It is important to distinguish between so-called white skin and the value that collectives and individuals attach to so-called white skin. I believe you've done that rather well - and a bit better than the Washington Toast. After all, it is the absurd, anti-intellectual, non-scientific, patently subjective, insecurity-based affirmation of so-called "white skin" that defines 'racism' in the modern world. At a later time, it may be worth discussing how this article serves as a shoehorn for those who would argue that race is about skin color, hair texture, facial features and culture - as a means to claim Ethiopians and other eastern/northern africans as so-called "whites" without white skin. Funny stuff. Race appears to be quite a different thing - and a thing that is still seldom understood - by scientists (physical and social) and most of the rest of us. Thanks for walking the line. - The Man in Black.

LOL

"Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago.

Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development."

The discovery of the actual genetic mutation merely confirms what has been widely understood for decades. The late Senegalese scientist Cheikh Anta Diop in "The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality" (1974) makes the same basic argument for the origin for "white" skin. Diop's work was based primarily on the fossil record. He did, however, discuss the role of vitamin D absorption and sexual selection in driving the spread of the mutation in Europe. Diop, if I recall correctly, viewed the mutation as having occurred after 35,000 BCE. He also postulated the mutation occurred in a single, isolated population, rather than a single individual. And he argued the affected population entered Europe during a warming phase before the end of the last glacial epoch (Wurm). The return of colder weather, according to Diop, led to the isolation of the affected population and to the genetic mutation that facilitated vitamin D absorption.

Again, nothing new here except the identification of the specific gene involved. All modern humans, regardless of their phenotypic (outward physical) characteristics, are descendants of African populations who left the continent and populated the globe circa 35,000-50,000 BCE. Yet this widely known scientific fact has done little or nothing to mitigate the negative impact of the social construction of race or the existential reality of antiblack racism.

It is well and good that we now have the 'scientific origins' of white and black skins. But the problem as it I see it is that for the last  two millenniun it, skin color, has been used as the basis of the repression/opression/exploitation of Blacks and others. Which is what 'OURHX' says in effect, in his last sentence.

  I argue, in light of the recent advances in the Human Genone project, that the shrinking earth's resources, the ever expanding human population, and the spreading of ' the gospel of free markets   or consumer driven manic societies, is unsustainable. That, in effect, something is going to give" or the mighty earth is about to reach its breaking point. 

Which brings me to my notion that Frances Cress-Welsing's theory of "genetic survivial" being the sole basis of the white collective psyche, irregardless of one's political stripe, joins together in the seeming robotic manesfestation of Black oppression,  to name one group, must be revisited or re-thought about again, seriously. Obviously, the marginalization of Blacks in the west has taken a peculiar twist, in light of the emergence of the Asian (Indian and China) economies and peoples. Therefore, ethnic derived genetic discoveries and those in possession of them, will create a new weapon for human management. As I understand it, there is only so much oil in the ground, platinun, diamonds, tin, bauxite, and gold in the earth, so much fish in the sea, and so much drinkable water, resulatanly, there are converging ill-realities that makes one shutter. But the point is to be prepared in all aspects because real survival is at stake.

So the difference is just our skin? So there is no other differences in facial structure , muscle tissue , hormone production , brain structure and Europeans and africans dont need different heart disease medicine? Thats great , but one trivial , little , minor mutation is not what makes white people white.

“The difference between the races REALLY IS just skin deep. Geneticists have been saying this for years, but they have finally pinpointed the difference”

Not all of them. And if they have been saying this for years but have only now come up with “proof” does that mean they came to a conclusion based on something other than scientific evidence? Maybe it feels good to deny differences.

We are also extremely similar 95 % or there abouts to chimpanzees. This shows that minor genetic variations account for huge actual differences . Unless we are the same as chimpanzees the only difference is skin color?

More “out of africa” religious tracts say that we are just mutant blacks but any 1 year old child can see we are not the same. If only 50,000 years ago the mutants came north from africa why do we constantly find stone age artifacts from 200,000 years ago and even older?

Another anti-white agenda driven story serving to ease the shrinking white populations into accepting the inexcorable march to extinction in the name of compassion to other races. You must be a racist if you don’t facilitate the take over of your own nations and homelands by other races.

After all there is absolutely no difference between a Norwegian and a Hottentott….

 So the difference is just our skin?

No. You're obviously ignorant. I'm not.

Oh, are you talking collectively? Are you not an individual, like all the other white folks?

So there is no other differences in facial structure , muscle tissue , hormone production , brain structure

None. There's white folks with broad noses, Black folks with thin lips...and the kind of difference you imply doesn't exists anyway.

Europeans and africans dont need different heart disease medicine?

Nope. BiDil is a combination of drugs that were known to be effective across the board.

Thats great , but one trivial , little , minor mutation is not what makes white people white.

True. It's attitudes like yours that make people with less melanin per square inch than the worldwide average "white."

Toldja racists would lose their mind...

"If only 50,000 years ago the mutants came north from africa why do we constantly find stone age artifacts from 200,000 years ago and even older?"

LOL. You would think a Neanderthal like "Erich the whiteboy" could answer his own stupid question about what was happening in Europe 200k years ago. 

Isn't he precious .... what about hormone production? .... muscle tissue? .... brain structure? Guess he musta forgot all about ... penis size. Poor thing showed up on P6's doorstep clinging to the pigment of his imagination only to have his shit carved up like turkey meat on pilgrim's day.

As P6 sagely pointed out, ignorance is the primary mutation that separates racists from the rest of humanity. But with all that whiteness on his brain, it's not surprising such a distinction eludes the mental grasp of Erich the whiteboy.

We are also extremely similar 95 % or there abouts to chimpanzees.

But apparently a few fall considerably shorter.

If Black folk have been subject to discrimination, based on skin color, for two millenia, I've really missed something. Hell, in my book, white folks just got the skills to impose their will in the last 170-220 years or so. Before that, I seem to have missed the slam dunks and imposition of will. White historians may have written it up that way, but the historical record seems not to support such delusions of grandeur. Maybe we should revisit this.

Or more simply, which Europeans have imposed their will on which Africans for two millenia? Yikes. You'd be hard pressed to have this conversation in the 1700's. The transatlantic slave trade was not a unilateral imposition of force at this juncture. The gunpoint relations of today are a byproduct, arguably, of motive factors that emerged in the 1400s, but white folks didn't do a power walk across the continent until fairly recently.

Hey P6, you're a real democratic dude. You posted that cat ETW. Nice job. Who says the blacks are runnin' all the white chicks and eatin' up all the cyberspace? You're all about sharing - the cyberspace, anyway! Alright, enough on that. I hope I didn't any of your sensitive readers...it's bad form. I'll go back to behaving after the full moon recedes.

I don't think our visitors were incensed by your comments.

It was this post that did it...because I also posted it as a comment on the blog that offended me. People don't like getting busted by their own words in their own space.

T3, Some folks, purists black nationalist, for example, suggest that the 'race' issue, in some respect, really began with Jesus, if you consider him a brutha as per biblical description of him and his travails. I have a book entitled ,in effect, "The depiction of Blacks in Western Cilivilzation" written by a dutch man which details the accounts of Black and white 'raciai' interactions for at least 1500 years back and they definitely had a hostilie aspect to them then. So the 150-200 year look back is truly not enough. Moreover, if one was to examine Columbus's racial baggage will take you back to 400 years or more and the division of the continent by the Pope between the Portugese and Spanish. Or was that the English?

Some folks, purists black nationalist, for example, suggest that the 'race' issue, in some respect, really began with Jesus, if you consider him a brutha as per biblical description of him and his travails.

In general, I have no beef with people believing what they must to fortify their spirit. Here, I have to point out this particular belief as an example of the "militant assimilationism" cnulan mentioned.

I have a book entitled ,in effect, "The depiction of Blacks in Western Cilivilzation" written by a dutch man which details the accounts of Black and white 'raciai' interactions for at least 1500 years back and they definitely had a hostilie aspect to them then.

So did Franco-German relations. And the facts are equally significant.

There was disputation, not dominance. 

I don't doubt there was a bias, but back in those days Europeans were not simply imposing their will on Africans. They may have negotiated deals with one group of Africans who could impose their will on another group, but it's not clear that a white force dynamic is a useful rubric for reviewing our history looking back into the 1700's and earlier.

Take Jesus' example. Did the Romans kill him because he was black OR did the Jews hand him over because he (like Akhenaton before him) was talking some shit they didn't want to hear? As to matter of his actual or alleged death, that's for another time. I would like to hear more about your perspective on this.

I don't embrace my position lightly - nor am I wedded to it...I've read Chancellor Williams and Diop and Jackson and JHC and DDHuston and the others - but I've also read the first hand accounts of European travelers who had no such notions of racial superiority upon arriving in Africa. They were overwhelmed at the level of civilization they saw in many places. I've also read the first hand military accounts that describe enormous African fighting units (male and female) that were capable of fighting and defeating Europeans for centuries at a time. Europeans did not conquer Africa principally through physical force...prior to the development of the mounting repeating gun (I forget the name) they were taking L's in lots of places.

Columbus may have had baggage, but the manner in which the Spanish secured slave labor from Africa does not support your argument. In fact, I believe the inability of the Spanish to establish a toehold on the continent - combined with the inability to evict the Moors for 7 centuries supports my primary contention. As I said, I am exploring this line of thought. I certainly welcome a contrasting opinion. I will be greatly appreciative of specific references that can enrich our dialogue.

I don't argue that white folks have gone on record as being oppositional...I have read, however, numerous accounts where the initial reaction was positive, rather than negative. I do argue that Europeans did not do a power march across the continent until recently. They lacked the technology to physical dominate the center and significant portions of the continent. They could isolate the continent...but that isolation was the result of several historical factors that had little to do with Europeans, per se.

Let's see where this takes us.

Let's start with this:

From Basil Davidson's Africa in History (pg. 238):

"Facts about the Asante Union begin to become available around 1700, thanks largely to the survival of records made by the English and Dutch traiding companies along the Gold Coast. Putting these together with Asante tradition, it seems clear that Osei Tutu died at an advanced age in about 1712, having completed the forging of Asante groups into a nation and successfully thrown off the overlordship of Denkyira. Under Opoko Ware (1720-1750) and his successors, Asante became the greatest power in the central forestlands, dominating an area as large or even larger than modern Ghana, and trading extensively with the Western Sudan as well as with the Dutch at Elmina and the English at Cape Coast. Only with the reign of Osei Tutu Kwawe (c. 1801-24) did the European element enter in any large degree into Asante strategy and foreign policy. But with the second half of the nineteenth century, this European element came gradually to overshadow the future and led, eventually, to British conquest."

Remember, my central point is not that white folks did not have a white supremacist value system. I don't really care about that. My point is simply they couldn't impose their will with force until relatively recently. And, in the broader scheme of things, this is a very, very, very small moment in our history. Imagine, if you will, having a sense of cultural connection that stretches back 1000 years (this is not uncommon in many parts of the world), and facing an enemy that only recently was able to defeat you on the field of battle - after fighting more or less for three or four centuries...In the last fifty years, you created conditions that forced this enemy from your land, but has not ended their domination. So, you're dealing with "neo-colonialism," and it's hardly the end of the world. It's a phase. And, this too shall pass.

"Remember, my central point is not that white folks did not have a white supremacist value system. I don't really care about that. My point is simply they couldn't impose their will with force until relatively recently."

There you go. That's EXACTLY where I was headed. Thank you sir.

O -

I believe that we have a totally skewed approach to white folks based on a collective misunderstanding about how things went down. Moreover, one recurring question about African unity assumes a much greater imposition of hegemony than is supported by the historical record. In other words, are Africans really "disunited" or are we simply responding to the MOST significant operative factors in our collective histories? I don't think much of this occurs at a conscious level. I think it's deeper. It's almost as if our metaphysics is instructing us that white folks are not nearly as important or relavent as they would have the world believe. Knowumsayin. I need to flesh this out some more, but I really think we could make tremendous strides if we were able to put our conflict with white folks and others (especially arabs) into an appropriate historical context. It seems to me that "white supremacy" as concept is a completely coherent/consistent system of displaced ideological inferiority. In other words, the protestant work ethic lies astride the need for slave labor to build an economy; the 'grandeur' of western civilization is literally erected upon a kemetic foundation; the greatest modern paradigm of the greek principle of democracy is a slaveocracy that does not have a representative voting system; mythical white claims of physical superiority in the boxing ring couldn't stand the light of day - and have since been displaced by notions linking physical superiority and intellectual inferiority; mythical white claims of intellectual superiority have been dashed on the rocks of a white exodus from top tier academic schools in California and the flagging performance of white boys (trailing African girls) in England. Similarly, the claims of preponderant military strength and technological prowess do not comport with the historical record. One lie begets another, as surely as one murder begets another. Interestingly, their time has been short - and it's almost up. Tick-tock.

T3 as noted in Bryd and Clayton's work, "An American Health Delimma; A Medical History of African Americans and the Problems of Race," they note on page 175..... " Plato, Aristotle and Galen, pillars of Classical Greek Medical tradition transmitted prejudicial material, and some clearly racist, in the corpus of their work."
On page 72 they note ".... in light of the Roman context that produced the fundamental racist ideas of Julian of Apostate and Galen the physician...Arab writers, especially the physicians who wrote manuels on the slave trade...as specified by Galen."
On page 69, the authors write that " during this period of greek society the majority Blacks were either slaves or servants." This period 500 BC to 250 BC.
As far as Jesus and his death, he's in the class of Martin, Malcom, David Walker, Marcus, etc. I hope this enlightens the discussion some.I believe
Muhamad founded Islam in around 500 AD orthere abouts.

Okay, GDAWG, I stipulate.

Now what?  

For me, the most important thing for our folks, at this point in history is to figure how to stay relelvant and alive. I mean folkswant to think that our slalvement i the west occur uin a historical vacuum. That is as though these folks just thought the notion of African Based Slavery withhout any classical antecedants. Now we must now inculcate this knowledege internally and figure out how to counteract the almost assured development of ethnic based weapons. That is, with the discovery of genes to determine one's skin pigmentation, among other ethnic specific genes, sleeper viruses can now be created to induced "apoptosis" or 'cellular suicide' at some previously programed point, equaling a planned genocide of untold porportions. It is common practice among alot of negroes in " the sceinces" to reflexively respond to these monumental genetic discoverities that " we are all basically brothers ...and race don't mean nuthin." AND THEY ARE WRONG. Ethnicity and race has always meant something, at least, in the western world, as has been shown by the historical record, as it relates to this discussion. Therefore, to it ignore it, is to do so at one's peril, at this point in history. And what are you stipulating? I figured you, perhaps, would have capitulated!!!!

I figured you, perhaps, would have capitulated!!!!

You're out yer fuggin' mind. 

LOL,LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But really, I ain't jokin!!!!!!!!!

That is, with the discovery of genes to determine one's skin pigmentation, among other ethnic specific genes, sleeper viruses can now be created to induced "apoptosis" or 'cellular suicide' at some previously programed point .

And how is that done? Especially since no other "ethnic-specific" genes have been found? No hip-hop gene, no Mexican hat dance gene...

Ethnicity and race has always meant something, at least, in the western world, as has been shown by the historical record, as it relates to this discussion.

But nothing like the significance you give it.

You need to understand the race relations in the USofA prior to the institution of chattel slavery.

LOL,LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But really, I ain't jokin!!!!!!!!!

Neither am I. 

Actually there other genes such as the gene for "white" skin that was mentioned in the piece we are blogging about now. There is a gene mutation that gives some whites immunity to HIV, There are genes that allow Asians their phylogeny. South Asians or Indians have a genetic condtiton to enhances HIV infection in them. The is the DUffy gene in Blacks that's, in part, responsible for sickle cell phenomenon. There is an international consortium studying the genetic makeup of 5 major ethnic groups on earth called the HapMap Project. Man these folks ain't BS...ing I could go on but.....

Here's my problem with your speculation: white supremacy seek the dominance, not the destruction, of the lesser castes.

By the way, a number of prostitutes in Nairobi show a genetic immunity to AIDS. This has been known since the mid-nineties.

In a prostitution career that has followed the terrible arc of the AIDS pandemic in Africa, Kokutona has never been infected, despite thousands of episodes of unprotected intercourse.

The natural resistance displayed by Kokutona, 42, was also documented in more than 100 other Nairobi prostitutes. By studying their blood, scientists in England and Kenya have concocted the first experimental vaccine expressly intended for Africa -- and at least a hope for safeguarding the lives of the 95 percent of Africans not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS.

The first, most tentative phase of clinical trials now underway in Kenya shows promise. In Nairobi residents who are considered at low risk of contracting HIV, the vaccine appears to stimulate the same immunologic response seen so strikingly in the sex workers: elevated levels of a component of the human immune system known as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte cells, the "killer T-cells" that fight the virus most effectively.

It's as rare as it is among white folks, but just as present.

Sickle cell anemia is well known among Sicilians as well. 

Sickle cell anemia and S-thalassemia in Sicilian children

Giovanna Russo and Gino Schiliro

Division of pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common genetic abnormality that afflicts people of African ancestry and it is the most frequent hemoglobinopathy in Italy. It is defined as a clinical abnormality due to the presence of only HbS (b ^{s b s}) within the red cells, of HbS and another abnormal haemoglobin (b ^{S b other Hb}), or of HbS with b -thalassaemia (b ^{Sb th}).

The point being there's just been too much race mixing to allow for straightforward targeting of folks.

Follow up reports on the prostitutes in nairobi noted that all of the women eventually developed HIV/AIDS, especially after a time period. Note the article you quote is from 2001. The HIV protective CCR5 gene mutation is only evident in Europeans. For others, like Africans or Asians, there are mutations but they only delay the onset of AIDS, they do not actually prevent the infection as is the case for Europeans. As to the sickle cell matter, things, genetically, have moved far beyond this reality of demographics. I understand that this stuff is not exactly what alot a folks want hear. But I like the work of Professor Ani and her wonderful book, Yurugu, where she talks about the "cultural other" in european intellectual thought and polity, that actually makes genocidal actions against those whom seem as the other, not such a chilling moral delimma. Therefore..........

Follow up reports on the prostitutes in nairobi noted that all of the women eventually developed HIV/AIDS, especially after a time period.

A pathogen with the mutation rate of AIDS will eventually get you when you have as high an exposure rate as a prostitute in Nairobi.

But I like the work of Professor Ani and her wonderful book, Yurugu, where she talks about the "cultural other" in european intellectual thought and polity, that actually makes genocidal actions against those whom seem as the other, not such a chilling moral delimma.

I'm sure. But it's an socio-economic dilemma, not a moral one. The lower classes are necessary to free the upper classes for higher, more cerebral activities, don't you know.

Again, I have few issues with whatever belief motivates you to action. But I don't do fear...it's unnecessary. It's distracting, in fact. SO you really can't ever expect me to promote a fearful view.

Okay.

That was an interesting convo. G - with respect to the legacies of Plato, Aristotle and Galen, it doesn't change my point. In fact, I would agree there were patterns of ethno-centrism in Greek (and Roman) writers...that's not really my point. Take it to the level of military force. Where did Alexander choose not to go in all his conquering? You know, as do I. So, Plato, Aristotle and Galen could write opinions that carried as much military significance as my writings about Bush or Cheney or the Carlyle Group and Frank Carlucci. The ethnocentrism of the Arabs was also extended to the Persians in Iran with genocidal consequences. I'll stick to my point, white folk didn't impose their will principally through force until recently...they've held ethnocentric/racist views for a long time - without the power of force.

Moreover, with respect to the enslavement of black folk in antiquity, I am positive you'll find more slaves of European and Asian ancestry than of African ancestry in the Greco-Roman world. In addition, the willingness of Europeans to sell one another to Muslim nations during the Middle Ages was so prominent as to draw the ire of the papacy. So, there is more to this than meets the eye. The quotes, incidentally, are not so illuminating because they must also be viewed along with the complimentary/neutral writings of folks like Herodotus and others. This is not to say there is a balanced perspective - rather, there were many sides from which Africa was addressed. Some authors clearly, and simply, stated their indebtedness.

I guess my ultimate point is that the brutal enslavement of Africans did not occur in an historical vacuum. That there were multiple antecedants that just happen to coalesce at the historical point and time of note.
Further it wasn't solely European military might that the modern era of chattel slavery. As my late friend Samori Marksman useto say," unless white men were versions of supermen, they obviously had help in the enslavement pocess in Africa. " That is, no manner of military might could protect Europeans from malaria and other tropical illnesses. Therefore, they needed some other method of rendering slaves from the inner reaches of the continent. Solution: Other Africans, who had no qualms of turning over their kit and kin, enemies or war captives, until it evolved into a perverse industry there. So I don't simply dwell on European culpability, I'm inclusive in this regard. And what Europeans did to each other is instructive in a lot of respects, for it gives one an aspect of their nature. In all honesty however, I'm not a fanatic with regards to European writers to the extent where I can debate with you who merits what 'platitutes' as it relates to who was for us, and who was aganist us. I seek out justification for my reasonings and deal with them on that basis.
And BTW, most quotes are not illuminating until one reads the actual text in question. But you wanted reference material that informs my view, I gave it to you.

Examples of "The Father of History" Herodotus's 'balanced and complimentary writings'
****..."created the sociocultural and intellectual mileu for early antecedents of science and sceintific racism to thrive."
****...many went on to cheerfully believe, with Herodotus, that... slaves were inferior beings.... by nature..."

*** "Historians such a Herodotus ...sowed the seeds of racial prejudice for black and white images for centuries to come by saying that... " Africans were barbarians and that Libyians speech sounded like the shrieking of Bats rather than that of men."
Roman and greek military exploits are well documented,thereforethey hadthe power to carry out their twisted and self-serving notions of men and nations..

Upthread, T3 raised the following provocative question which prompted the enclosed comment:

"I believe that we have a totally skewed approach to white folks based on a collective misunderstanding about how things went down. Moreover, one recurring question about African unity assumes a much greater imposition of hegemony than is supported by the historical record. In other words, are Africans really "disunited" or are we simply responding to the MOST significant operative factors in our collective histories?"

We are “disunited” because it is our common and typical historical experience. Africa is home to the most diverse human societies found on the planet. Black “unity”-- to the extent to which it has existed in the past and currently exists—evolved in response “to the MOST significant operative factors in our collective histories:” slavery and antiblack racism. Slavery and racial oppression contributed as much to our collective identity in the West as our historical ancestral ties to the African continent, just as colonialism has fostered a collective identity and experience among Africans on the continent.

I say this despite arguments put forth by a number of black scholars asserting the view that African societies enjoyed some kind of cultural unity prior to the slave trade and its socially disruptive and destructive impact. I consider that to be a romanticized view of the African past. This is not to say that diverse African ethnic groups didn't share certain values, belief systems, or cultural traditions. It is instead an argument against the totalizing and homogenizing of African experience and existence. To see all Africans as sharing a singular cultural identity perpetuates the fallacy of essentialist differences by converting imagined ethnic archetypes and stereotypes into the virtual human prototypes (i.e., black African or white European) that ultimately serve as substitutes for complex socio-historical identities. Lumping us all together in one "cultural boat" also obscures important socio-historical differences that Arabs and Europeans have successfully exploited for centuries, differences that often have impeded black partisan liberation movements and struggles.

So, as I see it, black unity was born out of our common experience of racial oppression. Racial oppression brought together the diverse ethnicities that created Afro-Latino, Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Brazilian, and African-American cultures, and all the combinations and variations thereof that form and inform the African Diaspora. In this sense, black unity has been reactive rather than proactive. It developed as self-defense and survival mechanism in response to racial oppression and exploitation, rather than from historical precedents that predated the Arab and European slave trades. IMO black partisanship efforts must keep these facts in mind, and must be organized around defeating antiblack racism rather than attempting to foster a monocultural black perspective as the means to establishing a viable collective. This is an argument for a multicultural African nationalism that recognizes, accepts and celebrates our diversity as we focus on strategies and tactics to challenge and confront our common oppressors.

Ourstorian, Now you're talking buddy!!! I concur with your analysis completely!

As do I.

"I believe that we have a totally skewed approach to white folks based on a collective misunderstanding about how things went down."

Remembering we're dealing with People of the Word here, how do you feel about teaching the mechanics of it without ever mentioning the word "oppression"?

I don't understand the question P6. What is it about the word "oppression" that is problematic?

Or this:

"With respect to the Egyptians themselves, it is to be remarked
that those who live in the corn country, devoting themselves, as
they do, far more than any other people in the world, to the
preservation of the memory of past actions, are the best skilled in
history of any men that I have ever met. The following is the mode
of life habitual to them:- For three successive days in each month
they purge the body by means of emetics and clysters, which is done
out of a regard for their health, since they have a persuasion that
every disease to which men are liable is occasioned by the
substances whereon they feed. Apart from any such precautions, they
are, I believe, next to the Libyans, the healthiest people in the
world- an effect of their climate, in my opinion, which has no
sudden changes."

Or this:

"Still the Egyptians said that they believed the
Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own
conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are
black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but
little, since several other nations are so too; but further and more
especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and
the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision
from the earliest times."

I could send more, but again, it's not the point since we don't have a fundamental disagreement with one another. Simply, I've provided these quotes to demonstrate there was a broader sentiment about "race" and color than has generally survived through the annals of what today's white folks need to promulgate. In antiquity, white folks were always face to face with black genius - as well as the rest of the gamut of performance. To that end, there could be no singular expression of contempt. Admiration, and neutral characterizations, were also part of the mix.

O:

The problem with the word "oppression" is you first have to convince people they are oppressed...and you know how difficult that is. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to just teach folks what works better. 

P6, I agree that it's probably easier to deal with the "mechanics" rather than the semantics. But I'm a stickler for putting things in context. My approach, however, is by no means the only way. And the pragmatist in me says we need to use whatever methods available to produce the desired results.

And the pragmatist in me says we need to use whatever methods available to produce the desired results.

Agreed, totally. Fact is, there's a number of folks that NEED the semantics. For instance, I know a number of folks to whom Yurugu was an important jumping-off point. I, on the other hand, got to pretty much my present understanding of things before learning the book existed.

That's why I asked instead of suggested...that's why, though I won't be discussing Yurugu personally, I'll stand right beside GDAWG and make sure there's room for discussion of it. 

T3's quotes from Herodotus above illustrate the problems of "presentism" when it comes to the study of racism.

Many of the European "thinkers" who laid the intellectual foundation for white supremacist ideology and scientific racism in the 17th and 18th centuries tried to find support for modern antiblack racism in the texts of ancient writers, particularly the works of Aristotle. But as St. Clair Drake, Frank Snowden, Ivan Hannaford and other noted scholars have pointed out, racism did not exist in the ancient world. In fact, race has never been a "universal" idea, not even in the West. Hume, Hegel, Herder and other European writers who engaged in this form of presentism (projecting antiblack racism back into antiquity) were attempting to create a pedigree for their own racist thinking. They used examples of ancient xenophobia or ethnic prejudice to make their case. But xenophobia and prejudice do not equate to racism. Racism is grounded in pseudo-scientific notions that phenotypic characteristics denote innate differences in the intellect and character of various human groups. It is supported by a system of taxonomic classification that ranks and categorizes human groups in a hierarchy with whites at the apex and blacks at the base. The evolution of this idea can be traced to modern Europe. The word "race," meaning a nation or group of people, does not even appear in European languages until the late middle ages (15th century?). There are no Greek or Latin antecedents for the term or the concept.

 Ourstorian, as I pointed out earlier, The Physician Galen and Herodotus, among others, during the period of 500-250BC, actually laid out the ground work for  "racial" hierarchies. Modern racists use therefore their reasoning/observation from then to obviously justify the then modern version western dominated African enslavement. So the anti-Black hatred these Classical thinkers reflected clearly was the antecedents to Chirstian Era doctrine of Dehumanization of Africans, among others.

I think this may be where we part company. I don't think it's a significant departure, but I do believe it is a split, nonetheless. I don't know where your quotes came from up above, G, but they sound like Aristotle much more than Herodotus. You may recall that Bernal, among others, devotes extensive sections of his book to the modern thrashing of Herodotus precisely because he matter-of-factly proclaimed the blackness, greatness and antiquity of the Egyptians. The German scholars of the 17th-19th centuries generally took their inspiration from Aristotle and the Romans to a much greater extent than they did from the early Greeks. If you could find the source of the quote on Herodotus that you used, that would be much appreciated. To quote from Dre, Snoop and Devin, "I don't love these hoes," but I'd hate to see a dead guy get a wrap he does not deserve - especially when his writings are a) widely available and b) clear about the legacy of nations led by black folk.

It's difficult to imagine white folks carrying an anti-black bias through the middle ages when they were backwards as hell and the closest black folk to them were hardly backward. The Moors dominated Spain for 7 centuries. Spain was the most "civilized" nation in Europe during that time. In addition, as I've stated previously, European sailors in the 1400 and 1500's, by and large, were not on a supremacy tip in writing and reporting their first sightings in Africa. They were impressed and often overwhelmed by the wealth, organization and beauty of the African cities and states they visited.

In addition, Africans were brought to the Americas precisely for their technical acumen in the realms of agriculture and metal work, among other things. The need for a justification is a modern phenomenon. I would agree with O that the ethnocentrism of antiquity hardly qualifies. Given that the Egyptians were just as ethnocentric, if not more so, little should be made of this practice in antiquity.

GDAWG, I am familiar with the quotes from Galen to which you are referring. Arab writers often used Galen to support their own notions of black inferiority. BTW, Galen lived from 131 - 201 CE.

I can't think of any such quotes by Herodotus, or instances where either suggests a hierarchical arrangement of human groups. Could you cite examples?

Yes. See Bryd asnd Clayton's work of which I quoted above. They outline the antiblack sentiment these folks practice or wrote very clearly, from the socalled classical era to now, in two volumes. They used, however, a medical perspective as context, being that they both are physicians thwemselves. (eg., Galen, Herodotus, et, al.) Their work is published by Rutledge Press of NYC.

Or this:

"Psammetichus left a son called Necos, who succeeded him upon the throne. This prince was the first to attempt the construction of the canal to the Red Sea- a work completed afterwards by Darius the Persian- the length of which is four days' journey, and the width such as to admit of two triremes being rowed along it abreast. The water is derived from the Nile, which the canal leaves a little above the city of Bubastis, near Patumus, the Arabian town, being continued thence until it joins the Red Sea. At first it is carried along the Arabian side of the Egyptian plain, as far as the chain of hills opposite Memphis, whereby the plain is bounded, and in which lie the great stone quarries; here it skirts the base of the hills running in a direction from west to east, after which it turns and enters a narrow pass, trending southwards from this point until it enters the Arabian Gulf. From the northern sea to that which is called the southern or Erythraean, the shortest and quickest passage, which is from Mount Casius, the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Gulf of Arabia, is a distance of exactly one thousand furlongs. But the way by the canal is very much longer on account of the crookedness of its course. A hundred and twenty thousand of the Egyptians, employed upon the work in the reign of Necos, lost their lives in making the excavation. He at length desisted from his undertaking, in consequence of an oracle which warned him "that he was labouring for the barbarian." The Egyptians call by the name of barbarians all such as speak a language different from their own."

This, taken from Herodotus' work, suggests the broader ethnocentrism referenced above. At this point, I suppose, I actually like to see such a reference directly attributed to Herodotus. As yet, quotes have been attributed to others. If ya got one, pass it on. Otherwise, the point is duly noted re: Galen - and certainly understood re: Aristotle.

Herodotus's birth: 5th century BC, or, more specifically, 484BC in Asia Minor / Turkey.

The following lengthy quotation is taken from the introduction of a book by Benjamin Isaac: "The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity" (2004). The author chose a title that is provocative but misleading. In fact, Isaac goes to great lengths to point out that racism, as we understand it in the modern world, did not exist in antiquity. What his work is really about is investigating and documenting examples of proto-racism that can be found in antiquity and then tracing its influences on the development of modern racism. While I have problems with some of his conclusions, on a whole I find his analysis thoughtful, comprehensive and well-informed. His is clearly the most recent detailed study of the subject that I am aware of.

It may be useful to note once again what we should and should not be looking for in Greece and Rome. Greek and Roman antiquity did not know the sort of racism that western civilization developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, since they had no concept of biological determinism. There was no nationalism in the modern sense in the Graeco-Roman world, nor was there any concept that a specific ethnic group should live within defined borders. What the ancient world did have was a range of prejudices, phobias, and hostilities towards specific groups of foreigners and it is the aim of this part of the work to understand these better than has been attempted so far. Clearly, racism is not a way of looking at people based on genuine scientific observation of their physical and mental qualities. It is a construct of ungrounded theories and discriminatory commonplaces elaborated with the specific aim of establishing the superiority of one group over another, based on presumed physiological characteristics.

What we should consider, therefore, is the degree to which antiquity knew such a phenomenon, even if it lacked the biological elements of modern racism. The question to be considered is what are the explanations given in ancient literature for the presumed superiority or inferiority of specific groups. If these consist of theories regarding heredity or unalterable exterior influences, it is possible to speak of proto-racism. If the assumed causes of qualitative differences are human actions or social relations within people's own control, then we should speak of ethnic or group prejudice. In other words, if we find that a people is described as having the mentality of slaves because they are ruled by a king, then this is not racism, but ethnic prejudice. If, however, we read that people are stupid and courageous because they live in a cold climate, then it can be argued that this is a form of proto-racism, since there is an implicit assumption that these people are stupid through physical factors beyond their control. Their descendants will remain stupid, because the climate of their country will not change and thus their bodies will remain the same. Moreover, each individual belonging to such people will be assumed to have the characteristics ascribed to his group, whether inherited, or caused by the environment. This is to the point because, as we shall see, the distinction between heredity and characteristics acquired through external influences was not considered significant in Graeco-Roman antiquity. According to ancient thinking, external influences could alter physical and mental characteristics--such as the southern sun which turns white people into blacks--and these subsequently became stable and were inherited. Furthermore, if we read that people are superior because they are of pure lineage, then this is an imagined construct aimed at establishing superiority on the basis of heredity. Such theories can be qualified as an early form of racism. The term proto-racism, then, may be used when Greek and Latin sources attribute to groups of people common characteristics considered to be unalterable because they are determined by external factors or heredity.