Chaos is a ladder

[Tamas]

You have a point about thinking our current concept of the world has been a constant since eternity, however I think some people over-compensate it by thinking times before modern racism and nationalism were somehow more tolerant.

My favourite illustriation about this was hearing a Hungarian historian of the Ottomans getting upset when an interviewer mentioned how Ottomans were more tolerant of various Christian denominations than the Austrians. He said: "well of course, everyone was equally a slave".

[Eddie Teach]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

Rome didn't care particularly about the ethnicity of its citizens, as I understand it.

Though that only happened under the empire, the citizenry did not enjoy losing their privileges and resisted expansion throughout the Republic.

[Josquius]

You have a point about thinking our current concept of the world has been a constant since eternity, however I think some people over-compensate it by thinking times before modern racism and nationalism were somehow more tolerant.

My favourite illustriation about this was hearing a Hungarian historian of the Ottomans getting upset when an interviewer mentioned how Ottomans were more tolerant of various Christian denominations than the Austrians. He said: "well of course, everyone was equally a slave".

Honestly can't say I've ran into people who think the past was super tolerant. And the Ottomans were more tolerant when it came to different sorts of Christian right? I'd put myself against the historian here characterising people as slaves...the Ottomans certainly have their fanboys who drastically overstate how great and tolerant they were. But from what I gather as far as religious freedom goes they were probably the best in Europe.
Wasn't it the Ottomans who actively discouraged conversion to Islam as this meant more taxes?

But yes. The past wasn't lovely and super tolerant. Rather we found different things to be intolerant about.
For a much longer period than we've cared about language or race, religion was the key one. Though that of course is solidly a Christian (well, Jewish) innovation.
That is a thought- in the ancient world what was the primary method of being a dick?- my instinct tells me it might well sort of loop back a bit and be around 'culture'- not race, but having the accepted cultural norms.
With the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese at least this was the way.

[garbon]

Basically every pre 19th century empire didn't care about ethnicity.
It's another discussion we've had lately. This idea that all our traditions have existed since forever but are actually less than 200 years old.
Getting so hung up on race and nationality is a key one of these.

One of the few examples that does come to mind further back would be the Qing who had pretty strict segregation policies in place....but even there it was more about bannerman status than race, there were han bannermen too.

Slavery of Africans in European countries or their colonies was in place long before the 19th century and long after it was legal for them to keep white people as slaves.

And this led to the development of the concept of black and white people as we know it.
Africans weren't enslaved because Europeans were racist against black people.
Rather Europeans developed racism against black people because Africans were enslaved.
The Africans not being Christian was the key factor.

Yes. This development largely took place between the 16th and 18th centuries. But then key to it was slaves being regarded as outside of the general population. It wasn't really until the 19th century that modern conceptions of nation really became firm.

Empires didn't care about ethnicity until the 19th century though 16th to 18th century was the develipmwnt of them caring?

[Josquius]

Empires didn't care about ethnicity until the 19th century though 16th to 18th century was the develipmwnt of them caring?

Yes?
Ideas rarely just appear and take control fully formed out of nowhere.
Also that was talking about slavery and white/black race rather than nationalism, though this did follow a similar timeline.

[grumbler]

The key factor in the development of the European view of Africans as inferior was the need for labor in the New World, especially on the sugar plantations.  The natives had largely died off because they were vulnerable to European diseases, Europeans couldn't survive the climate and tropical diseases, so what you had left were Africans, who could better withstand both European and tropical diseases. Conditions in the 16th Century Caribbean were pretty horrific, so there were no African volunteers (they tried that) and instead the planters just kidnapped their labor.  That was "unchristian" if the captives were regular Christians, so the planter class made Africans to be inferiors who could never really comprehend Christianity or "civilized" values.  That allowed them to be treated like shit.  All of this happened long before the invention of the automobile (or the 19th C).

[garbon]

The key factor in the development of the European view of Africans as inferior was the need for labor in the New World, especially on the sugar plantations.  The natives had largely died off because they were vulnerable to European diseases, Europeans couldn't survive the climate and tropical diseases, so what you had left were Africans, who could better withstand both European and tropical diseases. Conditions in the 16th Century Caribbean were pretty horrific, so there were no African volunteers (they tried that) and instead the planters just kidnapped their labor.  That was "unchristian" if the captives were regular Christians, so the planter class made Africans to be inferiors who could never really comprehend Christianity or "civilized" values.  That allowed them to be treated like shit.  All of this happened long before the invention of the automobile (or the 19th C).

[Oexmelin]

Not that long before the 19th century. In fact, certainly not completed before the 19th century. Abolitionism, by emphasizing the humanity of the slave, radicalized thoughts of African intrinsic inferiority among defenders of slavery. The Enlightenment's, and subsequent 19th c.'s interest in heredity (and later genetics), much of which fueled by a mix of the practice of husbandry, slavery, and imperial expansion, then coalesced into scientific racism.

[Jacob]

Whatever the exact dates, the point remains though that modern "scientific" racism that posited black people as "inferior" was developed to justify the economic needs of the Caribbean and Southern US plantation classes; and didn't really exist prior to those needs - right?

[garbon]

Whatever the exact dates, the point remains though that modern "scientific" racism that posited black people as "inferior" was developed to justify the economic needs of the Caribbean and Southern US plantation classes; and didn't really exist prior to those needs - right?

I think that's fair in that it largely emerged as a method for exploitation of Africans and natives in the New World for the economic benefit of Europe. I think late enlightment thinkers like Kant and Hume played a significant role and their racism was certainly infuenced by the benefits Europeans were accruing.

[garbon]

Here's a footnote Hume added to his 'Of National Characters' in 1753:

https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/nc

I Am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.

Here's a bit (don't have a weblink to hand) that summarised some of the thinking prior to the 'scientific revolution' in racial thinking:

Immerwahr, John, 'Hume's Revised Racism', Journal of the History of Ideas, 53 (1992), pp. 481–486.

In order to classify Hume's racism it is important to remember that there were at least two main theories of racism at work in Hume's day. The most familiar is what might be called the degeneracy theory.4 This theory concedes that all of the races are indeed human beings, but holds that the non-white races have degenerated because of environment, education, or because of a divine curse. There is another more virulent form of racism known as "polygenesis." Polygenesis holds that the different races belong to different species, each created separately. According to this theory, non-whites are actually not human beings at all. Polygenesis was particularly attractive to defenders of slavery. While the degeneracy theory offers a hope that non-whites might be cured of their inferiority, polygenesis sees the non-white races as permanently and irretrievably inferior

[Razgovory]

Whatever the exact dates, the point remains though that modern "scientific" racism that posited black people as "inferior" was developed to justify the economic needs of the Caribbean and Southern US plantation classes; and didn't really exist prior to those needs - right?

There really wasn't any "Science" prior to that.  They certainly cited Aristotle quite a bit in justifying slavery.

[Josquius]

It's fascinating he speaks with such certainty that obviously nature made them inferior and doesn't even consider for a second the impact of different climates on what is actually possible. Something which was very well understood by people of the day.
It instead had  to be the people themselves made worse.

[Oexmelin]

Depends if you consider Linnaeus, or Buffon, as scientists (I think they should). 

[Sheilbh]

I think that's fair in that it largely emerged as a method for exploitation of Africans and natives in the New World for the economic benefit of Europe. I think late enlightment thinkers like Kant and Hume played a significant role and their racism was certainly infuenced by the benefits Europeans were accruing.

Also perhaps strengthened by Jos' point on religion.

I could be wrong but my understanding is that conversion was always a way out of slavery in the Islamic world. In the Americas, conversion didn't serve that purpose or have that effect. So you had people who you acknowledged were possessed of a soul in your religious framework and needed an excuse to keep them enslaved. And this provided that justification.