19 ms·
Did the Greeks see themselves as white, black, or something else?
- tboyd47 8y agoA fascinating look at race and color among the Ancient Greeks, and well-contextualized. It's as if the author is trying to exonerate the ancient Greeks from the pervasive ideological racism (I really wish there was a more specific word for this phenomenon than "racism" as ot is a complex result of many things) of modern European history by demonstrating that "white" and "black" races did not exist with them, or at least not in any form we would recognize. But white + black != racism. Even if the categories came later, Aristotle did introduce the idea of the "natural slave," or the claim that certain races of people are only fit to be subjugated in forced labor to others. That's pretty much the essence of racism. The priests Christianized it, while the merchants learned the practice of transoceanic slaving from the North Africans. It's more like a pasta salad of evil with ingredients from all over the world.
- everdev 8y agoDoes the term racial identity fit? It's feeling a belonging to a race but without racist implications.
- coldtea 8y ago>It's as if the author is trying to exonerate the ancient Greeks from the pervasive ideological racism Well, they didn't have "pervasive ideological racism". Even making someone a slave (which they did practice) wasn't about considering them inferior -- just considering it just spoils for them having lost a war. And they could care less if those were black or white or whatever. They could (and did) make slaves of people in the nearby city-states as well. Aristotle's idea of a "natural slave" wasn't really widespread as a cultural norm them. That would happen much later, especially with later Christianism, and would find it's ideological justification with colonialism and writers like Gobineau.
- ng12 8y agoWhat a silly article. How could they possibly see themselves as white given such limited contact with other peoples? Their entire world was the Mediterranean. You can't shoehorn ancient Greeks into today's ideologies.
- GavinMcG 8y agoCould you please substantiate those claims? One obvious counterexample is that Alexander the Great's empire reached northwest India. The idea that Greek society would be so isolated from the world – not coming into contact with travelers or traders or captives from beyond the Mediterranean – seems ridiculous to me.
- ng12 8y agoBut the overwhelming majority of Greeks would have never seen a Indian or Ethiopian person in their lifetime. Why would they define themselves based on the differences between them, especially superficial ones?
- GavinMcG 8y agoAgain: can you please substantiate that? Speculation isn't worth much. Your intuition is clearly that someone wouldn't define themselves along those lines, but intuitions are often wrong. And it's not obviously and unequivocally true that the overwhelming majority of Greeks would never see someone distinctly foreign looking.
- ng12 8y agoHow does one substantiate something that didn't happen? The Greeks made very little discussion of their own skin color and we have no archaeological or literary evidence of Ethiopian or Indian people actually living in Greece. Look at the stretches the author had to make when discussing skin color.
- HarryHirsch 8y agoThat's frankly rubbish. Chapter 2 of the Acts of the Apostles tells how the Apostles speak in tongues and Acts 2,9-10 lists the nations that were in Jerusalem for Shavuot: Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome. Given, this is early 1st century AD Jerusalem, not Greece, but classical Athens was no less cosmopolitan, and the gymnosophists were well attested in Alexander the Great's time.
- shove 8y ago“Few issues provoke such controversy as the skin-colour of the ancient Greeks” Yeah… I’m not going to be reading this shit
- everdev 8y agoLol, yeah. The skin color of Jesus might be slightly more controversial.
- shove 8y agoNot among … y’know … historians it isn’t ;)
- GavinMcG 8y agoYour comment offers very little substance or basis for discussion. It's fine for you to not read something, of course. But the HN guidelines expliticly ask that you avoid shallow dismissals, because they bring down the level of conversation for all of us.
- shove 8y agoGavin McG is concerned about muh discourse
- sctb 8y agoPlease stop posting like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lightedman 8y ago"But the HN guidelines expliticly ask that you avoid shallow dismissals, because they bring down the level of conversation for all of us." Hilarious, because every study done on HN's commenting system shows that it is actually BAD for discussion. Too bad every time the studies get posted here, they're instantly buried. Gee, I wonder what dang fears so much from the TRUTH?
- EC1 8y agoWhy is this on HN?
- pjc50 8y ago> Greeks simply didn’t think of the world as starkly divided along racial lines into black and white: that’s a strange aberration of the modern, Western world, a product of many different historical forces, but in particular the transatlantic slave trade and the cruder aspects of 19th-century racial theory. Exactly. The theory was developed to justify the prejudice and subordination, not the other way round. The idea of viewing Europe as a single ethnicity labelled "white" is extremely modern-American too.
- badrabbit 8y agoThe idea of multiple races of humans existing is post-darwinian (correct me if I am wrong please). I would imagine most humans that lived in the time of the ancient greeks saw different tribes and ethnicities. Even when they see someone from asia or africa, wouldn't they simply see a strange looking human from a strange land and tribe? The modern view of race that categorizes other ethnicities as almost an entirely different species requires ideological flexibility which to the best of my knowledge isn't compatible with the world view and beliefs of most ancient people. I am no history buff though, I would be interested in hearing a contradictory point of view.
- Grustaf 8y agoThe concept of "white" is very new, I think it was invented by the Americans. The Greeks definitely didn't think in those terms, their racial consciousness was much more fine grained. They wouldn't have seen much affinity with say the barbaric Germanic tribes of the North just because both peoples were Caucasian. For them everybody else, with the exception of the Egyptians, where uncouth brutes or at best upstarts, but this was more of a cultural thing than a racial. "The modern view of race that categorizes other ethnicities as almost an entirely different species" On the contrary, people have never been less prone to dehumanise others than now. In the Ancient world every civilisation relied heavily on slaves, which definitely where considered less than human. Today it's hard even among hard core Nazis to find someone claiming that other races are non-human. Inferior perhaps, but still human.
- detaro 8y agoAccording to this wikipedia page, it seems like this idea of race is a few hundred years older than Darwin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Early_Modern_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Early...
- pm90 8y agoI don’t think Darwinism has anything to do with racism, except tangentially. Modern racism and the idea of some races being superior was the direct result of colonialism, and evolution was perhaps only one of the tools used to justify white supremacy ( another was Christianity). It is fascinating to see the dynamism of race in India. The early British (pre 1800s) didn’t seem to hold racist views of the natives, in fact many of them had Indian wives and children, and adopted Indian clothes and culture. Some even converted to Islam, many were fluent in Persian, the language of elites at the time. But that begins to change markedly when British supremacy is assured in secured in the 1800s after many successful wars.
- gonmf 8y agoWhat a silly article. They saw themselves as greek, or macedonian, or athenian, or citizens versus slaves. Everywhere in the world people saw themselves and other as where they were from, their culture, etc. Travel was very difficult and most people didn't read, so chances are you'd never see someone from somwhere else with different color or fashion sense. The first mentions I know of people based on their race in when talking about "the negroe", but it is still implied as being people from Sub Sahaaran Africa, but by virtue of ignorance about individual tribes/regions, a common name was used. I remember a famous criticism to the constitution created after the French revolution that talked about "the rights of men"; instead of the rights of the French, the Englishman, the Turk; which were seen as completely different groups of people given the time and difficulty of travel. Plus, I dislike the confusion between slavery and racism. People used to take what they wanted by force, and when allowed, they'd take human beings. I doubt it was because they hated other people, instead it was because they were allowed to subjugate other people; motivated by financial/power motives. Enslavement was a common practise until the ideals of humanism won over the super powers of the time; humanism won over human greed.
- yosito 8y ago> I doubt it was because they hated other people, instead it was because they were allowed to subjugate other people This describes modern racism too.
- BuckRogers 8y agoThe author is pulling people's legs. Or very young and truly ignorant to make these suggestions. Referring to blackness had nothing to do with race, they're talking about people that went outside and worked. That's why the women were "white". Think antebellum south, holding an umbrella. Even in my own family when someone would come in from working outside in a garden with a tan, my grandma would say their skin was black. It just means tan or darker. The younger generations born in the last 25 years didn't even experience this world when people commonly left the laptop or phone and still went outside and worked. It's not surprising as a result that we're seeing such gross misinterpretations pop up.
- Jemaclus 8y agoI don't have anything interesting to say about this, except I loved reading it. I tend to follow a lot of tech stuff, so I don't get outside my tech bubble as far as reading different things goes. I just really liked it.
- coldtea 8y agoGreeks didn't care for black or white -- they cared for cultural ties (language, religion, customs, etc). Their word to collectively describe foreigners is literally "those who speak in an indecipherable language": "barbarians", where "bar-bar" was meant to be a vocalization of a random foreign language (like we would say "blah blah"). That said, they were white in the sense that modern Greeks, southern italians, and middle easterns (Egyptians, Lebanese and so on), eastern turks, and so on, are white. And modern Greeks still are closely related to those ancients according to studies [1][2], so you could look at George Stephanopoulos (both parents Greek-American immigrants) for a quick example. There weren't however "white" with a modern European and American conception of "whiteness" which restricts it to anglosaxon populations. In fact when they started immigrating to the US in the late 19th, early 20th century, they were considered decidely "non-white" material, and were subject to abuse and racist attacks (including being a major target for the KKK) [3][4]. At the time, the same was true also for Italians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Jews, and so on -- even Japanese and Chinese immigrants. Generally, "white" then was whatever fitted the WASP look and worldview. So it wasn't just about skin pigmentation. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-sheds-light-mysterious-origins-ancient-greeks-180964314/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-sheds... [3] https://ahepa.org/about-us.htm https://ahepa.org/about-us.htm [4] https://www.thenationalherald.com/171404/no-greeks-need-apply/ https://www.thenationalherald.com/171404/no-greeks-need-appl...
- vostok 8y ago> There weren't however "white" with a modern European and American conception of "whiteness" which restricts it to anglosaxon populations. I don't know what era is referred to as modern, but southern Europeans, some Middle Easterners, and eastern Europeans are considered white in the US today.
- coldtea 8y ago>I don't know what era is referred to as modern, but southern Europeans, some Middle Easterners, and eastern Europeans are considered white in the US today. That wasn't the case for much of the 20th century -- and you'd be surprised even for today if you speak to them about their experiences re: racism.
- hugh4life 8y ago"We might add that modern geneticists too find classification by skin colour unhelpful, and indeed avoid the term ‘race’ (a meaningless category in biological terms)." But it's good enough for government work... "There is relatively little genetic difference between the human populations of different continents" There is relatively little genetic difference between dog populations on different continents... "and levels of skin pigmentation are a very poor proxy for general genetic relatedness. The distinction between ‘black’ African and ‘white’ European peoples, then, is not just unGreek: it’s also unbiological." Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It is absolutely insane to think otherwise.
- coliveira 8y agoColor of skin is a completely unhelpful concept, which can only be the product of a culture create by extremely white people. Just consider for example the fact that in India people in the same region vary considerably is skin tone. Similarly, in Africa there is a huge diversity of skin colors. The same can be said of the nations living around the Mediterranean. Skin color is a stupid way to classify people, and is a sub product of northern European cultures.
- zawerf 8y ago> Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It is absolutely insane to think otherwise. Skin color is not a good proxy for genetic relatedness because it's only one of the many different traits that make up a human. You would surely agree that two humans with different skin colors but all else equal are more closely related than two with the same skin color but nothing else in common. And it turns out that is exactly the case. Africa has the most genetic variation since it's the origin of humans so a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation In computer science terms it would be trying to do a dimension reduction by only naively comparing the first coordinate. That would work only if skin color is the principal component of genetic diversity but it's pretty unlikely and insane to declare that a priori.
- SCAQTony 8y agoThe author just posed questions, arguments and opinions but nothing substantive. The subject of race has always been fluid. For instance, in the US Census Arabs, Turks and Italians are considered white yet neither resemble a Russian, Finn, or Swede. If one looks to Egypt, Italy, Greece and Turkey circa 3,000 years ago, or all those countries within the Mediterranean basin, there is substantial evidence that the average "racial genotype" is much like it is today. (a mixed race hybrid between shades of beige and vey dark brown.) Visual evidence can be seen when Comparing "Miss Egypt 2006"... http://www.santabanta.com/photos/miss-universe-2006/619218.htm http://www.santabanta.com/photos/miss-universe-2006/619218.h... ...To the Egyptian wall paintings of King Tutankhamun's tomb: https://www.timesofisrael.com/secret-tut-chamber-egypt-calls-in-experts-to-examine-tantalizing-clues/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/secret-tut-chamber-egypt-calls... Both representations above have straight hair, medium brown skin and awesome physiques.
- cfadvan 8y agoMaybe I’m getting cynical, but I feel like The author just posed questions, arguments and opinions but nothing substantive. is basically Aeon in a nutshell these days.
- ng12 8y ago> US Census Arabs, Turks and Italians are considered white yet neither resemble a Russian, Finn, or Swede. It goes to show how silly these questions are. Would a Greek Byzantine frame himself as the same race as an invading Ottoman? Assuredly not. Race being purely a matter of skin color is a modern idea.
- knuththetruth 8y agoThe thoroughly unscientific construction of “race” doesn’t correspond to phenotypes or genotypes. Saying “racial genotype” is an oxymoron.
- ianai 8y agoThe black/white thing is an artifact of US slavery. Everyone else has historically allied by religion or national ID.
- dagw 8y agoI'm not sure that's true. It was after all the French and Spanish that had separate names for the 'races' all the way down to at least 1/32nd black with the Mulato, Quadroon etc. distinctions. If you're differentiating between people 5/8 black and 3/4 black it shows you care quite a lot.
- krapp 8y agoThen perhaps it's an artifact of European slavery, spread in modernity through American and British cultural influence.
- travmatt 8y agoThe French well earned their reputation as running the most barbaric slave plantations in Caribbean history in Haiti, where they explicitly instituted a race based society, where the color of a persons skin determined their social value. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
- redsummer 8y agoEurope was populated by three waves of people - the original hunter-gatherers (14 thousand years ago), mid-eastern/Anatolian farmers (9k years ago), and pastoralists from around the Black Sea (4k years ago). https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/05/01/who-we-are-9-europe/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/05/01/who-we-are-9-europ... Greece was a little different in that they absorbed an earlier group of farmers from Iran, who did not venture further into Europe from Greece. I believe this event set the stage for Greek Civilisation.
- coliveira 8y agoMost racial stereotypes we have now are a modern construct. In the ancient world, it was well known that empires/races were powerful or advanced independent of the color of the skin. Many nations of Africa were feared and admired, while many nations of north Europe were simply considered barbaric.
- colordrops 8y agoIt seems to me that the modern concept of race is one of the most ingrained illusions in our culture. Discussions of whether some person or some group is "white" or "black" or whatever have no more rigor than asking whether someone is a "jock" or a "nerd". First, there is no clear definition of "white" and "black" or anything else, and even if we take the most common conception of it, most people don't fit neatly into either category. For instance, by US census standards, both a Norwegian and a Yemeni are "white". What about the racial gradient in the region of the Isthmus of Suez? Where do people stop being white and start being black? Furthermore, most racial conceptions obsess with superficial features that may not correlate with large differences in DNA. There may be two people that look more similar but have wider differences in their DNA than two people that look different.
- s4vi0r 8y agoThe funniest thing about this whole ethnostate crap you see being pushed by the alt right is that a lot of these people don't even realize Europeans don't see themselves as one big ethnic group of "white people" - and they literally never have. Hell, they even spend some time in grade school teaching kids about the discrimination early Irish and Italian immigrants faced in America where they weren't considered white or white enough by WASPs.
- aangoBi5 8y agoYou're giving them a bit too little credit. At least the alt-rights that I occasionally chat with certainly do not see the europeans as a monolithic block. Only central european and nordics are considered "true aryans" while eastern and southern europe are considered second class at best and you'll find slurs like "olive niggers" too. There even are neat infographics about various genetic markers associated with different populations. They do study their own propaganda.
- Radim 8y agoWhile technically true, this way of looking at the world feels a little pedantic. Yes, all words and objects and categories are only leaky abstractions. Our universe is a shimmering swirl of unique patterns, all boundaries ultimately fuzzy. At the same time, there is observable structure. Words and categories emerge and are judged by their usefulness, how they help us in everyday life -- despite being leaky abstractions. They're never bulletproof descriptions of reality, or you wouldn't be able to say much. "Jock" vs "nerd", "white" vs "black", "tiger" vs "rock"… Among the infinite axes of how to slice and conceptualize reality, which ones are worth giving a name to? Who decides?
- John_KZ 8y agoSince we're at linguistics of colour you might want to know that in modern Greek, the word for "tanning" is "blackening". I don't disagree with the article but I just want to make sure we all know ancient Greeks weren't actually black. You can argue that they weren't "white", at least with the modern American definitions, but there has never been any indication of them being black, you know, like Africans. It's not like their only difference with Caucasians is skin colour, you'd expect the morphological characteristics to show on sculptures too. The idea that Greeks were somehow black is purely the result of revisionist tendencies of modern African-American movements.
- astura 8y agoI'm not sure what you're criticizing but it's not the article since the article didn't say ancient Greeks were black.