How white was Ancient Greece? There are at least three answers, two short and one long:
Answer #1: They were white, just look at them: There is plenty of artwork from at least 600 BC onwards that clearly shows that the Greeks looked white – just like the people in Greece now.
Answer #2: They were part black. Some say that Egypt sent settlers or that the Pelasgians, the people who were in Greece before the Indo-European Greeks arrived, were from Africa. According to one DNA testing company Greeks are 5% black.
Now the longer answer:
Answer #3: Calling them white is anachronistic: “white” is a Western invention used to excuse slavery and colonialism during the last several hundred years. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world not by race but by language: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not were barbarians.
More: “White” is based not just on looks – it is based on culture too. You see that with Arabs: in the Middle East they are not seen as white by Americans, but if they come to America and take on White American ways, they are – like Steve Jobs and Ralph Nader.
In that sense, then, the Ancient Greeks were no more white or Western than the British are “Nigerian” or “Australian”. It is backwards thinking.
Thinking that leads to some strange and curious things:
- The West “begins with the Greeks”. Not because it does – despite the way some White Americans talk, civilization is not a white invention. Their civilization comes from Egypt and the Middle East by way of Greece and Rome. But they see it as starting with Greece because it was the first “white” country to be civilized. And it was first only because it was closest to Egypt.
- The Greeks seem to have amazing intelligence. Because Westerners are taught to turn a blind eye to the Egyptian roots of Greek civilization: the columns, the paper, the science and mathematics, etc, all came straight out of Egypt. Even before Alexandria became the centre of Greek learning, people like Plato, Pythagoras, Solon and Thales all studied in Egypt. “The glory that was Greece” was built not on some kind of amazing Greek grey matter but sailing times to Egypt.
- Ancient Greeks are seen as “universal”, not “ethnic” by Anglos, who play up what they have in common with the Ancient Greeks. They do not apply that kind of thinking to the Greeks of the past 1500 years, who they look down on as unimportant, even the Byzantine Empire.
- The Ancient Greeks were seen as white before Greek Americans were. Just as Jesus was seen as white before the Jews were. In the 1920s laws were passed to keep Greeks and other such undesirables from coming to America in large numbers – in part to keep them from destroying the country culturally and genetically.
Yes, this is another example of the white lens, of reading history while white.
See also:
abagond, you wrote:
In the 1920s laws were passed to keep Greeks from coming to America in large numbers – in part to keep them from destroying the country culturally and genetically.
Hey. Nice try at deception.
Until 1921 quotas or other immigration laws limiting the arrival of anyone were nonexistent. It was a free-for-all. Every person who got his sorry carcass to US shores — Ellis Island or elsewhere — stayed. No papers required.
However, it became apparent that unlimited arrivals of the great unwashed might begin doing more harm than good. At that point — the 1920s — quotas were established for immigrants from every country. Not just Greece.
Meanwhile, you might want to consider the impact of immigration — on the country left behind and the new one. Mass movements can upset things in both nations.
At the moment Zimbabweans are desperately trying to flee into neighboring states. I’ve read that following Mugabe’s descent into tyrannical madness Zimbabwe’s population has dropped 40%. On the receiving end of this stampede, Botswana and South Africa stop fleeing Zimbabweans from entering their territory with electric fences and military.
Like Palestinians, no neighboring nations want to admit them.
Sounds familiar, except Mexicans cross the border into the US because, because, because life is so much more horrible here than there in Mexico, as we all know. Crazy Mexicans.
You wrote:
Yes, this is another example of the white lens, of reading history while white.
White lens? More accurately, a clear lens and a clear head. And, as every standardized test in the US shows, reading with greater comprehension than everyone who is not white.
LikeLike
No Slappz:
This is a post about Greeks, not about immigration policy – or even Zimbabwe. But I did change the wording so that people do not think the law was just against Greeks and no one else (the added words in bold):
” In the 1920s laws were passed to keep Greeks and other such undesirables from coming to America in large numbers – in part to keep them from destroying the country culturally and genetically.”
Yes there were quotas against every country in Europe, but you know full well that the quotas were set up in a racist way to favour northern Europeans over Jews and southern Europeans.
LikeLike
Citation -Overview of Immigration Law 1901 to 1940
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/Legislation%20from%201901-1940.pdf#2
There was also the Immigration Act of May 3, 1891
LikeLike
Related, from the NYT review of that new book The History of White People by Painter:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/books/review/Gordon-t.html)
LikeLike
Huh? Both Steve Jobs and Nader are American. No disrespect…but I don’t follow. Cool post anyway.
LikeLike
There is a false assumption here that how the Greeks classified themselves in the past is the be all and end all of the matter with regard to their ‘race’.
There are a number of ‘perspectives’ that can be utilised, which can give us insight that the Greeks viewed themselves as ‘Whites’, even if they may not directly classify themselves as such.
For instance, the Greeks used the term ‘Ethiopians’ which roughly means ‘land of the sun-burnt people’. A reference to people who lived in a hot country/climate, and also colour of skin vis-a-vis the ‘White’ skin of the Greece.
And the ‘Ethiopian’/’Greek’ vase would perhaps tend to support the contention. Some also suggest that it indicates the lack of colour perception that the two faces could be juxtaposed.
Aristotle in 3rd century BC wrote
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
And again Galen the Greek physician, in the 1st century, stated in his work, which was kept extant by the Islamic world through ‘the famous Muslim historian, al-Mas’udi, some 8 centuries later, stated:
“the ten qualities of Sudanese, thusly: “Kinky hair, thin eyebrows, broad noses, thick lips, sharp teeth, malodorous skin, dark pupils, clefty hands and feet, elongated penises and excessive merriment”.
Further on he quotes Galen approvingly: “surely the dark complexion person (al-aswad) is overwhelmed by merriment due to the imperfection (fasad) of his brain; therefore, his intellect is weak”.
So we can see from the empirical evidence that the Greeks did view themselves as ‘Whites’. However, it was not constructed along the lines of post 1500 AD Western world ideologies of ‘White and/or Whiteness’
They also classified the world into ‘Greeks’ (in group) and ‘Barbarians’ (out group).
So to sum up the Greeks c.330 BC were in essence ‘White/Caucasians’
LikeLike
Whilst looking for various quotes in my last post. I came across this:
Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes by Dienekes Pontikos
http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/
LikeLike
I had no idea Steve Jobs was of middle eastern descent. Learn something new everyday.
LikeLike
Excellent post. Well, excellent summary of the problem.
After the discussion in “How black was Ancient Egypt” thread, and a conversation with a friend on the subject “who should play Ancient Greek and who should not”, I wrote a paper on the problem. Your post summarizes the issue, raising all the major points. My paper went strongly with #3, because I believe it’s the only way you could go, IF you’re trying to determine what Greek people thought about it.
The two points I touched in the paper not mentioned here: 1) Why do we care? The issue of race seems pretty natural to US (and other western) people, but the importance of this point is not really obvious to people in my culture. 2) Today’s Balkans as a part of Europe: Greece is located on the Balkan peninsula. In today’s political sense of the word, it’s not considered to be the part of Balkans; still, this part of the world is often not regarded as “fully European”. But if we take that Greece was, indeed, “cradle of European (western) civilization”, then western civilization originated on the Balkans.
All in all, an excellent summary of the problem. Great job Abagond!
LikeLike
@bingregory
Some ancient descriptions did note color, as when the ancient Greeks recognized that their “barbaric” northern neighbors, Scythians and Celts, had lighter skin than Greeks considered normal.
Thanks for the link!
But please remember that “noting colour” is not the same as “recognizing race”. I can note person’s eye colour but it doesn’t mean I am using it to classify said person into a particular race (since our society doesn’t make race division based on eye colour). Ancient Greeks didn’t have race as a social category for division between “us” and “them”- they used language.
@Bay Area Guy
Abagond, I know that you have great respect for the ancient Greeks. However, judging from this post, you come across as denigrating the achievements of the Greeks.
I didn’t get that vibe from the post (maybe because I know Abagond have a respect for Greeks). But you reminded me of a criticism I forgot to include in my previous post: Abagond takes diffusion as a simple process that affects only one (receiving) culture. Influences don’t really work that way. Still, the article made an excellent summary of the whole issue of race- not just when it comes to Ancient Greece, but also any Ancient society.
I’m half Greek (Macedonian, just like Alexander the Great), so does that make me part black?
Define “Macedonian”.
Macedonians weren’t Greek originally, so discussion of their race is another subject. Still, #3 applies to them, as well as any other ancient society.
@Ames
Huh? Both Steve Jobs and Nader are American. No disrespect…but I don’t follow. Cool post anyway.
I think the point is that they are seen as white, but someone of the same ethnic background would not be seen as white in America, if practice any Middle Eastern culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@J
All I know about this matter (and trust me, I know a lot), tells me #3 is the only view that makes sense. Because frankly, whether we take Eurocentric or Afrocentric perspective, it would not be the perspective of Ancient Greeks (who, I bet, wouldn’t care about what some barbarians from western Europe/America or Africa think).
There is a false assumption here that how the Greeks classified themselves in the past is the be all and end all of the matter with regard to their ‘race’.
The way group “classifies” itself (identity) is never simple. Still, most of the sources confirm the major point of distinction was language. “Greece” as an union of “Greek nation” didn’t exist back then- one polis (city state) hated another polis and wars were frequent. They didn’t like each other much. Still, they had a sense that an enemy from another city state is different than an enemy from “the outside”. The language was what made the distinction.
There are a number of ‘perspectives’ that can be utilised, which can give us insight that the Greeks viewed themselves as ‘Whites’, even if they may not directly classify themselves as such.
For instance, the Greeks used the term ‘Ethiopians’ which roughly means ‘land of the sun-burnt people’. A reference to people who lived in a hot country/climate, and also colour of skin vis-a-vis the ‘White’ skin of the Greece.
Wrong. All they said was that “Ethiopians” had darker skin than them. And that they (Greeks) had lighter skin. It doesn’t mean anything except from noting physical differences.
It is YOU (a person who lives in 21st century) who applies his own perspective to ancient people. Race is not natural in a way that “it’s obvious everybody sees it”. I know you are more than aware of this J, but you must be more careful when applying your views on the world on ancient people.
And the ‘Ethiopian’/’Greek’ vase would perhaps tend to support the contention. Some also suggest that it indicates the lack of colour perception that the two faces could be juxtaposed.
Can you tell me more about this vase?
In any case, all I see there is Greece vs babarians, not white vs black. Ethiopians are used as an example of wild, “uncivilized” babarians. Nothing says that’s because they’re black. There are plenty of examples of wild white babarians vs Greks.
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
See? To them, babarians are the ones who are bad, wild, uncivilized, inferior. Babarians can be lighter or darker than Greeks, but at the end of the day, it’s not what’s important: the fact that they are not Greeks is.
And again Galen the Greek physician, in the 1st century
Galen was a Greek by ethnicity, but he didn’t live in Ancient Greece, but in Roman Empire (in 2nd century AD). That is about 3-4 centuries after the fall of Ancient Greece. So anything he said can’t be taken as a source of “how Ancient Greece viewed world”.
Further on he quotes Galen approvingly: “surely the dark complexion person (al-aswad) is overwhelmed by merriment due to the imperfection (fasad) of his brain; therefore, his intellect is weak”.
We should see what Galen thought of snow-white whites (babrbaric Germans, for example) before making a point. Romans saw Germans as wild uncivilized creatures most of the time and there’s nothing that indicates they saw Germans as “one of their own”. No way.
So we can see from the empirical evidence that the Greeks did view themselves as ‘Whites’. However, it was not constructed along the lines of post 1500 AD Western world ideologies of ‘White and/or Whiteness’
No. Nothing said here indicates that Greeks saw themselves as whites, in terms of race. All we can tell is that they noted physical differences and thought they were the best, the way humans should be (to be considered humans). This is something that every group does. The reason, or “rule” if you call it, based on which the division into “us” and “them” is made, varies from culture to culture and from time to time.
So to sum up the Greeks c.330 BC were in essence ‘White/Caucasians’
Sources don’t indicate this. Remember, noting physical differences doesn’t mean “making a race division”. “Race” division doesn’t, after all, have to be made based on physical appearance.
Plus, “Greeks c.330 BC” are hardly your “average Ancient Greeks”. Their civilization was in problem back then, because of the rise of Madeconia and internal problems.
LikeLike
Mira,
I am not quite sure if you have understood the subtleness of what I am trying to get across in my previous post.
1. Personally I do NOT accept position 3, merely because this is what I call a ‘kop out’, unless you specifically going into minute details.
If you look at Egypt what you find from studying Western histiography is that from 1800s and the study of Egyptology, you will see that it has moved from 100% being White to now its a mixture of various groups/races etc. however, the one thing it is rarely in Western academian is a Black African civilization. It CANNOT be stated in such terms, but teh closest to it is to suggested it is a ‘mixed’ population.
Abagond uses this ‘metaphor’, inadvertently or otherwise and then applies the same standard to Greece – which I do NOT believe is correct.
2. Abagond was speaking about the Greeks and whether they viewed themselves as ‘White’. By ‘White’ here I am referring to the colour of their skin and not some socio-political construct. It is clear by defining and identifying the ‘other’ as sun-burnt (ie Ethiops), must obviously be a reflection of the Greek perception of themselves also. For is this not the reason why when the Whites first saw the indigenes of America they called them ‘Red Indian’??
3. As for Galen, you are correct what you say, but it still does not minimize the perception of skin colour and this in essence was my point. Their were notions of different skin colour in ancient times.
4. And this is what the vase represents to a degree. Notwithstanding we can never know the intent of the sculpture that made it
5. It is possible to see yourself as ‘White’ as being defined that way because of your skin colour, without it being a construct as used today for racism etc.
So to conclude I think the Greeks saw themselves as ‘Whites’ but not in the way that it is used and constructed from 1500 AD onwards, as I had said previously.
I hope this has clarified somewhat.
LikeLike
@J
1. Personally I do NOT accept position 3, merely because this is what I call a ‘kop out’, unless you specifically going into minute details.
With all due respect, J, you’re not an archaeologist (historian, anthropologist). You are interested in this debate for personal reasons, or political reasons, etc- but not because you are studying the past. It doesn’t mean your position and interest is less valid than mine, but you must understand why, as an archaeologist, my main interest is Ancient Greek position- the way it was, not the way it affects us today.
If you look at Egypt what you find from studying Western histiography is that from 1800s and the study of Egyptology, you will see that it has moved from 100% being White to now its a mixture of various groups/races etc. however, the one thing it is rarely in Western academian is a Black African civilization. It CANNOT be stated in such terms, but teh closest to it is to suggested it is a ‘mixed’ population.
I agree. The way academics’ views on Egypt change reflect the way social sciences changed over the centuries (since 1800). It still doesn’t mean any of it is “correct”- it simply shows the way contemporary people see it.
As for “mixed”- what does “mixed” really mean? I am mixed and I am 100% white.
If Greeks were 5, 10, 20% black- were they mixed? If Egyptians were 5,10,20% white- were they mixed? It all depends on our views TODAY (what’s mixed and what is not).
. By ‘White’ here I am referring to the colour of their skin and not some socio-political construct.
In that sense, I guess, your claims on “Greeks seeing themselves as white” (as opposite of darker Ethipians) make sense.
But “white” doesn’t mean having lighter skin, J. I don’t think that I, of all people, have to explain that to you. White as a race is not the same as “having lighter skin than X”.
Plus, if we really going to talk about skin colour, I’d say Greeks saw themselves not as “white” but as “just right”: people on the south were too dark, and those on the north were too light.
LikeLike
Mira,
I am afraid I do NOT understand what you are saying in your post
1. What difference does it make if I am an archaeologist, architect, road sweeper, regarding this matter?? Its not clear to me of the relevance of citing what I am or not
to the discussion at hand. Unless it is to suggest inadvertently or otherwise. that I am not qualified to speak on the subject. Then that would be a completely different debate and another topic.
2. With regard to point about ‘mixed’, I am referring to the population as awhole. US. is a ‘mixed’ country, so much so that the White population is in decline. nevertheless we still view the US. as a White/Western civilization. It is not viewed as a ‘mixed’ population (unless you talking of some internal politics like reacting to ‘terrorism’ etc)
In the same way U.S is a ‘White /Caucasian’ civilisation, so is Greece. Though the two are ‘quintessentially different’ in how they constructed their civilisation and how they grouped and treated people.
This is my point about ‘kop out’ to suggested they are a
‘mixed bag’ so as to minimize the dominat role of the Caucasians – in Abagond’s post
LikeLike
If Steve Jobs was not put up for adoption and his father returned with him back to Syria, then Steve Jobs today would be some 55-year-old man in Syria named Mr Jandali. Maybe he would be Dr Jandali, but it is highly unlikely he would be leading one of the world’s top computer companies.
Those commenters – and lurkers – who think race is a simple, physical, genetic sort of thing, one that drives history, should think on that. The same goes for those who believe in the white inventor argument.
LikeLike
Bay Area Guy:
My purpose was not to put down the Greeks. It was in fact my answer to those who say “Egypt was not truly black”. White people are quick to see the anachronism of calling Egypt black but slow to see the anachronism of calling Greece white. It is a misreading of history that leads to paradox.
I am not trying to claim Greece for the black race. I just threw that out there because it is an answer that some give. I do think the Greeks are “blacker” than the English, say, but at 5%, if you go by that figure, it is not enough to count as black even by the One Drop Rule (you generally need 12% or more).
LikeLike
Arguments that the population of Ancient Egypt was radically different in terms of its phenotype than that of modern Egypt (either whiter or blacker) have always struck me as political.
LikeLike
With regard to:
My purpose was not to put down the Greeks. It was in fact my answer to those who say “Egypt was not truly black”. White people are quick to see the anachronism of calling Egypt black but slow to see the anachronism of calling Greece white. It is a misreading of history that leads to paradox”
Forgive me here, but as I had hinted at earlier this would have been a better way of wording the subject matter for discussion, than saying, ‘How White Was Ancient Greece?’
LikeLike
And whilst we are on the issue of ‘Whites’ (this time omitting the term ‘Caucasian’, even though Whites have their origins around the Eurasian steppes/Caucaus mountains).
There are other branches of White people who are not strictly viewed as such because when they were colonised by the ‘West’ they were NOT thought of as being ‘White’, in the sense of the ‘Western tradition’ ie. Persians, Afghans and parts of the ‘Middle East’ too, in places like Syria etc.
This brings us back to the issue of who is ‘White’?? There is a difference as to who is ‘White’ in the ‘real (political)world’ and who is so ‘White’ in the world of academia
LikeLike
The great thing about this thread is the discussion and intllectual interactions (for the most part) regarding history. The unfortunate part (and reality) is that people are getting hung up on Black and White. Does it really have to be either OR??? Think about that… I feel as if we’re paricipating in a game that we protest, yet by our very participation, we are aknowledging the “rules” of the game: the rules being “black/white” categorization. What happens to anything in between?
It is obvious that the Mediterranean cultures were heavily influenced by one another. Rather than seek to divide or claim Black vs White, why can’t the ANCIENT greeks be simply – Ancient Greeks?
LikeLike
What you say here is true ColorofLuv but its too much of a over-simplification to be taken on board, face value.
LikeLike
I agree J, which is why we are left to clarify things for people in general. Unfortunatley, the irony is that most on this thread “agree”; however, the medium with which to reach the “majority” falls somewhat short.
For example, “Bay Area Guy” – would probably agree with the view that Ancient Greece is not “white” by todays U.S. defintion as society (in general) defines it. He fails to see that Abagond is attempting to deconstruct the stereotypical view and approach it from a different perspective.
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv,
And just one other thing with regard to the ‘one drop rule’, there is a slight conflation.
The ‘one drop rule’ was created to establish ‘differences between ‘Blacks’ and ‘Whites’. It was not created for establishing difference between ‘White races’ NOT being White.
When the Western world did look and and assess White capabilities, it was divided into things like: Aryan, Teutonic, Nordic supremacy
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/arthur-de-gobineau/
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying…. What you are saying is not rubbish, but this whole tendency regarding “one drop”, Aryan, Teutonic blah blah is rubbish…
LikeLike
abagond, you wrote:
If Steve Jobs was not put up for adoption and his father returned with him back to Syria, then Steve Jobs today would be some 55-year-old man in Syria named Mr Jandali.
Interesting. Though I have known for many years that Steve Jobs was adopted, I have never before seen it mentioned that his father was Syrian. Is this something you believe to be true? Or was your statement merely conceptual?
You wrote:
Maybe he would be Dr Jandali, but it is highly unlikely he would be leading one of the world’s top computer companies.
The preceding statement is true because Islam and the culture of the middle east outside Israel prohibits innovation and creativity. Nothing of value has come from Islamic nations for a thousand years, and the most aggressive form of Islam aims at taking the world back to the 7th century.
By the way, Steve Jobs’ biological sister is Mona Simpson, a well known novelist. Both flourished in the US. Had they been raised in a muslim context, his sister probably would have been the victim of an honor killing.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“On another note, the idea that modern western culture comes from the Greeks is also false. Western Europe was primarily influenced by Germanic, French, and later English customs following the demise of Rome. While Greek ideas persisted, Western Europe developed independent of Greek influences”.
Without stating the obvious the process which occurred is that when the Romans conquered countries like Britain etc they carried the ‘Graeco-Roman culture’ and it was adopted by the ‘vanquished’.
This is why the West views themselves as the ‘heirs’ to the Greek tradition rather than their own indigenous culture ie
Celtic or Gallic in France
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Just as Jesus was seen as white before the Jews were. In the 1920s laws were passed to keep Greeks and other such undesirables from coming to America in large numbers – in part to keep them from destroying the country culturally and genetically.
I can believe that part of the reason that the immigrations acts of 1921 and 1924 laws went through was because of anti-Semitic bias (even though Samuel Gompers (Jewish) head of the AFL-CIO was a big supporter of the laws..) but what is often not discussed is that immigration restrictions did not include restrictions on immigrants from Latin America and Africa nor did they exclude engineers, doctors, and architects for Eastern and Southern Europe. My Grandfather’s status as Engineer allowed to emigrate after the laws were passed bringing his son, my father along with him.
Why would a Greek or Italian be seen as less desirable than a Mexican or Nigerian if the laws were strictly about promoting a “White” country..?
LikeLike
Uncle Milton:
From what I understand there were separate laws for Mexicans, Chinese and such. Lawmakers most certainly saw them as less desirable than southern Europeans. Immigration from Africa has never been large enough to be seen as a “threat”.
I did not know that about engineers, doctors and architects, but there is no way they could come in huge enough numbers to threaten America’s then Waspy whiteness.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
From what I understand there were separate laws for Mexicans, Chinese and such. Lawmakers most certainly saw them as less desirable than southern Europeans.
There were stringent laws passed against basically almost all Asians ethnicities in 1917 (and there was the Chinese exclusion act of the late 19th century before it..) predating the 1921 and 1924 laws. There were deportations of Mexicans and other Latinos in the 1930s during the depths of the depression, but it is my understanding that Mexicans to some degree, were treated differently because they were considered as more docile labor and needed by California and Texas growers. Also the Mexican revolution was raging so it partially sold as a humanitarian gesture. I am trying to find more data on the issue.
LikeLike
Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience : Frank Snowden Jnr
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=37MTRCr9oAUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blacks+in+Antiquity&source=bl&ots=jG4mMCVQhr&sig=4VSrm47PlbF9NB5eRNwnXIaEg0c&hl=en&ei=7TCxS6KZPKb40wTY-rmKDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
LikeLike
Ralph Nader isn’t an Arab, he’s Lebanese.
LikeLike
And the Lebanese are Arabs.
LikeLike
Though I believe the Maronites do not see themselves as Arabs.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I think the Arabs are somewhat like the ancient Greeks, in that one is considered Arab if they speak Arabic. That is why the rulers of Sudan are considered Arab, although those in Dafur are not. Both are Muslim. Some peoples became Arab through conquest.
LikeLike
The Greeks affected the West in two main ways:
1. The Hellenization of Roman culture.
2. Periods of Hellenism every 300 years or so when the West takes a more than ordinary interest in things Greek, like during the Renaissance.
LikeLike
Aristotle said:
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
This does not argue that Aristotle thought he was white – if anything it argues that he saw himself as olive.
But I agree with Mira: noticing things like skin colour does not necessarily mean that you have built your identity on it. White Americans have so built their identities and read that identity back into history. But the Greeks did not think like that. Why would they? They had no privilege based on skin colour to defend.
LikeLike
Gonna be reading the new book on the History of Whiteness! Everyone here should pick up a copy!!!
LikeLike
No-one is suggesting that Aristotle viewed himself as White (even though he maybe because Aristotle emphasis is on extremes being bad, but ‘middle’ being good) because of the quote.
However, what the quote does show and the others and those mentioned in Frank Snowden Jnr book (as well as his reference to Black Ethiopian/White Greek vases) is that colour was noted in ancient society and hence the reason for the quote(s).
No-one is suggesting that the Greeks built a ‘construct ‘akin to one based on ‘white privilege’, ‘White supremacy’, ‘White racism’ etc
All that is being stated is that they did identify colour of skin.
I think there has been a conflation of the construct of ‘Whiteness’ (21st century), and the suggestion that the Greeks did NOT have a concept of ‘White’ because it is NOT consistent with todays construct. This is incorrect reasoning.
I am not quite sure how we got lost on this path of reasoning??
LikeLike
J:
So how did the Greeks understand whiteness?
LikeLike
Gonna be reading the new book on the History of Whiteness! Everyone here should pick up a copy!!!
Nell Irvin Painter’s – The History of White People
Its interesting that she starts with the Greeks. There are a few scholars who view the first instance of racism from the historical record as occuring with the Aryans in India
LikeLike
Ha ha
With regard to:
“So how did the Greeks understand whiteness?”
I am NOT sure I can answer your question Abagond. Personally I think it is an ‘unfair’ question, and this is why I chose NOT to ask you, How did the Greeks view themselves as ‘olive’ as you alluded to??
Anyhow here is an attempt nevertheless.
I think they saw their SKIN as being ‘White’ as opposed to having a construct of being ‘White’ where on a continuum you have extremes of Ethiopians (dark/black skins) and Scythian (ie pale/white skins).
I speculate but in this framework they would see their skin as ‘White’ but not too ‘White’.
From how they described the Ethiops, especially with regard to living in a hot land, its effect on the hair etc, and some of the other evidence like the vases makes me believe they did not view their identity as one of ‘NOT being too Black’.
So the marker was ‘White’ and emphasis was on the
adverb ‘too’ (as in ‘too White)
What do you think of this and what are your own thoughts on the matter generally??
LikeLike
And at least it gives me the chance to post this once again:
Slavery & Proto-Racism in Graeco-Roman History by Benjamin Issac
Click to access Isaac.pdf
LikeLike
And also on a similar theme:
“…When we talk of ‘racism’ in antiquity, it is important to understand that racism as we know it today could not have been ‘expressed’ in the same way vis-à-vis Blacks, for the simple reason that it was Blacks who had monopolised technical, cultural and industrial know-how. The other races had to pattern their technological, cultural and religious development after the accomplishments of Egyptian technology, science culture and arts.
The Greeks were forced to come to humbly & drink at the fountain of Egyptian culture…After conquering the entire eastern Mediterranean basin, Alexander went as far as to set up the capital of the empire in Egypt, not in continental Greece or Macedonia…Don’t you find that strange? It would be like France setting up its capital in Dakar (Senegal), rather than Paris, after achieving its colonial empire…Hence racism in the modern sense of the word could not have existed by Whites against Blacks in the same way during antiquity.
The problem is complex since we find at the end of the Alexanderian period, and more specifically at the end of Greek occupation of Egypt, decidedly racist discriminatory practices were enforced against Egyptian Blacks in their own [land].. Such a phenomenon became all the more explicit with the Roman invasion and occupation in Egypt and North Africa.
I must say that there was definitely a racist approach of Romans and post-Alexanderian Greeks. This racist outlook translated itself itself in clearly ‘racial discriminatory practices’ of varios sorts. Egyptians were even barred from entering Alexanderia and living in certain residential areas. ‘Residential segregation’ existed at the time along ‘racial lines’. Both Greeks & Romans enforced it against the Egyptians. This is made explicit in the colonial legislation of the epoch. ‘Racism’ therefore existed in antiquity
C.A. Diop interview
LikeLike
@Bay Area Guy
Mira, by Macedonian, I mean people in what is now Northern Greece, which is where Alexander the Great came from.
Ancient Macedonia and Greece were not the same thing. Ancient Macedonia was located in today’s Northern Greece and in that sense, yes, you can say Macedonia is in Greece.
But ancient Macedonians were not Greeks- they were separate people who adopted Greek culture and later, conquered Greeks. They also adopted Greek language as their own so you might say they were not “babarians” anymore.
I certainly don’t mean the current nation of Macedonia. There’s now great animus between Greeks and those in Macedonia over the identity of Alexander the Great.
Yes, I know plenty about it. I live in Serbia.
So you mean to say that Alexander the Great wasn’t truly Greek? Were my Greek ancestors all impostors?
Your Greek ancestors are Greek. I am not sure what’s the question here. But Alexander was not Greek- his father was from Macedonia and his mother was from Epirus. Macedonia and Epirus were not the same as Ancient Greece. However, ancient Macedonians are considered to be one of the ancient Greek tribes, but their country was different in the beginning and it’s not usually regarded as part of Ancient Greek culture until it became part of ancient Greek culture. (if it makes sense). So no, I would not say your ancestors were “impostors”, I just want to clarify there is a difference between ancient Greece and ancient Macedonia- that is not the same thing, as people sometimes think. Also, Macedonia did conquer Greece at one point.
LikeLike
Also, the truth is, we don’t know much about early history of ancient Macedonians. We are not completely sure about their origin (genetics or language) and we don’t know much about their activities before they adopted Greek language and culture. They are usually regarded as “one of the ancient Greek tribes”, but that doesn’t say much.
@Abagond
Periods of Hellenism every 300 years or so when the West takes a more than ordinary interest in things Greek, like during the Renaissance.
Yes, this is a very good observation. It does seems to be the case. Still, that doesn’t make Greece any more “western”, no matter what some people want to think.
LikeLike
@J
I am afraid I do NOT understand what you are saying in your post
1. What difference does it make if I am an archaeologist, architect, road sweeper, regarding this matter?? Its not clear to me of the relevance of citing what I am or not
to the discussion at hand.
There is a difference because someone whose research is about past (the actual Ancient Greeks), such as historians or archaeologists, do not need to care about present. I don’t need to care about what’s considered “race” today and how that affects today’s people. It has nothing to do with Ancient Greece. A person generally interested in this issue (race of ancient Greeks) can think (and often does) think about present.
Now, things are not that simple of course. I may choose not to think about present, but it won’t work, because of at least 2 problems: 1) I live in present and my experience is not an ancient Greek experience and 2) My discipline (its methodology and knowledge) is present day one. But that’s another story.
2. With regard to point about ‘mixed’, I am referring to the population as awhole. US. is a ‘mixed’ country, so much so that the White population is in decline. nevertheless we still view the US. as a White/Western civilization. It is not viewed as a ‘mixed’ population (unless you talking of some internal politics like reacting to ‘terrorism’ etc)
First of all, you are using “mixed” to label “people of mixed race” says a lot- I never said a mixed person has to be mixed based on race. “Mixed” can mean anything- mixed in the sense of religion, race, ethnicity (not the same as race!), etc. When I say: “mixed” I mean on ethnic mixing. Which is NOT the same as race. I am mixed ethnically but I am white. There’s a difference.
In the same way U.S is a ‘White /Caucasian’ civilisation, so is Greece. Though the two are ‘quintessentially different’ in how they constructed their civilisation and how they grouped and treated people.
US and Greece are not the same in a “white/caucasian” way because US is a western civilization of today, and Greece is a non-western civilization of the past, in which concept of “white” did not exist. The only way you can talk about this is to ask whether an ancient Greek and today’s white American would be both seen as white TODAY. But even that, you must add additional info: what ancient Greek? (from which time period, from what geographical region?) And seen by who? Today’s American? Today’s Gemran? Today’s Chinese?
No-one is suggesting that Aristotle viewed himself as White (even though he maybe because Aristotle emphasis is on extremes being bad, but ‘middle’ being good) because of the quote.
Since when “middle” means white?
All that is being stated is that they did identify colour of skin.
They were not blind, of course they noticed differences in appearance, both in terms of physical features as well as clothes, hairstyles etc.
I think there has been a conflation of the construct of ‘Whiteness’ (21st century), and the suggestion that the Greeks did NOT have a concept of ‘White’ because it is NOT consistent with todays construct. This is incorrect reasoning.
I am not saying Greece were unable to have a construct of whiteness- I am saying we don’t have any proof of it, and all proofs we have say otherwise. Based on this reasoning, I am concluding that Greeks did not have a construct of whiteness.
LikeLike
@J
I am NOT sure I can answer your question Abagond. Personally I think it is an ‘unfair’ question, and this is why I chose NOT to ask you, How did the Greeks view themselves as ‘olive’ as you alluded to??
I am not Abagond, but since Greeks saw themselves as darker than people of the north and lighter than people of the south… ? Well, true, we don’t have any proof, but “olive” sounds like a good guess.
I think they saw their SKIN as being ‘White’ as opposed to having a construct of being ‘White’ where on a continuum you have extremes of Ethiopians (dark/black skins) and Scythian (ie pale/white skins).
You are trying to put your own (I mean our own, today’s) standards of race into the past. To you, light white skin and olive skin belong to same race, but not dark/black skin. Why is that? There’s no natural point in which skin shades stop being “white” and become “black”. It’s the construct of race (which is not absolute even today) that make you make that distinction.
I speculate but in this framework they would see their skin as ‘White’ but not too ‘White’.
I am not sure, and yes, we can talk about it. I am not sure at which point human skin became known as “black” (instead of more logical: brown) and “white” instead of pink.
LikeLike
With regard to your comments
1. It pre-supposess that archaeolgist live in a ‘vacuum.’
They are NOT racist, sexist and any other ‘ist’ you can think off.
Then you have the issue of ‘methodology’ employed. The ‘competence’ of the archaeologist and the list goes on forever.
Notwithstanding the Philosophy of Social Sciences issues, is it possible to study the past without no reference to the presence…Off course not
2. I think much of our dialogue is based on a ‘problem of understanding’. For instance you say the Greek did NOT have a construct of ‘Whiteness’.
I say more or less the same thing, where we differ is that I say they viewed themselves as ‘White’ on the basis of their SKIN.
LikeLike
And again,
I describe Greeks as being White by the artwork of the head vases. you appropriate their skin to ‘olive’.
However, as you say, “You are trying to put your own (I
mean our own, today’s) standards of race into the past”.
if this is so, then how comes classifying themselves as ‘olive’ is also not a part of that same process (mutatis mutandis)
LikeLike
The Greek reference to the Scythians as being pale or white-skinned is an interesting one, and perhaps shows how some ancient descriptions of physical characteristics can get a bit shaky.
Scythians are generally seen as being of Iranian stock, probably with some Turkic/Mongol elements as well. Their territory at various times ranged from Chinese Turkestan to northern India, to the fringes of the Balkans and Russia. So while their territory certainly would have included pale white-skinned people, particularly in the areas close to Greece, it is highly unlikely that such a description was accurate for the Scythian people as a whole.
LikeLike
Without stating the obvious, it should be taken as a ‘truism’ that the Greeks were NOT referring to every Scythian.
This is also the same for other groups like Celts, who have been referred to.
This issue covers:
1. Philosophy of Science and what can be derived from a critical analysis of the text ie the authors intent, is it accurate, or did s/he use loose language in the hope to get a point over and so forth??
2. The ‘perception’ of ancient writers, in this instance ‘maybe’ the Greeks saw the Scythians as ‘Whites’ because in their eyes the majority of them were such, irrespective of variations.
On an academic level you can continue to do such ‘reductionism’ to discover that ‘we do not know anything’ and that “we have no ‘real’ connection with history”.
However, in the real world, and in academia this sort of ‘reductionism’ is only carried so far.
LikeLike
Another example of the white/black dichotomy. Strikes me as white supremacy in black face.
Interesting reading of history that “Black Egypt” sparked Greek civilization.
Greece was more influenced by the Phoenicians rather than the Egyptians. The Phoenicians were Fertile Crescent seafarers that “colonized” Greece, Italy, Spain, Carthage (N. Africa) while the Egyptians were quite satisfied to remain at home.
Egypt is pretty unique in that they are a self contained civilization that “Evolved” separately from the Levant, Mediterranean, and African worlds.
Strikes me as hypocritical to “appropriate” Egypt for the “black” world while claiming that Greece is not really “white.”
Several regions of the world evolved complex civilizations due mostly to the ease in the regional domestication of grains, legumes, etc.
Other parts of the world never achieved a high level of civilization complexity due to the simple fact that they lacked easily domesticated grains, with a high enough yield, to provide a high enough surplus to allow for a high level of societal specialization.
Too many people equate civilization complexity with “superiority.” Black people don’t have anything to be ashamed of simply because most of Africa remained pastoral.
It must be pretty insulting to modern day Egyptian having to deal with both “white” and “black” people’s attempts to appropriate their civilization.
Ancient Egypt was not Charlton Heston “white” or Don Cheadle “black.”
Seems that white people want to pretend that Egypt was a “white” civilization while black people retaliate by whining that Egypt was a “black” civilization.
Obviously Europeans (including European-Americans) ignore the very obvious fact that they are not the originators of “civilization” but rather its beneficiaries.
LikeLike
@J
1. It pre-supposess that archaeolgist live in a ‘vacuum.’
No, but that they explore the past and should be more concerned about the actual Ancient Greeks than what today’s people think of Ancient Greece. See the difference?
They are NOT racist, sexist and any other ‘ist’ you can think off.
Do you read my messages? I wrote that exactly. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective, it is impossible to forget about your experience when studying past, or any other thing.
Archaeologists are people of today. Which means they, too, have a culture and a world to live in (racist, sexist, etc. world). Plus, they are also individuals, and each person has unique view of the world. ALL of that influences archaeological interpretation they make.
I never said it’s possible to study past without references to the presence.
I say more or less the same thing, where we differ is that I say they viewed themselves as ‘White’ on the basis of their SKIN.
So, to you, their skin was white? There are many people of today who would disagree. But it doesn’t matter. If you say Greeks didn’t see themselves as “whites” in terms of race, then, I don’t understand why you disagree with Abagond’s point #3.
LikeLike
@J
And again,
I describe Greeks as being White by the artwork of the head vases. you appropriate their skin to ‘olive’.
However, as you say, “You are trying to put your own (I
mean our own, today’s) standards of race into the past”.
if this is so, then how comes classifying themselves as ‘olive’ is also not a part of that same process (mutatis mutandis)
“Olive” is the word Abagond used, and I adopted it, in lack of a better term. All we know Greeks usually described themselves as lighter than Ethiopians and darker than northern people (northern people they knew of). So in any case, we know they were not particularly dark nor snow white. “Brown” might also be a good word instead of “olive”.
@Eurasian Sensation
Scythians are generally seen as being of Iranian stock, probably with some Turkic/Mongol elements as well. Their territory at various times ranged from Chinese Turkestan to northern India, to the fringes of the Balkans and Russia. So while their territory certainly would have included pale white-skinned people, particularly in the areas close to Greece, it is highly unlikely that such a description was accurate for the Scythian people as a whole.
Greeks didn’t really care much about babarians to classify them into distinct categories. What they thought about people around Black sea was that they were barbaric- but those were not uniform groups.
@narciso
The Phoenicians were Fertile Crescent seafarers that “colonized” Greece, Italy, Spain, Carthage (N. Africa) while the Egyptians were quite satisfied to remain at home.
This is not true.
Strikes me as hypocritical to “appropriate” Egypt for the “black” world while claiming that Greece is not really “white.”
I don’t understand this.
Other parts of the world never achieved a high level of civilization complexity due to the simple fact that they lacked easily domesticated grains, with a high enough yield, to provide a high enough surplus to allow for a high level of societal specialization.
This is true, and so is this:
Too many people equate civilization complexity with “superiority.”
Black people don’t have anything to be ashamed of simply because most of Africa remained pastoral.
Most of the WHOLE world remained pastoral till recently. The problem is, when people think about Europe, they think of Ancient Greece and Rome, medieval castles, and other symbols of civilization. And when they think about Africa, they rarely think of that- they often forget (don’t want to include) Egypt, and most never heard of other African civilizations.
LikeLike
Mira,
I am beginning to think it must be ME than rather your writing style that is creating this confusion.
I am finding it very hard to follow the logic of what you say.
However, nevertheless, here goes, an attempt at what I see as your most salient point…
Having white skin is NOT a construct (as long as we are not playing with semantics etc here) as such, or even the perception that a collective group may have white skin.
However, atrributing varying processes to the colour of skin IS.
Moving this along slightly.
Many in the Far East have a liking for ‘White skin’. This is because their skin approximates to ‘White’. It has nothing to do with nations like Japanese viewing themselves as ‘White’ or Caucasian, when they are NOT.
It is to do with a ‘cognition’ that their skin on a biological level approximates therewith.
If you can equate what I say about the Japanese example. Then it should be easy by a process of logic to apply it to the Greek scenario, and how they could identify themselve Sas ‘White’ in this context, on the basis of their skin pigment.
If it is accepted that the Greeks did have a recognition of their ‘skin colour’ and I think we have to assume they did, because they described other people skin colour.
Then by a process of logic, based on the evidence we have before us. The Greeks would have viewed themselves as ‘White’.
They could not view themselves as ‘Caucasian’ because that definition in terms of ‘race’ would arise nearly 2000 years later.
However, once that term had arised,’Caucasian’ viz. a person with White skin with differing varying attributes whose origins could be traced to Caucasus region.
Then it is possible to say ‘retrospectively’ that the Greeks are ‘Caucasian’ without being ‘dishonest’ and/or providing a false representation of what the Greek phenotype might actully look like.
This is the point!!
LikeLike
“First of all, you are using “mixed” to label “people of mixed race” says a lot- I never said a mixed person has to be mixed based on race. “Mixed” can mean anything- mixed in the sense of religion, race, ethnicity (not the same as race!), etc. When I say: “mixed” I mean on ethnic mixing. Which is NOT the same as race. I am mixed ethnically but I am white. There’s a difference.”
Racial mixture is fundamentally different from the other kinds because race is an ascribed characteristic while religion and culture tend to be chosen characteristics (though not in the case of Judaism).
LikeLike
I forgot to post this link. What is interesting about this link is that the vast amount of the information comes from a White supremacy site. Nevertheless the information is still valuable with regard to the historical records, irrespective of those who created the site.
The Negro Presence in Classical Greece
“This brief overview shows conclusively that:
1. The Ancient Greeks were well aware of the Negroid and mixed racial types;
2. That Blacks were present, as slaves, mercenaries or freedmen, in Classical Grecian times; and
3. That racial mixing took place”.
http://www.white-history.com/greece_negroes.htm
LikeLike
RE: MIRA
1. You replied that this was not true: The Phoenicians were Fertile Crescent seafarers that “colonized” Greece, Italy, Spain, Carthage (N. Africa) WHILE THE EGYPTIANS WERE QUITE SATISFIED TO REMAIN AT HOME
So you are contending that Egyptians were just as prolific as the Phoenicians in establishing “colonies” throughout the Mediterranean? The established colonies are concrete examples of how the Phoenician impacted the development of Greece, Rome, etc (complex civilization interacting with less complex Mediterranean cultures). Stating that Egypt created or sparked civilization in Greece/Mediterranean is nothing but speculation because it cannot be corroborated.
2. About calling Egyptians “black” while stating that the Greeks are not “white.” The author used “Black” in the modern american context of the word (one drop rule) while complaining about the use of the modern word of “white” to describe classical Greece.
Basically the author is using the one drop rule to claim ancient Egypt as a black people/civilization when Ancient Egyptians were quite clear that they were distinct from all surrounding population groups. i.e. they depicted themselves as having a reddish brown color. The author hypocritically ignores this while pointing out how the Greeks considered themselves as “different” from N. Europeans and hence they are not “white.”
i.e she uses a more inclusive version of black to allow her to “claim” Egypt while using a more restrictive version of “white” to remove Greeks from the modern grouping of white Aryan type.
3. “most of the world remained pastoral until recently” Perfect example of bad historical statements. Strikes me as a product of white supremacy that pretends that Europeans domesticated all grains, animals, etc that were necessary to develop more complex societies.
All these regions have been agricultural for millennium:
Egypt, The Middle East (Fertile crescent + Iran), Southeast Asia (vietnam, thailand, etc), The Indian subcontinent, East Asia (China/Japan/Korea), Mesoamerica (Mexico/Central america). All these regions were the first to “Domesticated” high yielding grains, legumes, ruminates, etc. The resulting agricultural surplus allowed the societal differentiation that was necessary to increase civilization complexity.
N. Europe, N. America, Australia, and most of Africa remained pastoral/hunter gather until relatively recently because it took time for these agricultural and livestock precursors to “diffuse” to the more remote regions where humanity lived.
Ironic that N. Europeans were at a similar level of development as most Africans and N. American indians but have managed to convince most of the world that they are “superior”
LikeLike
And again by way of illustration that how the Greeks viewed themselves, is NOT important, to whether they are ‘White’ and/or ‘Caucasian’ with regard to the ‘veridical representation.
In parts of North Africa today, as I type and you read these words. There are ‘Black Africans’ and some very ‘dark’
who would classify themselves as NOT such but rather as ‘Arab’.
Is their perception a veridical representation of the facts??
…And furthermore down the line, say 3,000 years from now how will the history books define these people??
Presumably the ‘yardstick’ that will be utilised is – “It is ‘how they ‘define’ themselves is what counts??”
So in this instance they will be classified as ‘Arabs’
LikeLike
Hi Narciso!
Forgive me here for steeling your thunder he eh
With regard to the following observation:
“…he uses a more inclusive version of black to allow her to “claim” Egypt while using a more restrictive version of “white” to remove Greeks from the modern grouping of white Aryan type”
This is the crux of the argument that I highlighted in the post ‘How Black Was Ancient Egypt’ except I reversed the process by suggesting Western academia had purposefully used a ‘restrictive ideology’ of what is ‘Black’ by defining the ‘Negro’ solely as being ‘Black’? And yet at the very same time having a more ‘expansive’ term for what constituted ‘White/Caucasian’.
I wonder if you had ever looked at it this way also??
LikeLike
RE: J
Restrictive definition of black vs. broader definition of white:
Its quite obvious that white people have shifted the definition of race to suit the ideology of white supremacy. Bring in as much of the Ancient complex world as possible into the white category while fragmenting the rest of the non-european world into oblivion.
White people have created arbitrary divisions of peoples and “assigned” different values to each group to, in essence, “divide and conquer.” Chop up non-european cultural regions into tiny little bits to minimize the combined achievement of the non-european world. Then set each little bit into conflict with each other by assigning different levels of “prestige” so that they do not see how all societies are a product of human ingenuity and cultural adaptation to their specific environments.
Basically all human societies enrich and are enriched by each other through the exchange of regional adaptations/innovations. Western academia is able to appropriate high civilization because the non-european world is unable to collectively denounce the western appropriation of “civilization” because they are too busy fighting about “labels”
The problem that i was trying to point out is that just because western academia appropriates other cultures achievements does not mean that it is okay to “appropriate” another’s simply to be able to claim that one had an advanced civilization while Europeans were still living in caves.
This “appropriation” creates useless conflict amongst non-european groups because it in effect strips them of their unique contributions to human civilization.
The blond blue-eyed super humans were johnny come lates to the civilization game but they have managed to elevate themselves to a false pinnacle of civilization by claiming a biological superiority that does not exist. All us non-aryans are too busy fighting for scraps that we overlook that the argument isn’t about pyramids, aqueducts, or columns but about a retarded claim to genetic superiority.
Plant and animal domestication, architecture achievements, or when one group stopped living in caves has nothing to do with the “superiority” of any group.
Human civilization is a product of environment, resources, and time; It is not the result of a group of super humans creating civilization for a bunch of primitives.
LikeLike
Thanks Narciso,
I see you have then ha ha.
The reason why I asked is because there are some very strange thoughts and reasoning, and things are not as they may ‘seem’ on this board.
I was merely seeking clarification in my mind
Nice one
LikeLike
Abagond,
I think the idea of Black History should start from what we absolutely know. For the diaspora I think going beyond a thousand years for Black history gets hard to document. I am not interested in if Greek or Egypt was Black or how Black. We mostly know that Nubia which existed before Egypt more than likely was Black, but we dismiss that history as the present day Arabs do in the Sudan. It doesn’t seem to have the panache that Egypt has. Since I have not studied a Black History curriculum, my knowledge about Black inventors besides George Washington Carver and other Black people of note is Hit or Miss. I was in my late fifties before I knew about Ida B. Wells and Hans Massaquoi. I found out about a Black woman inventor beside Madam Walker on an engineering forum last year. We do not have to go back four thousand years to find these people whose lives have effected history and our quality of life. I guess I think as Mira does, that certain eras have to be looked upon with the archeologist eye, rather than a historian. We take the known history of what is written by the ancients as an account of their life and their view point. We shouldn’t be into revisionism without substantiation of facts. I see no purposes of these arguments in the post other than an exposition of how much knowledge each commenter has.
LikeLike
So more black history, less ancient…
LikeLike
Abagond, the notion that the Greeks stole philosophy from Egypt is to ignore the obvious evidence that both cultures had contrasts on every level. It is like the other theory that Plato stole the African philosophy and ideas from the library at Alexandria and then burned it to the ground, quite a feat since the library wasn’t started until Plato was long in the tooth, and then took years to complete. Besides, how do you steal ideas and thought? Even if you do, don’t more ideas simply return to those who thought of them in the first place?
According to the myth of stolen knowledge, Africa was the cradle of civilization and European oppressors subdued the Africans and stole their knowledge from them. This fallacious tale has been repeated ad infinitum from Marcus Garvey to Leonard Jefferies. During the classical period in Egypt that nation was not a mixed race society. In fact, many of the prominent institutions in the country, including the library at Alexandria were actually built by the Greeks. Lefkowitz exposes how black activists created an alternative reality to explain their origins and adapted portions of Masonic rituals to support their belief systems.
LikeLike
chris, you wrote:
Lefkowitz exposes how black activists created an alternative reality to explain their origins and adapted portions of Masonic rituals to support their belief systems.
Best bet is to read the words of Elijah Muhammad in Message to the Black Man. He explains it all, especially the part about the knowledge theft, chalking it up to the wiley white man’s use of Tricknology.
LikeLike
Thank you no_slappz.
Lefkowitz is a white woman that loves to deny black people had any kind of association with Egyptian history.
LikeLike
“In the end I have asked myself, what is Professor Lefkowitz’ point, why does she see the need to challenge Bernal, James, Diop, or to question my integrity? She states very clearly that her project is about sustaining the American myth of European triumphalism. In her own words:
‘Any attempt to question the authenticity of ancient Greek civilization is of direct concern even to people who ordinarily have little interest in the remote past. Since the founding of this country [ie U.S.], ancient Greece has been intimately connected with the ideals of American democracy’.”
http://www.africawithin.com/asante/race_in_antiquity.htm
LikeLike
The mere idea of Ancient Greece as “the cradle of European (read: western) civilization” or even “Greece as the first European civilization” is wrong.
Thanks for the link, J. Will read it and post my comments. (Which reminds me: I still owe you my review of “The Black Greeks” article).
LikeLike
Personally, for me I do NOT see anything wrong with it.
If teh Western nations want to claim Greece for themselves. Then so be it.
All nations do this type of ‘artistic licence’ with history.
For instance the Battle of Britain in Dunkirk in 1942, (World War 2). The British suffered a ‘heavy defeat’. The history book teaches us ‘it was a heroic day, when our forces fought off the Nazis’. There is no mention of ‘defeat’.
Again, I also remember the Poles have a tradition that they successfully beat and repeled the Mongol empire expansion.
However, the ‘fact’ is the Mongols chose (for reasons somewhat unclear) NOT to expand and push into Poland.
So for Westerners, Greece is part of their tradition (via Rome) and they would naturally take ‘offence’ if others suggested otherwise
LikeLike
@J
Personally, for me I do NOT see anything wrong with it.
If teh Western nations want to claim Greece for themselves. Then so be it.
Interesting. So, you do think UK has a right to keep all the monuments English people stole from the Greece? Do you think Greeks themselves don’t have a right to “claim” Ancient Greece?
Why is such a problem for you if westerners want to claim Egypt, but ok if they want to do the same with Ancient Greece?
All nations do this type of ‘artistic licence’ with history.
True. And it’s bad and dangerous business, and I’m doing everything I can to fight against it.
So for Westerners, Greece is part of their tradition (via Rome) and they would naturally take ‘offence’ if others suggested otherwise
The “tradition” is a tricky word to use. Tradition usually means something old, almost natural to one culture, something about its roots. Wrong. Many traditions are actually fabricated, and “Greece as the cradle of western civilization” is one of them.
LikeLike
I am not quite sure the reason for your question about the returning of historical artefacts.
Simply, the answer is that ‘power’ will dictate what should be done with those artefacts, irrespective of what you or I think?
That these monuments reside with the British should alert
you to who has the ‘power’
‘Its getting its getting kinda hectic’.
‘As a man thinks and so is he’, so if Westerners – from their own perspective -believe, or can make links to the ‘scientific knowledge/culture’ of Greece via Rome. Then this is ‘their’ reality…but NOT yours.
LikeLike
And with regard to:
“Why is such a problem for you if westerners want to claim Egypt, but ok if they want to do the same with Ancient Greece?”
I am not quite sure where you get that idea from?. If Whites or even the Arabs want to claim Egypt – then so be it.
There was a time when Whites claimed every single civilization on the African continent and also the world,
as their creation and theirs only.
LikeLike
@J
I am not quite sure where you get that idea from?. If Whites or even the Arabs want to claim Egypt – then so be it.
I am sorry, then. I misunderstood you. I thought you were opposing the idea of westerners “claiming” Egypt. My mistake.
There was a time when Whites claimed every single civilization on the African continent and also the world,
as their creation and theirs only.
Also, I understood you are fighting against this (eurocentric view).
I am not quite sure the reason for your question about the returning of historical artefacts.
Simply, the answer is that ‘power’ will dictate what should be done with those artefacts, irrespective of what you or I think?
Of course. But does that mean people with less power should remain silent? This is a HUGE issue for Greece. Just like there are huge issues for black people in America, but they don’t have enough power- should they stop talking about it?
LikeLike
With regard to :
Also, I understood you are fighting against this (eurocentric view).
Not quite,….I am not FIGHTING against anything.
Once you are ‘secure’ in understanding yourself, then there is no need to fight anybody.
Its when you are insecure and not sure of yourself, identity etc that’s when the issues and problems arise, and all the discord etc.
So with regard to race, as a Black person I THINK I have the ‘facts’, NOT that it is possible to have facts within the realm of ‘knowledge’.
Just for the record It is NOT every Afrocentric perspective I
agree with. Since as an ‘individual’ (and as a human being),
I always like to to think that ‘I can think for myself’.
All I am doing on this chatboard is sharing ideas in a humble way, always being mindful and open to suggestions and other possibilities.
I think that sums up my position really…
LikeLike
@J
With regard to :
Also, I understood you are fighting against this (eurocentric view).
Not quite,….I am not FIGHTING against anything.
Sorry. I didn’t really mean “fighting” fighting, more opposing the idea. (Is that a better word? I am not a native speaker so it’s difficult for me to find the right word sometimes). What I mean is: I thought you dislike Eurocentric view and that you oppose it.
Its when you are insecure and not sure of yourself, identity etc that’s when the issues and problems arise, and all the discord etc.
You’re right about this. Of course, “identity” can mean anything, it is often someone’s personal identity.
So with regard to race, as a Black person I THINK I have the ‘facts’, NOT that it is possible to have facts within the realm of ‘knowledge’.
I understand. But do you think any non-black person could have the same view of the world, or embrace Afrocentric views? Or do you think it’s more of a personal thing for you?
Just for the record It is NOT every Afrocentric perspective I
agree with. Since as an ‘individual’ (and as a human being),
I always like to to think that ‘I can think for myself’.
Of course, that’s given. I never thought you were simply copying anything labeled “Afrocentrism”. You are an individual, just like anybody else. I am sorry if I ever made you think I see you as some kind of blind-follower of anything labeled “Afrocentrism”.
If I ever criticize what you write, or seem to correct you, it’s not because I think what you’re writing is rubbish; on the contrary, I agree with most of what you write. But if I see a factual error (Minoans being referred as Greeks, for example), I must point out. When I say “the black Greeks” article is a mess, it’s not because I oppose the idea of Pelasgians being black- but because the article is full of factual errors and shows lack of understanding/knowledge of the subject.
LikeLike
Thanks Mira,
I can understand why you think the way you do, but it is just a little bit more complicated and/or runs taht bit ‘deeper’
1. With regard to ‘eurocentricism’, I do not really ‘oppose’ it as such. For me, looking at it solely from its own inherent logic it makes ‘sense’.
However, it should NOT be Black peoples aim to be ‘converting’ White people as such with regard to Afrocentricism. Rather Blacks should be doing what they need to do as a race to progress AND NOT to worry what Whites think or believe.
2. As for a White understanding Afrocentricism. What I would say here is that there are many Black people who are more ‘White’ in their thinking than White people. This is what Fanon was getting at it his book ‘Black Skin, White Masks. A Black person merely in skin, but everything else even to the point of their collective unconscious is ‘White’.
(ie Phenomenonology). So you also have this aspect to the problem as well.
On the issues of Whites, it can be very difficult for them to understand Afocentricism. I sincerely believe that much of our knowledge of the world is tied or dictated by our ‘existence’ (ie ontology), whether it be by race, class, sex and so forth.
The individual who can see that ‘identity’ is a ‘necessary illusion’ ultimately derived from ‘nature’. This is the person who will be able to understand the Afrocentric position, if provided with the relevant information etc. I think only ‘exceptional’ individuals will be able to reach this level.
3. Finally just to clarify, it is ‘Western academia’ that more or less suggests that the Minoans are a continuation/forerunner to Greece. Otherwise it means Greece civilization would have originated out
of ‘nothing’ (ie ex nihilo). Therefore it is very important ‘connection’ for some in Western academia to establish, and some scholars have established it.
LikeLike
@J
1. With regard to ‘eurocentricism’, I do not really ‘oppose’ it as such. For me, looking at it solely from its own inherent logic it makes ’sense’.
Well, true, anything can make sense, depending on the point of view. I get that. It doesn’t mean some things are simply not true, and I don’t think it is wise not to talk about it. “Eurocentrism” isn’t good or bad, right or wrong on its own. It just means “from European POV”. Good. But when you use that POV as an explanation of the world/history that is today proved wrong, then it’s a bad thing.
However, it should NOT be Black peoples aim to be ‘converting’ White people as such with regard to Afrocentricism. Rather Blacks should be doing what they need to do as a race to progress AND NOT to worry what Whites think or believe.
So, to you, it’s all about blacks as a race? Not about the general well being of humans, or understanding history, societies, etc. We should all stick to “our kind”, because we can’t understand each other?- is that it?
2. As for a White understanding Afrocentricism. What I would say here is that there are many Black people who are more ‘White’ in their thinking than White people. This is what Fanon was getting at it his book ‘Black Skin, White Masks. A Black person merely in skin, but everything else even to the point of their collective unconscious is ‘White’.
(ie Phenomenonology). So you also have this aspect to the problem as well.
Of course. I talked about it. That’s why I said many afrocentrics are, in fact, eurocentric, because they were born and educated in the western societies (America, UK, etc), so they adapted – consciously or not- many western ideas of science that they’re now trying to apply to Africa.
On the issues of Whites, it can be very difficult for them to understand Afocentricism.
Why? Afrocentrism means “looking at X from African POV”. It’s not rocket science, it really isn’t. The problem is not the lack of the ability to understand, it’s the lack of will. In other words, whites could understand. They just don’t want to. In case of afrocentrism, I’ll give you one example: “Egypt was black”. It’s not difficult for whites to understand this claim, but they refuse to even think about it, because they feel, I don’t know, the world as they know it would break apart if they accept the fact ancient Egyptians were black. They refuse to do it. Simple as that.
I sincerely believe that much of our knowledge of the world is tied or dictated by our ‘existence’ (ie ontology), whether it be by race, class, sex and so forth.
This is true. But you can’t separate any of it within an individual. You are mix of all of it, and all these things influence your view of the world and your truth. This view might be similar to other people of your own race, but it can also be similar to other people of your gender, or other people of your country, class, etc.
The individual who can see that ‘identity’ is a ‘necessary illusion’ ultimately derived from ‘nature’. This is the person who will be able to understand the Afrocentric position, if provided with the relevant information etc. I think only ‘exceptional’ individuals will be able to reach this level.
Identity is a construct, an illusion if you like, that a human individual build in order to survive as a social animal. The way you or I build our identities is individual. There’s nothing collective about it, even though we both might see ourselves as members of certain human groups. But it is individual, not collective. In other words, there’s no reason on Earth why would you understand Afrocentrism better than me, or anybody else. Black skin or white skin doesn’t make it enough to understand.
3. Finally just to clarify, it is ‘Western academia’ that more or less suggests that the Minoans are a continuation/forerunner to Greece.
Since when you adopt western academia’s point of view? I thought you want to practice Afrocentric views.
Otherwise it means Greece civilization would have originated out of ‘nothing’ (ie ex nihilo). Therefore it is very important ‘connection’ for some in Western academia to establish, and some scholars have established it.
I never said Greeks didn’t have any contacts with Minoans- on the contrary. But to say Minoans ARE Greeks (which some people often do) is incorrect. Minoans were not Greeks. Simple as that.
Minoans were- and this is interesting- first European civilization. They influenced Greeks, yes, in so many ways (Linear B script being just one example). But hey, Egyptians influenced Greeks and nobody says they are Greeks. So why is different for Minoans?
LikeLike
With regard to your points Mira. I am not sure if you have fully grasped what I have in my mind when I typed those thoughts here.
So I am not sure if I give a further analysis of your points which appears to be based on mis-understanding of my position will help matters in this respect.
Our dialogue reinforces what I said with regard to understanding ‘Afrocentricism’ that ‘ontology’ (ie existence and you can add ‘experiences’ as well) means that very few of us can think ‘outside of the ‘box’ – and will be able to understand it in its totality.
LikeLike
There’s no way we could know it (whether I fully grasped what you had in mind- I mean, we could continue our discussion and we’ll see). I am not a mind reader, and we don’t share the same culture or language, so the only thing I can react to are your written words.
Our dialogue reinforces what I said with regard to understanding ‘Afrocentricism’ that ‘ontology’ (ie existence and you can add ‘experiences’ as well) means that very few of us can think ‘outside of the ‘box’ – and will be able to understand it in its totality.
And I agreed. I didn’t agree that you, as a black man from the west, can necessarily understand Afrocentrism better than me, a white archaeologist from Eastern Europe. (You and me are just examples, it could be anybody). Do you agree or disagree with this?
LikeLike
I think we are exactly in the same position as your last post I am afraid
I am not sure how to answer your post, which is diverging even further away??
Sorry!!
LikeLike
I’m just trying to say, judging from your posts, I agree with most of what you say.
Then I add a think I don’t agree, and ask for more explanation. That’s all. But yes, I agree with most of what you say.
LikeLike
The Ancient Greeks were seen as white before Greek Americans were.
I’m never sure how far to believe those “how the X became white” stories. On the one hand, it’s clear that the lines surrounding “race” are arbitrary, and shift with time. And I also know that, sure, enough, as you say, that shift in the immigration laws in the 1920s was meant to make it harder for people like my father to immigrate, and that, in turn, there was a whole set of ideas of genetic inferiority of Mediterranean people, relative to Northern European people, that backed that kind of thing up. On the other hand, at other times I read things that suggest we may have been regarded more as off white or some inferior category of white than out and out not white.
I do remember reading, but can’t find now on Google, that nineteenth century Northern Europeans used theories of the racial origins of modern Greeks that would let them keep claiming the ancient Greeks while distancing their descendants; modern Greeks had somehow gotten tainted with other ancestry that they considered less white. A look at ancient Greek artwork says that ancient Greeks looked pretty much like my father’s family, so, whatever percent of modern Greek ancestry is or isn’t African, relative to, say, Swedes, the same was probably already true in ancient times.
At any rate, I’ll agree that “white” is a socially contingent concept that doesn’t really apply to ancient history.
LikeLike
“what is Professor Lefkowitz’ point”
Professor Lefkowitz point is this, she cannot just stand by and let Afrocentric Loons distort history.
She is doing what any decent human being would do, making wrongs RIGHT!!!!!
I’ve been exposing Afrocentrist racism and distortions for the last three years on various websites where these viruses show their nasty head.
Anyone who believes in Afrocentricity is gullible and is envious of true history!!!
LikeLike
Sickle cell genes found in Greece, other parts of Southern Europe & Western Asia come from West-Central Africa. So there are black African genes in the Greek population as well as in other populations in the Mediterranean basin.
LikeLike
Is this all false?:
One of the most complete studies ever undertaken of racial types in Ancient Hellas was done by the American anthropologist J. L. Angel, who performed an extensive survey of all ancient Greek crania.
Angel (1944), calculated that during the Classical period of Greek history (650-150 BC), 27% of the Greek population had been predominantly Nordic in type.
This is perfectly in line with other observations, which have determined that the Hellenic population consisted of two, possibly three elements initially: Nordics, Mediterraneans and Alpine types. Only later were non-European elements introduced, mainly through the importation of slaves.
Angel observed that prior to the Classical period, the Nordic element had been larger, and that after it, the element in question had declined. [Angel (1943; 1944; 1945; 1946a, b, c.] Angel (1971), also noted that the immigrant Indo-Europeans, were of Nordic subrace.
Peterson (1974), studied portrait busts of famous ancient Greek personages, and concluded that the aristocracies of Hellas were a product of closely interbreeding, Eupatrid clans. These clans were mostly Nordic in type, being largely descended from the Indo-European invaders.
The study of Greek literature which Sieglin (1935) performed, has demonstrated that many individuals in the elites of ancient Greece, had blond or red hair. For instance, Alcibiades, Alexander the Great, Critias, Demetrius of Phalerum, King Lysimachus, Ptolemy II, Philadelphus and King Pyrrhus, were all fair-haired individuals. Dionysius I, the ruler of Syracuse, had blond hair and freckles, whilst the Athenian playwright Euripides, also had a fair and freckled complexion. [Gunther (1956).]
HELLENIC IDEAL WAS NORDIC
Indeed, the Greek orator Dio of Prusa noted that the Greek ideal of beauty was a Nordic one. The Greeks, he said, admired the blond Achilles, but thought that the barbarian Trojan Hector, was black-haired. [Günther (1956).]
In his “Argonautica,” the Greek poet Apollonius Rhodius, describes the hero Jason, and all fifty of the Argonauts, as blond-haired. [Sieglin (1935).]
When the heroine Electra, in Euripides’ play of that name, finds a lock of her brother Orestes’ hair, on the grave of their father Agamemnon, she can tell that it is his hair, because of its distinctive blond color. [Ridgeway (1909).]
The poet Bacchylides said that the women of Sparta were blonde, and Dicaearchus said much the same thing about the women of Thebes. [Gunther (1956).]
For the Greeks, the most beautiful woman who ever lived, Helen, was a blond, as were those mythical men such as Adonis, who were famed for their handsomeness. [Sieglin (1935).]
HFK GŰNTHER’S WORKS
Although a Nordicist, and thus disparaging of White non-Nordic inputs into Hellenic society, Günther’s works on the subject of Greek racial history (1927; 1928; 1929a, b; 1956; 1961), are particularly valuable. Günther performed a detailed analysis of Greek history, from a biological perspective. Utilizing craniological, literary, and pictorial evidence, he reconstructed the racial structure of ancient Greece. He concluded that the Nordic sub-race formed something of an ideal for the Greeks, and that the Nordic element was more influential than any other. At the summit of its achievements, Greece possessed a large Nordic element, but as this element declined, so did Greek culture and civilization.
“WHERE THE HELLENIC RACE HAS BEEN KEPT PURE”
In the 4th Century AD, the Jewish physician Adamantios, described what he called the “true Greek” – or where the “Hellenic race has been kept pure” as follows:
“Wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond; the flesh is rather firm, the limbs straight, the extremities well made. The head is of middling size, and moves very easily; the neck is strong, the hair somewhat fair, and soft, and a little curly; the face is rectangular, the lips narrow, the nose straight, and the eyes bright, piercing, and full of light; for of all nations the Greek has the fairest eyes.” [Günther (1927) 157.]
This quote is interesting as it shows that even then – some 800 years after the end of Hellenic Classical period – some Nordic Greek elements had survived. These elements can, of course, still be seen today as well, although much reduced in numbers.
For more literary descriptions of pigmentation in ancient Greek poetry and prose, as well as craniological evidence, the following works are recommended: De Lapouge (1899), Jax (1933), Myres (1930), Reche (1936) and Ridgeway (1901).
LikeLike
Dido,
To be honest, I am not familiar with these researches, but they do seem suspicious. What is the most suspicious thing is the time they were made (most in early XX century). We all know what were the views on race and spreading of cultures of authors in that time.
Also, genetic tests don’t prove this, as far as I know. Greeks were more diverse population than we often think, but I would not call them “Nordic” in any way.
Not to mention the whole “Nordic ideal in Ancient Greece” argument is false. There is no such thing.
LikeLike
For the Greeks, the most beautiful woman who ever lived, Helen, was a blond, as were those mythical men such as Adonis, who were famed for their handsomeness. [Sieglin (1935).]
Helen was a ‘beard’ for Menelaus! The Greeks didn’t like women back then. Women were for breeding purposes only! Men were for having real fun with! Hence the term pederasty. Those poor broads! Why do you think they refer to a certain sexual act as ‘Greek’? I’ll leave it to your vivid imagination!
Angel (1944), calculated that during the Classical period of Greek history (650-150 BC), 27% of the Greek population had been predominantly Nordic in type.
This was written in 1944? Did they have DNA testing back then, besides looking at bones that is.
The Greeks, he said, admired the blond Achilles, but thought that the barbarian Trojan Hector, was black-haired. [Günther (1956).]
What happened to them Herr, I mean sir? Most of the ones I have seen today have dark hair and swarthy complexions. What’s wrong with black hair, you don’t like Mediterranean folk?
For more literary descriptions of pigmentation in ancient Greek poetry and prose, as well as craniological evidence, the following works are recommended: De Lapouge (1899), Jax (1933), Myres (1930), Reche (1936) and Ridgeway (1901).
All these books are ancient history so to speak. Can’t you cite more recent sources? Oh, by the way, how are things at stormfront?
LikeLike
Why is my comment in moderation?
I tried to be diplomatic. No, they didn’t have DNA tests back then, but you CAN tell a lot of thing just by “looking” at bones. Still, the way this article was written, they weren’t really analyzing bones as much as they were analyzing Greek art. Which is never a good thing (art can be really misleading). Btw, I didn’t notice any “Nordic” ideal in Greek art and literature.
Those poor broads! Why do you think they refer to a certain sexual act as ‘Greek’?
As far as I know, what Greek guys did to each other was not the same thing we call “Greek sexual act”.
What’s wrong with black hair, you don’t like Mediterranean folk?
Yes, that’s an interesting question…
LikeLike
An entertaining and at the same time factual contribution to this topic..
LikeLike
Answer #3: Calling them white is anachronistic: “white” is a Western invention used to excuse slavery and colonialism during the last several hundred years.
….I’m at a loss for words, that’s just asinine.
LikeLike
Is this debate still going on? Ancient greeks were greeks. They saw themselves as hellens only after the persian pressure forced them to find some common ground, untill that point they considered themselves as separate nations. As for the so-called “race” of greeks, I personally think it is as funny to claim that they looked like present day norwegians as it is to claim that they looked like black americans of today. Greeks were greeks.
I think the whole issue here is political: some white mumbojumboheads still cling on the old idea that greeks somehow mysteriously gave “birth” to the white western Europe (in reality they regarded that part of the world as Barbaria) and then some afrocentrics try to desperately paint them black in order to “take them back from the whites” so that they could claim the first place in some imagined competition of racial hierarcy. Both parties are driven by political ideas, not history or reality.
Greeks were greeks. Get over it.
LikeLike
I know I’m late responding here, but both Greeks and Romans considered themselves mixed. It’s been a very sensitive issue, which is why Greek and Roman sculptures have been largely bleached (see NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/arts/design/14unge.html) and why many of these supposed sculptures were actually carved in the renaissance era.
For proof that Greeks and Romans were mulattoes, let’s examine what Greek writers had to say:
Homer: “Memmon took a force of Ethiopians to Troy and died while fighting the Greeks”
Diodorus: “Moreover, certain of the rulers of Athens were originally Egyptians, they say. Petes, for instance, the father of that Menestheus who took part in the expedition against Troy, having clearly been an Egyptian, later obtained citizenship at Athens and the kingship…In the same way, they continue, Erechtheus also, who was by birth an Egyptian, became king of Athens, and in proof of this they offer the following considerations. Once when there was a great drought, as is generally agreed…Erechtheus, through his racial connection with Egypt, brought from there to Athens a great supply of grain”
The Roman Virtuvius Polio said it best: “Italy presents laudable qualities which are tempered by ADMIXTURE from either side both north and south, and are consequently unsurpassed. And so, by its policy, it curbs the courage of the northern barbarians; by its strength, the imaginative south.”
Now, I’m not at all trying to claim Greece as part of African civilization (even though it is very close to Africa and Greek historians said it was founded by Africans) b/c Greek culture is anti-African, with its patriarchy, homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc. So trust me, I want nothing to do with ancient Greece. I know, it goes against the misconceptions most of you have learned in school, but it is what it is.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
It is your opinion that Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were homosexuals. A more plausible theory suggests they were brothers (and the fact that that that same depiction shows them both with their wives and children on either side). The wall depictions do not show their noses or lips touching at all, although I’m aware of a popular modern ILLUSTRATION of the scene that inaccurately shows the noses touching. Either way, it means nothing.
In truth, the law of Ma’at was clearly against homosexuality. #11 of the 42 Declarations of Purity (negative confessions) is “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.”
The mere fact that it’s mentioned in the Declarations suggests that it existed in Egyptian society to some degree. But it was not condoned, nor was it widely practiced. Equally, just because the Zulu had a word for it and did not persecute gays does not mean it was accepted nor widely present in Zulu society.
The difference is that in ancient Athens, it was the practice of the majority of males. Most Athenian males were homosexuals and pedophiles. I’m not knocking it, but that was their way of life…anti-African. There are countless Greek scenes with men having sex with other men, boys and even animals. That is completely incomparable to a scene of two Egyptian brothers hugging or Zulus not persecuting a few local gays.
LikeLike
Whites have institutionized the delusional idea that Greece was the 1st European/White civilization. They also claim that Egypt contributed absolutely nothing to the creation of the Greek Civilization. And if that isn’t enough, they turn around and claim Egypt as their creation as well.
Now Egypt is thousands and thousands of yrs older than Greece. Therefore, if Greece was the 1st European/White Civilization, to claim Egypt as a European/White Civilization one would have to be stupid enough to believe that the child(Greece)gave birth to the parent(Egypt).
Also, by documenting ancient recorded dates of the Egyptian GREAT YR, which is just under 26,000yrs in length, it has been established that the Egyptian Civilization is at least 50,000yrs old, which coinsides with Manetho’s claim. That would make Egypt older than the White race.
Furthermore, no one has explained how Europeans/Whites could have created advanced civilizations like Greece and Egypt when they had no known
1-anticedents,
2-trail and error period,
3-evidence of a written language or culture,
4-recorded history,
5-architectural achievement,
6-mathmatical system, including the zero,
7-organized government or society
8-agricultural achievement
9-religious awareness or concept of God
10-awareness of anything associated with being civilized,
11-educational system
12-evidence of having knowledge or use on anything other than stone impliments,
at the time these civilizations were created. We’re supposed to accept the EUROCENTRIC BS that has them miraculously walking enmass out of their caves in Asia(Europe is not a continent)and creating an advanced civilization like Greece. Then we’re supposed to be even dumber by believing they then migrated into Africa and created an even more advanced Egyptian Civilization that’s older than they, or before their so called 1st civilization ever existed.
LikeLike
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great Alexander was greek!
So much jealousy of this most beautiful small country, that we should be thankful ,even that we are able to speak or have a language all over the world is because of greeks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth is that the Jews hate greeks and want to change history but it’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
^So the Egyptians didn’t actually speak to each other… they just signed to each other in hieroglyphics! We are indeed lucky that the Greeks invented language!
LikeLike
Here is Alexander on his horse at the Battle of Issues from an ancient Greek Mosaic.
LikeLike
Yes, but I think not the European Macedonia of modern times, but the ancient city state of Macedon which I believe was in the north of the Grecian confederacy… If I remember correctly?
However, I am equally confused about why she brought this up.
LikeLike
What kind of question is “How White was Ancient Greece?”. And how exactly does one answer that question? In my opinion, “White” as a social term is just the phenotypical distance from NorthWestern Europeans. So as in the modern world people who are from NorthWestern Europe are always seen as White, where as the further away from that you get, the less White they seem. Ancient Greeks were probably as White as today’s Southern Italians on average.
LikeLike
It’s fascinating to see how many ‘white’ people have darker skin than many middle eastern or even ‘black’ people!
LikeLike
is it just me or did egyptians get whiter over the millenia, i remember seeing this hieroglyph on the internet showing a syrian, a egyptian and a nubian, the syrians were olived complexion, the egyptians were bronze and the nubians , quite hilariously were coal black. but now , when all the news stations were reporting about the arab spring and what was popping off in egypt , the egyptians very much look syrian, i saw maybe a few brown people in the crowds of hundreds and thousands and i thought damn, another cultured butt raped by europeans! eh…. i just couldnt help but flash back to 9th grade and speaking to my global history teacher about the ptolemic dynasty and julius ceasar and yadda yadda… but i guess its a bit expected with the golden age of alexandria in egypt and how egyptians, persians, greeks and romans and lived and studied near each other. the question was how black is egypt i think, and my thoughts are once the word black comes up people automatically think of central and west africans, well all of africa except the north really with the ‘negroid’ features (negroid is such a disturbing word for me), its really a skin thing. ancient egyptians were darker than 21st century egyptians who had the pleasure to be mixed up with a bunch of europeans, so yes the ancient egyptians were pretty damn brown. then you have the question of how white was greece which is the main question of the article… i mean when i think of greeks i usually think of either tanned or olive toned people with dark hair and varying colored eyes, pretty southern european compared to ‘super whiteys'(not the best term but eh i’ve never been that politically correct) of the west and north, so i dont think they had strong african back rounds, specifically west or central african but their skin was considerably darker then norther and western europeans and much lighter than ancient egyptians and other peoples of africa, they were the syrians(not literally). i dont think my answer is worded all organized and junk but im just an 18 year old chick from the race conscious and oh so great U.S of A . oh wells
LikeLike
my bad with out negroid features
LikeLike
.
In the past, the Greeks that I knew in England strained to be considered “white” by the whiter whites of Northwestern Europe. But as time has gone on and I have listened and looked closer, this particular form of approval-seeking and internalized racism has become more understandable to me.
After all, Greece was repeatedly invaded over many centuries, and the Greeks are a colonized people. How easy is it throw off 400 years of slavery and occupation, for starters? For anyone? That’s what the Greeks had from the 14th to 18th centuries, from the Ottomans. Then, when the Ottomans relinquished rule, any ideas of a Greek Republic was overturned by the Great Powers of the time (France, Russia, what was then Prussia and Austria, the UK), which jointly insisted that Greece become a monarchy, head by the Bavarian Prince Otto — of course! A German! — as King of the Greeks.
Is it any wonder then, that a white Europe appropriated a properly-White Ancient Greece for itself…
LikeLike
I don’t know if this particular perspective — seeing Greece as essentially white because it is in Europe, not Africa, and the first “white” country to be civilized — is an aspect of Orientalism? I think so, because it seems like a fantasy of nostalgia.
Orientalist notions are/were essentially self-serving for those in power, so I’d speculate that when the European Elite went on their Grand Tour — the traditional rite of passage of seeing the world before getting down to real life — the point wasn’t to come face to face with flesh and blood Greeks, if Greece was a destination on the itinerary. Instead, it was to meet Greece’s classical past, to confirm bias and live the dream. This is travel, I have heard, for purpose of movement through TIME, rather than going to a place, as such, if that makes sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour
Therefore, if the current and living populace presented any interest to the Grand Tourist, wasn’t it to find the “vestigial traces” of antiquity living in them?
Perhaps this is why Greece is the place to plunder and steal from.
The Duveen Gallery in the British Museum displays the Elgin Marbles, cut from the Parthenon, owned by the British and without any prospect of return to their Greek homeland.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eMfqw_PMF8)
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
As a general practice you should put all your YouTube links in parentheses.
LikeLike
On various other threads, the commenter Mira (from Serbia) has mentioned the way that Greece is a Balkan nation, and that different ethnic groups in the Balkans have been erased or pushed aside by others. Perhaps that is the essential nature of nationalism in the region: to blot out the cultural presence of your neighbour.
Greece was always a seafaring nation. The Greeks had colonies and trading posts in both Egypt and the southern tip of England, that we know. Those colonies and trading connexions could have been even more far flung and further than that. Do we know where Odysseus even went? Didn’t Jason go deep into the Caucasus? What defined Greek-ness probably had next to nothing to do with the melanin in their skin at all.
Greek nationalism though, has a “white” character probably because it is the brainchild of North European Philhellenism.
That’s French, German, British rule and their scholarship / idealism about Ancient Greece. The romantic ideals of Northern European came out of the desire for a re-creation of the Greek state from Antiquity.
The Victorians strongly identified with “the Glory that was Greece”, and the essence of this was eternal and unchanging.
The British are invested in the Classics, it is the organizing principle of their white, European intellectual identity. The signature of their civilization, the cornerstone of their education.
The Classics is at the root and “the learned vocabulary of international application.”
What is overlooked, though, is that the Greeks themselves have to live up to that unalterable ETERNITY! As a people, they’d internalize all the “imperial tampering” about what they should embody, look like, and be identified as.
(Let’s not forget that the first King of Greece was German and that later, the Nazis also left a legacy there, too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_occupation_of_Greece
In the last year or 2, Greece has been in the news for its apparently violent racism against people who are black and brown. It’s not mentioned that the rest of Europe has a long history of violence against Balkan migrants, and against Slavs in general.
From what I know about the Greek notions of race, they don’t actually have a category for “brown”. You say what your ethnicity is, not about melanin in your skin — that is meaningless to them. (I remember trying to explain about skin colour in Greece once, and got some blank, uncomprehending looks… what is she talking about ;/ was all over their faces, lol.)
Darker-skinned Greeks are already confused with “brown” Arabs or Asian Pakistanis or Indians as it is. The more Slavic-looking Greeks are confused with Albanians! It is not a tidy binary of black-white in the least.
Racism operates differently in different parts of the world.
http://www.ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/models-and-stereotypes/graecomania-and-philhellenism
LikeLike
What we take for granted about Greece that is Eternal and Beautiful:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXNdkZ4yu4k)
LikeLike
A not-uncommon theory I have occasionally heard about the Greeks is that they became a “swarthy” people because so many Greek women were raped by Turks/Ottomans.
This sounds a similar to the idea that Arabs were a white people who “became” darker by adulteration of their bloodlines. For Greeks, it implies is that more Turks moved into Greek lands than the other way round, and that the Greeks themselves started out as uniformly Nordic, blond and blue eyed!
None of this was ever so.
When did the Greeks cease being a people of the Levant?
When did they achieve European-ness and their historic ties with the Eastern world get wiped?
The effect though, is clear, because it has white-washed the Ancient Greeks and allowed the West to appropriate this history and culture as its own: from Neoclassiscism in architecture, to literature, the visual arts, theatre, to music.
In its 2nd phase, it became popularized as Empire Style, because it idealized Napoleon’s leadership and the grandeur of the French. In Britain, it was Regency Style, in Germany it was known as Biedermeier style.
It seems Ancient Greece was not only the philosophic grounding of European Empire, it was also its style-setter.
LikeLike
A specific example of what I have mentioned in my previous comments is well shown through the approach of the British antiquarian and topographer, William Martin Leake (born in 1777). He wrote a number of books about Greece and the surrounding Balkans and was considered an authority on the subject.
Mr Leake even considered himself to be an authority on the Greeks and Greek language because he believed himself to be a better judge of the purity of the language than any Greek person. In his 1835 account of his travels in Northern Greece, he said this, paraphrasing:
..the Greek spoken {there} is of a more polished kind than is usually heard, the phrases are more Hellenic, more grammatical, some words are of pure Hellenic derivation, even though preserved by rustics…
Mr Leake, and many other Europeans who visited Greece during that era (and after?) had a sense of ownership and self as the rightful arbiter of Greekness.
*
Katherine Fleming, specialist in Hellenic Culture and Civilization in the Department of History, New York University, has examined the approach taken by William Martin Leake and others, particularly the once-popular allegory about Ancient Greece. This is the one which portrays Greece as a woman, chained and on the way to harem. It was a reflection of the way Greece is represented, and treated as a part of British colonial domination, because only Britain could deliver her (from Ottoman/Islam).
Although in post-Independence Greece, this allegory was no longer useful, it’s potency endured among the Western audience.
I can’t find a quote from her essay where Dr Fleming discusses that theory in detail. But I searched for any articles she might have written on Orientalism, and found this one: “Orientalism, The Balkans and Balkan Historiography”. (The article itself won’t format on this blog, but that is the title.)
LikeLike
How they looked? Well, there are some traces on their statues and paintings and vases and mosaics. You see some fairly pale people and some darker ones. I think Bulanik is on the right tracks here: greeks did not see your complexion that much the point as your culture, language and position.
We often see the Persian/Greek wars as wars between different races and cultures because we are presented this image of dualistic world. You just need to look at the 300 hundred where the spartans are northwestern european looking guys and persians as mixed racially. In real world many greek professional soldiers fought in the Persian armies, some previous greek heroes twiched sides and were commanding persian troops against the mainland greek city states or alliances.
For some reason, perhaps because the race issue is so polarisized in US, we try to see the past as the refelction of the present. It was not so. Many of our convictions and ideas were non excisting in those times. That may include racial hierarchies. After all, absolute majority of the slaves in Greece were what we now a days refer as whites, as was the case of Rome. And it was not a case of no contacts across the seas, we know they romans and the greeks did sail regularily to the southern coast of mediterannean and had their colonies there for centuries. It just was not a race thing for them.
LikeLike
@ sam, was there a time when Western European scholarship considered Greece part of the Levant? When did they make the split between Greece and the rest of the “backward” Balkans?
LikeLike
As mentioned earlier, the first king of Greece was the German, Otto I.
Even the white and blue flag of Greece, is based on the colours of the state of Bavaria. Greece had to come under proper “European” rule to preserve its history and connection to Western civilization.
Despite that German, rather than Anglo- connection, one overriding stereotype of Greeks in western Europe has been the polar opposite of what is thought to be typically German: that the “real” Greeks are lazy and backwards because they are, if truth be told — Orientals…!
This is why the more recent economic collapse in Greece has been attributed, in some circles, at least, to “Greek-ness” rather than faulty planning on the part of the EU.
LikeLike
Even though prevailing skin [eye/hair] colors are no indication of a person’s worth, they are still relevant to figure artists, etc. (of which I am an amateur).
LikeLike
[…] […]
LikeLike
Ancient Greece
The pompous answer at the top is a display of someone lecturing on a subject he knows little about. The cause of Greek “dark hair” now is after centuryies and centuries of arabic and Turk invasions and rapine. Similar to Italy. Ancient writings describe SPARTAN women in the south of Greece as being fair haired, even blonde. Rome – Sulla was described by ancient writings as being gingery-blond. Ceasar on the other hand was notable for his DARK hair.
the “Greek” today are the result of the mixture of the ancient Greeks (R1B and I) nonwhite more invasive (North Africans, Blacks and Semites and Turks)
LikeLike
^Merry Christmas
LikeLike
the “Greek” today are the result of the mixture of the ancient Greeks (R1B and I) nonwhite more invasive (North Africans, Blacks and Semites and Turks)
With those small penises seen on those urns, it’s a wonder they were able to breed any woman. Merry Xmas ‘Daniel’, hohoho, or is it the in your case?
LikeLike
I have always found it fascinating how whites try to claim ‘Ancient Greece’ as a white civilization, but yet the ones who look typically ‘white’ never claim to be of Greek descent. It’s the same way with ancient Rome. When was the last time one of them claimed to be of ‘Roman’ heritage?
LikeLike
To Pamela:
It’s the same way with ancient Rome. When was the last time one of them claimed to be of ‘Roman’ heritage?..
No shortage of people in New York and New Jersey loudly proclaiming their Italian heritage (I would suggest they say Italian instead of Roman since Italy currently exists and the Western Roman Empire collapsed 1700 years ago..) and I definitely know some White folks who proudly state they are of Greek descent.
LikeLike
@ Herneith
The Renaissance Italians seem to be similarly… short changed.
LikeLike
To King:
The Renaissance Italians seem to be similarly… short changed…
I think many of the Ancient Greek artisans and the Michaelangelo were found of the back door entry which apparently requires something of a more modest size… at least perhaps that’s what they were selling. “no really.. it won’t hurt..”
LikeLike
tres gauche…
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2627/why-does-so-much-ancient-greek-art-feature-males-with-small-genitalia
LikeLike
I think many of the Ancient Greek artisans and the Michaelangelo were found of the back door entry which apparently requires something of a more modest size… at least perhaps that’s what they were selling. “no really.. it won’t hurt..”
It’s too bad for them they didn’t have Crisco back then for those that indulge in such filthy behaviour. Figures you’d know about such perversity Uncle Miltie!
LikeLike
To Hereneith:
It’s too bad for them they didn’t have Crisco back then for those that indulge in such filthy behaviour.
Err… have you been hanging out with Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty.. ?
Figures you’d know about such perversity Uncle Miltie!
If you do a little reading about ancient Greece it will become apparent that homosexuality between men was very common… the idea is to understand history and not to necessarily agree with such behavior.
LikeLike
卍 Ancient Greeks = White Indians = Etruscan = Hittites = Minoans = Mycenaeans = Sumerians = Brahmins = Indo-Europeans who believed in Buddhas 卐
LikeLike
Being a Greek I can surely say this was a really long and interesting read. Some of the comments require long answers or counter questions, but that would be a little late, given it’s been four years. So, regarding the original post:
1. Greeks had standard requirements regarding one’s “Greekness”(by the way it’s Hellas and Hellenes, Greece is a Roman name for Hellas). And skin wasn’t one of them. They only cared for the language and teachings. If you spoke their language, and had received their values and education, you were considered Greek. Period. Given the fact that the language never ceased to be used in this land, we are Greeks by their standards. And it matters the most…
2. Barbarians as a word, derived from bar-bar (literally var-var)-the supposed sound of the languages unknown to them. It defined either savage or non educated people. Furthermore, it included the ones that still practiced monarchy instead of democracy, which explains many ancient quotes characterizing Macedonians as such (yes the non Greeks with Greek names, Greek religion, Greek city names, the most famous Greek tutor (Aristotle) for Alexander, participation in the Olympics (only those considered Greeks were allowed) and a thousand Greek artifacts, who were not Greeks despite the lack of evidence for it).
In other words, you could be from all around the world and still be Greek to them.
Regarding the Egypt factor, Greeks and Egyptians coexisted and exchanged culture and knowledge along with the Phoenicians, Assyrians and, of course Persia and Babylon. Egypt was surely an influence, but mind you not, the alphabet we are all using was Phoenician, and cultural landmarks like the theater and philosophy were all Greek. Even this forum (agora), where we can exchange opinions. Yes, the Pharaohs were not democratic. But were great on their own right.
Now, a few things about the comments:
Europe is not England, France and Germany. Or at least they are no more European than the central European or the Balkan countries. The only thing that separates Greece from the rest of the Balkans is that it’s the only non Slav country. Nothing else. Greece is a Balkan, Mediterranean and European country as well. Just as a person can be from New Jersey, USA and the American continent as well.
P.S. I am not a nationalist. People going after immigrants in Greece represent a misguided 7%. I wanted to set this straight. And i am open to endless discussion…
PS 2 One piece of good mannered advice: being Greek is a tough job. Aside from the glorious past that poisoned my people for the last 200 years into not achieving because we achieved then, we also suffer from the “if the others hadn’t held us down we’d triumphed” syndrome. There is no use in Afrocentric or Eurocentric or whatever-centric views or fanatism. Trust me, and i know this first hand, a glorious past won’t make anyone any better than they are now….
Thank you for your time. 😉
LikeLike
@pan
Greece is not only non-slavic Balkan country. Albania and Roumania are also not Slavic
LikeLike
How White was Ancient-Greece – There was no Greece in ancient times. The Haemus-peninsula, the Aegean Islands, Southern-Italy, Anatolia and Cyprus was home to >230 ancient-Greek groups, tribes and Kingdoms that universally self-ascribed Hellene for Identity.
From the river Iber in the West to the river Evros in the East – that space in between is Greek concept…Evropi.
In Ancient-times, Centum Greek-speaking Hellenes could be found in West side of Europe Iberia, nowadays Spain and Portugal. The same could be found as far East as Colchis, nowadays Georgia and Armenia.
The colour-tone of ancient-Greeks matched the climatic conditions of the areas they inhabited. The Natural colour-tone of Ancient-Hellenes never differed greatly from the mean-Mediterrenean one.
Ancient-Greeks compared their skin colour-tones to the dark burnt faces of Ancient-Ethiopians…then, to the pale white faces of Thracians, and concluded that the Gods adorned Hellenes with best median skin tone to suite the human form.
Greeks and Latins are Mediterrenean peoples with skin colour-tones to match. It is from these ancient-peoples Western Civilization developed.
Afrocentrists – Nordicists – Turanids – These peoples look back at themselves and awe at the achievements of the Greco-Roman.
LikeLike
Test Question: And from what ancient peoples and influences did the Greek culture develop?
LikeLike
Test Question 2: Who, and where, in turn, did the Greeks look back at in awe?
LikeLike
And yet again, the point is missed. I guess test questions should have Egypt or the Phoenicians as an answer, so that the dialogue once again succumbs into the “it wasn’t the Greeks, but others, and it was white or was not” etc. etc. It is funny how I get to read that a feature that has dragged my people down and stopped our progress, due to the “we created everything back then” mindset, a feature I would kill not to have is something someone craves to prove, in order to feel better for himself 25 centuries later. It is also awkward reading all kinds of things about Greek mentality from people who may have spend a month on vacation here. And of course, issues that hurt every thinking man in my country, such as the foreign intervention at Greece’s first years as a country, are used to prove how Greece was made “white” or something, I am sorry to be the one to tell you, but you don’t get to judge according to what some white American hillbilly believes about a place he’s never been. Or based on every -centric view that would act as redemption or a machine for ancient pride.
PS. If you get to believe someone’s view according to what suits you, being afrocentric or eurocentric or whatever and not the essence or meaning of something, then let’s face it, you want to be like the ones you accuse. Furthermore, I really and honestly couldn’t care less on how your “white” americans use Greece to prove something. Or how you ‘d like it to be. Don’t use ancient history to prove your own generation’s flaws. I know better, trust me.
PS2 Buranik, where are you from?
LikeLike
I do not care if the greeks were white or blue. All I care is that they were the first humans to ask questions using reason and tried to find answers using reason. Besides they were immensly creative in all fields.
They certainly were far more advanced than any other people at the time; jews, arabs, indians, american indians, chinese, etc.
They did not even take their gods too seriously and they prayed standing up, none of this business of bowing heads, covering heads, kneeling or layinv face down on the floor.
Unfortunately economic decay made people lose their belief in the mselves and in reason and that is why the ancient world fell for the magical jewish-christian-moslem god with all the answer for everything. No need to think by ourselves god has done it for us. All we have to do is follow the book. If somene dies is not because there may be an illness but because gos so provides. This is why the ancient greeks made huge advances in medicine and the jews not, the christians actually took us back to pre greek times.
That was the dark ages. Only when Europe reconnected with Greece in the Rennaissance, whith some help from some illuminated moslems who translated some of the ancient greek works, but mostly when Galileo and Cooernicus decided to apply greek reason to the universe was the jewishchristian god pushed back somewhat.
The magical god has been retreating since. Unfortunately, too many humans still need his “omnipotent delusional crutch”. Once wekiberate ourselves from that god humanity will take a huge leal forward in evey area, including ethics.
Bythe way, it will be the end of antisemitism because there will be no christians with an inferiority and guilt complex in relation to jews. The now liberated europeans and others quickly will outthink jews, just like ancient greeks outhought ancient israelites.
LikeLike
Hellenes speak Centum-Greek language in the Haemus-peninsula for Millennia. Modern-Greeks boast continuity to both.
Todays Greeks are the closest modern humans to the ancient-Greeks. Nobody on this Planet is closer. Greeks look back at themselves standing at the forefront of long chain of Greek-speakers…streatching all the way back to Mycaenean Proto-Greeks. Todays Greeks get their Heritage from Greco-Roman Byzantines. The Byzantine Eastern-Romans got theirs from the ancient-Hellenes. Ancient-Hellenes got their heritage from Mycaenean Proto-Greeks.
Modern-Greeks connect in fragmented way to first-Greeks. Continuity always follows path of least resistance. No other modern-peoples connect to ancient-Greeks the way modern-Greeks do.
Modern-Greeks look back at themselves and awe at their inheritance…
…Dare to rubbish them!
LikeLike
Haemus natives are recognizable by the genes they carry. E1b1b and J2 are neolithic markers who’s subclades mutated unique features in the Greek peninsula. It must be stressed though…genetic markers denote origins only, not ethnicity!
Ethnicity is difficult subject to discuss, something cultural, something that is learned under strict authoritarian control, or not.
If the peoples of the Haemus [Greek] peninsula derive from same gene pool…what is it that makes them Greek then. To know that, requires extensive backround knowledge on Hellenism and Hellenic peoples.
Greeks, since the beginning, have been a seafaring international-peoples. Consequently, Greeks met and intermingled with a great variety of foreign peoples. Greeks are said to be ‘cousins’ to a great variety of other peoples.
The Greek character having formed over millennia, can be summarized as being multi-layered and multifaceted. Most people see Greek-peoples like Mediterraneans, but there is more.
Mediterranean: Greeks could be clustered together with Italians, Maltese, Spaniards, Portuguese, and to a lesser extent, the French…within the framework of a Greater Greaco-Roman Mediterranean civilization.
Western European: Since, in the West, Greece is considered to be the cradle of Western civilization.
Eastern European: Since Greece is situated there and Greeks Baptized, Christianized and Civilized the Slavic-Tribes to Greek Orthodox Christendom, the religion of Byzantium, the Eastern-Roman Empire.
Middle-Eastern: Since Greek expansion into Asia-Minor and beyond, ensured prolonged ties with Eastern Cultures and Oriental ones.
Balkanian: Greeks are not comfortable with this Turkic term. Greeks prefer Haemus-Native instead. Anyway, a Balkanian Identity similar to that of Albanians, Serbians, Croatians, Montinegrins, Slovenians, Bulgarians, FYRoMians, Romanians, does exist. There are common elements, contributions from the Eastern Roman Empire and from Ottoman Empire. Shared common cultural themes, manerisms, morphology, and folkloric synergies bear testament to long-time exposure between like-minded people-groups.
Greeks have always been an International Peoples, since time immemorial. The Greek Character is multi-layered and multifaceted, drawing in embedded experiences from five different geographical locations.
Greeks were never restricted to one particular country, there were no countries with fixed border’s in ancient times. Greece in ancient times could be visualized spanning from Spain in the West to Georgia in the East. There was never a country called Greece in ancient times. Instead, there were many Greeks inhabiting many regions in Evropi and beyond.
LikeLike
People Dynamics: How Greek is the Haemus [Greek] Peninsula
There are no better examples than the FYRoM example, that best illustrate the problems faced by a peoples cultured on way of life their collective-memories do the utmost to erase. FYRoM is cultured on Slavdom but harbours collective-memories rooted in Hellenism.
People dynamics dictate: Peoples absorbed by another peoples, change speech and culture but retain collective-memory. In FYRoM live E1b1b J2 Haemus natives, who may or may not, have been Greek-speakers affiliating to Hellenism, the host culture of the Haemus peninsula, Pre-Slavic times.
In the Haemus [Greek] peninsula we are all Greek to some degree, some more than others. In the Haemus exists Albanophones, Slavophones, Vlachophones etc. They can be Haemus-peoples on genetic dynamic speaking language(s) different to Centum-Greek…that does not exclude them from claiming native indigenous status. E1b1b J2 haplogroups mutated subclades unique to the Haemus-peninsula, those found carrying them boast native origin.
If we, Haemus-peoples, stem from same common Haemus gene-pool, then Greeks have it about right when they distinguish peoples there solely on the phonetic dynamic. Same genous, different speech…this is the Greek way of describing Haemus-peoples with native origin.
NoN-Greek speakers espousing ethnic-feelings and national-pride for Greece and Hellenism should have the right to express themselves. Speaking a language that is different from Centum-Greek does not exclude Haemus-peoples from holding on to collective-memories that are deep-rooted in the myths and legends of the Hellenic world.
Greeks have it about right then, when they consider some Albanophones, Slavophones and Vlachopones to be brothers and sisters to Greeks. Same genous, different speech…the difference is phonetic only, not genetic – same Haemus-peoples, they just happen to speak different language.
In the Haemus [Greek] peninsula, the host culture dominated for millennia…those in closest proximity to Greeks, Hellenized willingly and voluntarily. Greeces modern neighbours could Re-Hellenize – retun back to base, back to the fold.
In the Haemus, we are all Greek to some degree…It’s just that some of us are more Greek than others. The Haemus though, is not as Greek as it used to be, culturally and linguistically. The peninsula now, is home to peoples and languages the Greeks had to learn to live with – sometimes the hard way. Albanians, Bulgarians, FYRoMians, Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrins, Slovenians, Rumanians, Hungarians and Turks – a milieu of peoples, languages and cultures that wear the ethnogenic substratum of the Haemus quite smartly.
LikeLike
Red Herring: How White Should Greece Be and Who Gets To Decide ?
On the back of the name dispute with FYRoM…every Greek-hating man and his dog contributed something towards the character-assassination of the Hellenic Republic and the Greek-Hellenic peoples, which ultimately manifested into an all out attack on Western values and culture.
Western worlds cultural-historical narrative bismerched by FYRoM, by Afrocentrists, by Turkists, by Slavists and by turcoalbanian pseudo-historical revisionists is good enough reason for Greece to make a stand, to stand it’s ground in order to defend and to protect the Western worlds cultural-historical foundation. To keep historical cohesion necessitates Western historical narrative being kept intact, unblemished and unspoilt…if Western Civil Societies common understandings of shared common heritage was to be adhered to.
FYRoM pseudo-historical revisionism, placed alongside Afrocentric, Turanid, Slavist and turcoalbanian anti-Western theories, Ideas and conjectures, contributed massively towards the erosion of Western Civil Societies common understandings of shared common heritage, the fabric from which the West wove it’s cloth, the glue that binds Western democratic adherence towards common Civilizational Principles.
Erode the Western worlds cultural-historical narrative. Erode the Wests cultural-heritage. Erode Western Civil Societies common understandings of shared common heritage…now sit back and watch the Western worlds cultural-foundation crumble. Western Civilization under attack from FYRoM style pseudo-historical revisionism allied to Afrocentric, Turanid, Slavist and turcoalbanian theories Ideas and conjectures – all combined together to badmouth Greece in genaral and the West in particular.
The Name ‘Republic of Macedonia’ poses big problem for Greece. FYRoM’s National history and ethno-genesis story poses even bigger problem for the West, in that, integrating minor Slavic country into Western-worlds economic and security structures means integrating FYRoM ethnogenesis story into the Wests long established mainstream historical narrative…an impossible task the West is only now starting to appreciate the severity of!
LikeLike
I truely believe that no one of you ever been in Greece. I’m almost three years in Ausse and I really miss my country!
Yes, we love our country.
Yes, we believe we were before you were exist.
Yes, we are decents of our Parents.
Yes, Macedonia is Greece.
And yes, we don’t give a flying “F” about others thoughts!
Think it’s time for you to judge by looking at the mirror…
LikeLike
Ah! … and another thing!
Personally, I actually believe that I’m 5% Ethiopian.
And guess what! God or Nature or whatever had to think on this and decided to place this 5% under my belly and between my legs. So proud to be at 5% Ethiopian!!!
ps. sorry for “decents” I meant “descendants”.
LikeLike
ΔΗΜΟΣ
Not sure how many people actually said they have been to greec.
“And yes, we don’t give a flying “F” about others thoughts!”—If you did not care about what others think then how in heck can you tell someone to look in the mirror? Do you expect them to care what you think?
LikeLike
Greeks invade and occupied Sicily for a long time. Why do you think they are so dark?
LikeLike
People are just people…wandering free spirits. So people take journey’s. People wander into and out of, cultural-linguistic spaces, by force, by choice or by chance. If that place is hospitable enough, civilized enough, and rich enough to accommodate their needs, some people would find those things attractive enough to settle there. So in this regard, we can only talk about people like wandering free spirits, carrying with them some cultural baggage inherited from the previous cultural-linguistic area they decided to vacate.
People have been uprooting themselves from since time immemorial, by their own free-choice or not, the point here is to illustrate the fact that biological make-up, blood and Dna, are not important factors on voyage towards development of new ethnicity. People with history, with previous ethnicity, with previous cultural-linguistic affiliations, are free to place those things on-hold during acculturation, the transitional period that leads to proper assimilation. History and the laws of People-Dynamics tell us that within 200 years or 8 generations, people can replace ethnicity with new one, replace language with new one, replace culture with new one. I shall not cite examples – that is for the reader to investigate and research.
Long time ago, recorded in history, Slavic tribes uprooted themselves from steppe primordial homeland, a journey which led them to wander into new Greco-Roman cultural-linguistic area. The settlement of the Slavs into the Byzantine Empire is well documented. FYRoM’s immediate ancestors were the Draguvites, Sagudates and Berzetes. So FYRoM is Slavic in this regard. People-Dynamics ensured that within 200 years or 8 generations, the previous pre-Slavic Greco-Roman population there Slavicized, by force, or by fee-will. On this basis, FYRoM has been Slavic place from since the 6th Century AD, a cultural-linguistic area that can boast continuum >1400 years of Slavic history, where the Slavic-language, culture, and tradition has been practiced there for the same. FYRoM now though, appears to be in transition, on a journey towards development of new ethnicity, incorporating with it new identity-factors which do not follow the laws People-Dynamics taught us. The peoples there appear to be on voyage towards discarding their Slavic inheritance, shedding their Slavic cultural-linguistic identity for a Macedonian Hellenic one.
FYRoM, without following the rules and laws People-Dynamics taught us, where (i) peoples are free to wander into, and outof, the cultural-linguistic spaces of others,(ii) people are free to settle, if they consider the place hospitable enough, civilized enough and rich enough to accommodate their needs,(iii) people are free to put on hold, their previous ethnicity during acculturation period,(iv) people are free to assimilate on acceptance by the host community,(v) people are free to absorb the language culture and traditions of host community,(vi) people are free to develop same ethnic-feelings, same collective-memories, same national pride of the host nation. FYRoM did none of these things. FYRoM did not follow the rules and laws of People-Dynamics, instead, FYRoM follows path of usurping them.
Haemus-people are just Haemus-people…wandering free spirits. So Haemus-peoples take journey’s…forced-ones, planned-ones, or random-ones. Haemus-people have been wandering into, and out of, cultural-linguistic spaces from since time immemorial. In the Haemus, we are all Greek to some degree, it’s just that some of us are more Greek than others. I mention Greeks because it is through them, that the resident host culture still continues it’s presence in the peninsula of it’s birth. Hellenism is a dominant resilient culture from since the times of proto-Greeks. So it stands to reason that todays Greeks stand proud, at the forefront of long chain of Greek-speakers, representing a cultural-linguistic continuum spanning millennia. Greeks today look back at themselves and awe at their inheritance. FYRoM has no right to blemish this! to humiliate Greeks, ridicule Hellas and belittle Hellenism.
FYRoM South-Slavs look back at themselves and frown at their inheritance. FYRoM inherited from Slavdom, Slavic things, like (i) Slavic identity, (ii) Slavic language, (iii) Slavic history, (iv) Slavic heritage, (v) Slavic legacy.
FYRoM’s paternal ancestral-ethnicity remains unrecognized, undesirable, unwanted-Slavic. FYRoM discards unwanted-Slavic things for desirable Hellenic things. Evidently, the Macedonian name, identity, history, heritage, legacy, are far more desirable for FYRoM than their Slavic equivalents.
Ancient Haemus-people in closest proximity to Greeks, Hellenized themselves, willingly and voluntarily. Illyrians, Thracians and Hellenes…their derivatives, and combinations of them, in whole or in part, live on in the Haemus through Greeks. Continuity always follows path of least resistance. The Greeks of today are the only Haemus-peoples wanting to keep as close as possible, the identity-characteristics of their Paleo-Haemus ancestors. FYRoM and Turkey, and others, do the exact opposite. They superimpose Paleo-Haemus identities on modern day South-Slavs or modern day Turks, who keep nothing of the Haemus in themselves or their culture.. And if by some unexplained phenomenon to do with People-Dymanics, some old-Haemus stuff should be detected in modern-day South-Slavs and modern-day Turks, the question should lean towards the ‘How’ and the ‘When’ did this happen – interaction with Greeks maybe ?
When Greek wanders off, into cultural-linguistic space not his own, and when Slav does the same – and when both of them decide to absorb foreign culture not their own, taking on wives and raising children…and when this cycle repeats to >8 generations long – at which point, do they stop being Greek or Slav alike. The answer of course is they don’t stop being Greek or Slav alike. It is their offspring that lose something, incrementally, generation after generation, until the last vestiges of their paternal forebears ethnic-racial, cultural and linguistic inheritance is lost confined to history. Diasporas >8 generations into their adopted inheritance look back at themselves and acknowledge their Greek or Slavic heritage, knowing full well, that long time ago in the distant past, their Greek and Slavic forebears decided to go on a journey, forced, planned, or random-one.
The point is this: FYRoM cannot compete on equilibrium with Greeks, over history or longevity of heritage in the Haemus [Greek] peninsula. Greeks sit at the top end of hierarchicle table whilst FYRoM South-Slavs sit long way down the seating arrangement. And of the partial-Greeks in their fold…well, they sit closer to the top-end but still distanced. People-Dynamics dictate that when a people-group insist on continuing to practice, as close as possible, the language and identity-characteristics of their Paleo-Haemus ancestors – there is very little nearby peoples can do, but watch and awe the cultural-inheritance of their Greek-Hellenic neighbours!
LikeLike
Ancient greeks are their own greek race with have black hair and greeks built egypt before they came to greece….And achievements of greek was by far the greatest civillisation…… what greeks invented and made was far much much more and far much complicated than of course their initial history, egypt..egyptians north africans and arabs are all greek race…
LikeLike
Lol, talk to some Arabs one day. They hate black people.
LikeLike
I think your a racist.
I’ll back up my argument once you support your argument with historical facts, sources and references
LikeLike
Here’s my facts Delta. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then in all likelihood, it is a duck! Same with racists. Yes it is that simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Semites and Greeks are often have light eyes on Egyptian and Greek`s ancient pictures.Egyptian pictures reproduce exactly the skin colour of Semites and Sea people as the ellow-white,while Eguptians are brown-skinned.
LikeLike
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/full/ncomms2871.html
Read it and weep fools.
LikeLike
@axia777
What are we to weep about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Ancient Greeks viewed White and blsck skins as being extremes and therefore weak and not excellent. For example as has been said already, Aristotle, the Teacher of aAlexander the Great, said that “those who have dark skin, like the Ethiopians, are cowarda, and those that have White skin are cowards, the smin tone of bravery is between the two, since Greeks, both Ancient and Modern are not White, or Black, but belong to their own unique Race called the Mediterranean Race, Aristotle was speaking of the skin tone of his Race, the Greek Hellenic aegean Mediterranean Race, as the most exalted. He tought this truths, to Alexander, and he, like all Greek and Romans, viewed White skin and black skin as weak and lacking kn intelligence, and given the fact that Nordics, like the Blacks, never had a Civilization, it is easy to see how the Ancient Greeks felt pride in nor having the Racial features of those they understood to be inferior, both the Nordics and the Sub Saharans did not have Civilizations except fellow Caucasians like the Semites and Mesopotamians, who also were not of Nordic looks, but looked basically the same as the Mediterranean Race Greeks…. So yeah, the Ancient Greeks were not White, they were not Black, they were not Yellow and they were not, anything else other than their own Mediterranean Aegean Race, Olive skinned, and dark haired, with a few light haired Greeks here and there, but dark, thick, curly haired, Green, Brown, Black eyed Mediterranean, Civilization creating, gorgeous people…. And they had nothing to do with the Nordics, or the Blacks or the Asians, the Ancient Greeks were more related to the Semites with who they always had commerce and exchanges with.
LikeLike
And Pelesgians were not black.
Ancient Greeks and Byzantium had lots of slaves.
PS. “Arabs” from syria, lebanon are not pure, they are result of arab mixing with Scandinavian European and Kuman/Kıpchak Turkish slaves. (Memluks)
LikeLike
Funny how people say Egyptians or even Jesus were as black as sub-Saharan Africa, when all around the Mediterranean had many invaders from Europe and the middle east. I wonder why people put down colonialism but they don’t care that Mediterranean countries are taken over by backward Arab culture? Even Iran had a great Indo-European history, which was ruined by the Islamic invasions.
LikeLike
Charlotte Lee
Explain how being invaded byou European or middle east debunks the idea that Egyptians or Jesus were as black as “Sub-saharan” Africa? Those areas you mention are not Mediterranean unless once again changes have been made to change the names and location of land masses/locations.
No one complains because there really was not a force cultural change.
LikeLike
@Charlotte Lee
“I wonder why people put down colonialism but they don’t care that Mediterranean countries are taken over by backward Arab culture?”
Backward Arab culture? Are you kidding? The Arabs were light years ahead of the Europeans for centuries in everything from basic bodily hygiene to science and technology.
The Arabs used their technological edge for education, peaceful trade, travel and architecture.
When the Europeans developed a technological edge, they used their edge for
war, conquest, looting and genocide. That is why “people put down colonialism”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Right on the money Afrofem. In response to abagond’s post, I hate it when people say civilization began with the West/or the Greek because that seems to disregard all the other the other civilizations or indicate they’re not worth anything. Unless they’re “white” of course.
@Charlotte Lee. There’s a couple of things you’re saying here that’s just making me shake my head. For one thing, how can you say that Arabs had a backwards culture? Should we say the same thing about European culture? The Europeans didn’t even learn basic hygiene until they were taught by a/ non-Europeans. They thought that witches existed and burned women at the stake after accusing them of being witches. Is that not backwards?
And you seem to think colonialism shouldn’t be criticized. Native Indians welcomed Europeans with open arms but Europeans didn’t care. They wanted the land but they didn’t want the people that came with it. They gave blankets riddled with small pox to them under the guise of caring for their well being (hah don’t make me laugh). And now, it hasn’t changed much has it? I don’t know what race you are but trying to make people feel guilty for daring to question that colonialism wasn’t some great pure romantic fantasy and that it was bad, well you’re trying to mentally colonize people here into thinking the way you do.
It’s like whitewashed Asians who don’t want to hang out with other Asians because they’re Asians. Sad thing is, some of them don’t even realize that white people only care about them when they’re conforming to white people standards/morals. Nice trick but sorry, no one’s falling for it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting site, Hellenes never saw themselves as ‘white’, a concept born around 1700s. Here is my piece from Neos Kosmos, a Greek paper and media outlet. http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/When-did-Greeks-become-white
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Fotis Kapetopoulos
Thank you for sharing that revealing article. I was struck by this passage:
Greek civilization was the original European civilization. It’s almost comedic for other European groups to dismiss Greeks as not European enough.
LikeLike
Re: Fotis Kapetopoulos’ comments.
A Greek friend of mine has always referred to white people as distinct from Greeks, for as long as I’ve known him. Whatever Greeks are, they aren’t white, according to him. I don’t mean to say he blows a trumpet about it. You can hear my friends position when he mentions white people and white culture. In that respect my friend speaks in the same way any person of colour might.
LikeLike
Wow! What a ridiculously racist view! It’s very well known that Egypt was established well before Roman and Greek civilizations. This article totally ignore the fact that we are all taught in the same school and the only people focused on so called racial issues in modern day America are special interest groups beny on creating anger. Nobody cares what color people are. People care how good of a person you are.
By the way, that was the way in ancient texts as well, there was no classification based on language or religion. The wars that arose came about due to land disputes. Later they became religion based, mostly in objection to human sacrifice, slavery (began in Syria by the way) and public orgies. Read a scroll. Geez!
LikeLike
“What a ridiculously racist view!”
Amber, thanks for being exhibit A.
Amber shows how White bigots come to a site with a large Black audience and tries to define “racist”. Whitesplaining to people who have to deal with White racists and bigots on a daily basis. This is just one example of how the words, “racism” and “racists” are drained of their original meaning by misuse and overuse.
Amber also writes:
A classic “colorblind” racist/bigoted argument.
Makes me think of a passage in the post, “Are Most White People Benevolently Clueless?”:
“Most white people will do the right thing when they step on a black person’s foot. But imagine if they handled it like they do racism: they would not remove their foot, they would not even look down, but instead say stuff like this (the extended version):
Foot still not removed.“
Amber, time to remove your foot and get a clue.
LikeLike
Missing quote:
LikeLike
Can’t remember where i read it but it was my understanding that skin color was not recognized by the Greeks during this era but if one didn’t speak the language they were classified as Barbarians.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ms. Shieka's Art Haus.
LikeLike
Greece wasn’t the first white civilization, was actually Egypt. Pre – dinastic Egypt was white. Look at the DNA test of the mummies.
LikeLike
Rene, Where’s the original home of these white Egyptians? Was Herodotus blind? He and other ancient writers claimed the ancient Egyptians were black. Let me guess, they were Afrocentrists, right? Where the ancient Egyptians ‘white’ like Mr. Mostafa Hefny? A ‘white’ Egyptian that could ‘pass’ for black in the USA, if he did not come from Egypt. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XUPZokMb6A)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just admit you dislike white people. Any people will look at their own history in a subjective way. Not just whites. Greeks are of European stock. They are light-skinned Caucasians. Deal with it…
LikeLike
Great article we need more intelligent critical thinkers in America or this country will destroy itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person