few steps more to be not racist at all.


Jest one question; do you hate Jackson? Because for all his faults he had some great qualities. (Loyalty was one of them)
I don't hate anyone, also we need to remember I'm not an expert in USA history.
How I discover about Andrew Jackson? First it was a Facebook post talking "Why Trump like Andrew Jackson?". (I need to admit, if Trump like someone, it isn't a good first step :lol:).

And now, searching about Seminole tribe, Andrew Jackson appear as the foe in this narrative. But I don't hate him.
Indeed I would like to see Andrew Jackson as alternative leader to USA.

I guess the only way to overcome racism is speaking about that. I really want to have a bunch of African and Native Americans civs and I would like to have an Andrew Jackson to destroy with some Haitian's troop. (This is the game I want to set and play:lol:), yes, it can sound racist, but it is just a game after all.
Other players can use Jackson to conquer the 5 civilized tribes, but, in both cases we will playing thinking about racism in theses scenarios.
And just thinking about racism we can overcome it.

I think Civilization is avoiding this Race thema for too long, everyone here agree how old is slavery, but this game don't have any mechanic to play with it.
Blacks, in the Slavery history, can be Heroes and Villains too. (As I saw in the internet, few people see it, some just say the White are bad, other say just Black are bad, but in real world, both can be bad and good guys.)

I also would like to see L'Overture as a Black heroe against the evil of Slavery and also want to see Ghezo from Dahomey empire (From the Slavery coast) as this history villain.
 
Not that properly observant of Christians - especially among the most vocal "religious leaders," and politicians, businesspeople, and especially career military who claim to be "Christian." Then again, many of the big edifices amongst Christian denominations in the modern world have fallen far from the true Ministry of Christ and are lead by wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock.

So true. I personally hate hypocrites so people like this drive me nuts. If your a Christian act like it.
 
So true. I personally hate hypocrites so people like this drive me nuts. If your a Christian act like it.

I admit, judgementalism is a sin I succumb to. I understand and accept this. And I am trying of late to address it in my life. This is part of the repentance and asking, sincerely, for forgiveness and grace (undeserved grace through the Love of God) through the sacrifice of Christ. I believe one of the big flaws I see in many modern Christians is a denial of their sins, or that they are not sins, or even that their sins are righteous and justified - and even to take the "do as I say, not as I do," attitude. This is one of the paths to ruin for a Christian, but it is seen so very commonly - and is part of what is souring and tainting the view and reputation of the Christian Faith to non-Christians. And, for fear of veering into the judgemental aspect again, "hate," is not a verb one embracing the Ministry of Christ should use in regard to their own feelings, viewpoints, and opinions.
 
To make genocidal scum like Jackson undeserving of hate then you're going to have to name better "great qualities" than loyalty.

Heinrich Himmler has staunchly loyal to Adolf Hitler, after all...
 
To make genocidal scum like Jackson undeserving of hate then you're going to have to name better "great qualities" than loyalty.

Why would you call him a scum? He did what other leaders (considered great) have done and kicked no-Americans out of his country. The natives weren't exactly joining the union. They were a separate nation. (and although it's not standard anymore, in the 1800s nations still conquered each other).

Also Jackson literally took a bullet to the chest because a man insulted his wife, and then, after getting shot, went on to shoot the man in return. (Duels of honor where still a thing). Such actions take great loyalty, love, bravery, and strengh.
 
Why would you call him a scum? He did what other leaders (considered great) have done and kicked no-Americans out of his country. The natives weren't exactly joining the union. They were a separate nation. (and although it's not standard anymore, in the 1800s nations still conquered each other).

Also Jackson literally took a bullet to the chest because a man insulted his wife, and then, after getting shot, went on to shoot the man in return. (Duels of honor where still a thing). Such actions take great loyalty, love, bravery, and strengh.

I think an apt description of Jackson was made by one of his political contemporaries - John Quincy Adams during the 1828 U.S. Presidential Election, when he referred to Jackson as a "petulant military barbarian chieftain." And that is very polite, diplomatic, and gentlemanly of a thing to say of him. Given the current party's platform, candidates, viewpoints, focus, and constituents, it's very hard to imagine, casually speaking, that Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party of the United States as an electoral vehicle for his second election attempt and Congressional and State elections by his allies in 1828 (then again, on the flipside, the fact that the Republican Party of the United States was founded in 1854 largely on a platform of ending slavery and giving citizenship to African-Americans, giving free land in the west to farmers who were definitely not rich, and lack of foreign military intervention outside U.S. borders is also quite a curious political twist).
 
To make genocidal scum like Jackson undeserving of hate then you're going to have to name better "great qualities" than loyalty.
Genocidal should be defeated by guns. I would like to have Genocidal leaders in this game to I destroy they.
I like to play Civ just as War game... sorry XD.
Civ V, I basically just play as Zulu, Aztecs and Germany XD. (And all scenarios, of course!).

Shaka Zulu reigns was the Mfecane 1815-1835. The Reing of terror.
Why we cannot have more Terrible warmongers around the world?

I would like to have Robert Mugabe as Warmonger in the Zimbabwe Empire.
Bulawayo isn't more in Zulu empires, it is a city ruled by the Emperor Mugabe :lol:

Look this amazing Wafa Wafa soldier
https://web.facebook.com/ZimbabweAr...soldiers-at-play/813934995425011/?_rdc=1&_rdr

They are kind of fighting Capoeira, an Afro-Brazilian martial Art :love:.

Zimbabwe also had some unknown history in middle ages as great commercial hub, and todays Zimbabwe Dollars is trillion!
They should have gold bonus strongers then Mansa Musa!:lol::lol::lol:



Zimbabwe pack can come with some Boer-Afrikaner pack and an South African lead by Nelson Mandela.
Maybe also a Botswana first president (who was also his last king).
Amazing. We can do an amazing scenario in the corner of the Africa with 3 ethnicits and some warmonger and other peace makers.
 
Last edited:
In France, I think the Racism theory started in the early medieval age to legitimise the reigning nobility (mostly germanic people) over the enslaved people (the gallo-roman)*.
I'm not really sure where to begin with explaining how wrong this is.
Is it using 'germanic' as an ethnicity? Presenting the Gallo-Romans (assuming there was a coherent Gallo-Roman identity across social classes) as 'enslaved'? Assuming there was a clear distinction between 'germanic' people and 'Gallo-Roman' people? Saying that was where racism 'began' in France?

im confus.jpg

help

Because I have nothing better going on tonight:
1) At this stage, 'germanic' is utterly useless as an ethnicity, barely useful as a loose cultural identifier, and only really applicable in a linguistic sense.
2) The Merovignian Frankish kingdom grew out of the high concentration of Franks in the Roman field armies stationed along the Loire and the Seine. The Franks in the armies became increasingly intertwined with the goals of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy and pursued those goals against other Roman and post-Roman polities, such as the Romans and Goths of Aquitaine, the Romans and Burgundians of the Rhone Valley, the Italian and Gothic nobility in Italy, and possibly the post-Roman states in Kent. Treating the Franks as having enslaved the Gallo-Romans is Wrong with a capital W.
3) Gallo-Roman refers to a political identifier among the thoroughly Romanized aristocracy in Gaul, highlighting how the Gallic aristocracy had distinct aims and goals regarding distribution of Imperial patronage and office that placed them in frequent conflict with the Italian nobility. It was certainly not a hyphenated identity, like Irish-American.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure where to begin with explaining how wrong this is.
Is it using 'germanic' as an ethnicity? Presenting the Gallo-Romans as 'enslaved'? Saying that was where racism 'began' in France?

My apologies. Be assured: "germanic" isn't an ethnicity and racism didn't begun in France. I wanted to say that, back then, frankish people tried to legitimise their rule over the gallo-roman by saying they were superior. Ranking people about arbitrary origin, that sound kind of racist to me.

In on other hand, Feudalism was not a society of liberty for the peasantry. How would you call a society where people are treated as furniture, can't move out of the land without the permission of the lord, and have to work for free to the owner? But the condition were not harsh, contrary to the slavery later on.

But I agree I exaggerated: we neither can really talk about a "Racism Theory" in medieval age, nor that the serfs condition was as harsh as the slaves later on.

I am really open to discussion and my opinions are not set. I know that I don't have a lot of knowledge: the world is big and I don't know much about it. Tell me what you think!

Edit: I saw your edit. Yeah, I understand better. I was probably mixing things up.

But it is possible to have smooth racisms everywhere, as said Aurelesk, it is a sort of ideology, you can have full pack or just a few of it.

Well, this is my fault: I should have put what are my definitions about "race" and "racism". I found out that what I called racism was in fact racialism (lot of searching). I should have known better before I wrote a long text!

This is what I wrote:
For me, a racist is someone who believes that the human species has more than one race. The human species is basicly invasive species. It manages to inhabit all Earth in really a short time window, to the point there is not real difference between ethnicities to even consider there is more than one race. That is why I find curious the english language use the word "race" for people, and not use "ethnicity" or "origin".

A dangerous racist is someone that not only considers there is more than one race, but also try rank them to either support that some ethnicities are superior or inferior to some other ones. In past history, if someone try to separate people and rank them it is because he wanted to push toward one agenda, like invading his neighboor, legitimate his rule, support slavery or justify a genocide. Those kind of lovely stuff. Then he tries to convince people to believe that too with propaganda. Yeah, lovely stuff indeed. So that is why I am saying it is an ideology: you need to intellectualize the concept and then make the people believe it. This is not an instinctive belief.

I do believe that people who are actually racist is extremly minor. I mean, with school and internet, you have education and the ability to communicate to everyone around the globe. You need to live in a shelter with no outside influence to be that close-minded, or ignoring all influence except the one that goes in then same way.



On the other hand, I think we kind are instinctively afraid of what is "foreign". By "foreign" it can be anything, like nationality, origin, ethnicity, culture, religion, languages... Anything! (My english vocabulary is poor: by "foreign" I do not mean "foreigner" but more something uncommon of what are around you in your daily life).

Silly example : your grandma is afraid of those silly computer and don't know why you are worshipping it, and that thought scares her to the point to hate computer. But you get her a smartphone, and find out this is not all that bad, not realising she is using a computer. (This is a silly analogy, and now your grandma is calling you all the time).

Those fears tend to disappear when you experience it or face it. I mean, you can't be afraid of your coworker for two years because he is [something different]. But it all depend how you get introduced to that foreign thing/people. I don't know if this is true in the USA, but in France there is not really non-white people in rural area. You know they exist but you don't know what to expect, neither good nor bad. You always expect the worse because it is a survival instinct, but you are still open. I think the media have a huge importance: as the main way to convey information, if they are only transmitting bad news about them (robbery, murder, insurection...) but never the good one, you end up to believe that those "foreign" are bad, because you only have those informations.


@Ajidica "]I mean, everyone did that."
Not false. I am blaming my history teacher for misleading me! Yes, this is a lame excuse. But that exchange made me realise that I tend to believe the first piece of information I get without challenging it too much and how dangerous this mindset is. I will search and learn more about the subject.
 
Last edited:
My apologies. Be assured: "germanic" isn't an ethnicity and racism didn't begun in France. I wanted to say that, back then, frankish people tried to legitimise their rule over the gallo-roman by saying they were superior. Ranking people about arbitrary origin, that sound kind of racist to me.
I mean, everyone did that. Rome considered themselves superior to the 'barbarians', who were were considered at times sub-human. "We are strong, honorable, manly men; who won this kingdom because God(s) is/are on our side, making us superior to you" is literally how every polity justified their actions. If you believe the Franks were somehow more egregious in this than the neighboring Gothic, Saxon, Alemanni, or British polities, that claim requires support.
 
I mean, everyone did that. Rome considered themselves superior to the 'barbarians', who were were considered at times sub-human. "We are strong, honorable, manly men; who won this kingdom because God(s) is/are on our side, making us superior to you" is literally how every polity justified their actions. If you believe the Franks were somehow more egregious in this than the neighboring Gothic, Saxon, Alemanni, or British polities, that claim requires support.
Rome though the Germans as barbarians because the Germanic way of life.
Ethiopians, Egyptians, Persians aren't barbarian.
Wasn't a racial issue at the time, it was something else.
 
I think the Romans would care more about what gods you worship or what gross cultural taboos your tribe commits. IIRC they hated Gauls and Germans because they believed they all worshiped trees and practiced human sacrifice.
 
I think the Romans would care more about what gods you worship or what gross cultural taboos your tribe commits. IIRC they hated Gauls and Germans because they believed they all worshiped trees and practiced human sacrifice.

The Gauls sacking Rome in 387 BCE probably didn't help.
 
This is what I wrote:
For me, a racist is someone who believes that the human species has more than one race. The human species is basicly invasive species. It manages to inhabit all Earth in really a short time window, to the point there is not real difference between ethnicities to even consider there is more than one race. That is why I find curious the english language use the word "race" for people, and not use "ethnicity" or "origin".

English translations from other languages I agree can turn out weird.
One of my history professors said that there is only one race, the human race, which I do agree. This was in my Holocaust class, and I am curious to what the word would "race" would be for in German, in relation to the context that we talked about in class?

@Henri Christophe. I want to discuss what we are trying to tell you in the other forum here.

I personally don't know much about Negro Abraham, but if he can lead the Seminole, it's fine. Just because he happens to be a Black Seminole does not mean that the majority of the Seminole tribe are. As stated the Seminole tribe existed long before the escaped slaves from Africa discovered them. Only a small majority of Seminole are mixed-race, with the majority of them still living in Florida, as opposed to the ones in Oklahoma. Still it's not enough to consider them a mix-race.
 
I think the Romans would care more about what gods you worship or what gross cultural taboos your tribe commits. IIRC they hated Gauls and Germans because they believed they all worshiped trees and practiced human sacrifice.

Only until Constantine I became Emperor in 312, I believe. Then polytheism went out of fashion as fast as Hammerpants.
 
Back
Top Bottom