GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-08 > 1249668678


From: Francisco Tavares de Almeida <>
Subject: Re: Proof of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii on 4 Aug 1961 (newsaccount also 13 Aug 1961)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.678.1249597172.29513.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> <6d40ecd1-5f73-4325-b6de-635a4c8a8fae@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <5ff72369-53e0-4748-881f-d4f50669c9b5@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <h5gr9b$ujq$1@news.eternal-september.org><03b47f2d-ce0f-47c0-85fd-1e37e0cb1c92@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


I would agree with all except for

«When slavery began as a trans-Atlantic
commercial enterprise (since some form of slavery has existed
everywhere among everyone), skin color came to be regarded as the most
striking "badge" of suitability for slavery, that is the most
immediately obvious difference between the guy holding the gun and the
people on whom the gun was held.»

1. Slavery exist since the beggining of times and commercial
enterprise also. When portuguese first navigate in the Indian Ocean
all along the east african coast there were arab settlements to
practice the commerce of slaves.
African-North America slave trade, besides un increased proportion,
had an innovation: until then, the spirit of trade was to guarantee
the slave's lifes as it was an accounted value but the north-american
trade focused in the final money balance hence the overcharged ships
and, in the limit, to unload part of the *charge* if the voyage was
unexpectadly extended and there was a shortage of food. Less slaves
in better labouring conditions produced more income than more but in
bad conditions.

2. The 'most immediately obvious difference' doesn't apply
necessarily; it was well the color and not the difference.
Unfortunately - that's something that I do not try to understand or
judge - the medieval culture of all western civilizations, christian,
jews and muslims - I don't know if also some oriental - had some
connotation of white with pureness and black with evil. When the first
blacks from sub-saharian east Africa were brought to Portugal and sold
or granted as any other goods, the Church did not opposed and the
likeliest explanation is that it was first considered that they did
not have souls.
Soon the Church reconsidered and forced all slave owners to educate
religiously and baptize the slaves but the first impact was not to be
soon annulated and in Brazil's colonization the Church accepted
African slave trade but opposed very firmly indian enslavement (maybe
some remember a good film that enlighted it: 'The Mission').

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)





On 7 Ago, 18:18, lostcopper <> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:06 am, Renia <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > lostcopper wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 8:44 pm, wrote:
> > >> On Aug 6, 4:18 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <> wrote:
>
> > >>> " to state categorically that the son of that mother is a black man is totally
> > >>>  beyond the pale of proper genealogical research, now isn't it?"
> > >>> ---------
> > >>> Hi Aaron,
> > >>> Well, exactly. My point was simply the Obama is - like all of us - "mixed" and it  should be left at that. He isn't "black" anymore than I am "Algonquin",though both of us have some ancestors known by these designations..
> > >>> Tony
> > >> My ancestry is not mixed (at least not as far as the records show).
> > >> There are no Cherokees, no Blacks, no Chinese, no Asians, no Mayans.
> > >> My ancestry for generations is entirely Northern European.  It's very
> > >> boring really and very white.
>
> > >> Do I have other races in my extended ancestry?  Of course I do.
>
> > >> Douglas Richardson
>
> > > The point that everyone seems to be missing is that "race" is a social
> > > construct, an invention by people for some particular "use". The same
> > > people may define it differently in different historical periods -
> > > since the use it serves is social, not biological. "Race" as a fact of
> > > biology has been discarded by most anthropologists; instead we
> > > separate the very minor biological differences between human
> > > populations, which are highly variable within such populations, from
> > > the socio-political uses for divisions like "race".
>
> > > I recall, for example (though not personally!), how the Irish became
> > > "white" in the US, a transaction, as it were, involving their
> > > agreement to stop promoting an end to the enslavement of Africans &
> > > Native Americans. I also think of the "one-drop rule" in which a
> > > person is declared "colored" no matter how distant and invisible their
> > > African ancestry might be. I also think of the imposition of the
> > > "blood quantum" notion onto Native Americans by the federal government
> > > and the subsequent allotting of land in the 1880s favoring those with
> > > the greatest degree of European ancestry. And so on.
>
> > > That said, it is also in error to think that because "race" is a
> > > social invention rather than a biological fact, it is not real. It is
> > > real to anyone who has been on the "colored" end of the spectrum and
> > > it is real, whether they admit it or not, to the people who judge the
> > > capabilities and motivations of others based on it. This thread is
> > > ample proof that even the most highly educated people, people with an
> > > interest in genealogy and genetics, are bound up in ideas about race.
> > > If society as a whole continues to see "race" as biolgically-based and
> > > obsesses over physical characteristics as variable and unimportant as
> > > skin color, eye shape & hair texture, we should not be surprised.
> > > After all, they are still arguing about whether or not humans are part
> > > of an ongoing organic evolution.
>
> > > It seems that if I tune into threads like this after my usual bedtime,
> > > this is what happens. - Bronwen
>
> > I think, for many people, the term "race" is a short-hand for the
> > different physical looks of different people, from the red-headed Celts,
> > to the black-skinned Africans, to "yellow-skinned" Orientals with
> > slanting eyes to so-called "whites" with pale skin, etc, etc. Not
> > everyone is using it as a derogatory term.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are right, of course, that describing a person or population
> according to physical characteristics is not necessarily intended in a
> derogatory way. However, something in your (and my) culture influences
> us to focus on skin color.  When slavery began as a trans-Atlantic
> commercial enterprise (since some form of slavery has existed
> everywhere among everyone), skin color came to be regarded as the most
> striking "badge" of suitability for slavery, that is the most
> immediately obvious difference between the guy holding the gun and the
> people on whom the gun was held. I recall hearing about an African
> American sociologist who traveled to Japan and stayed in an area that,
> at the time, was off the beaten track for tourists. He noticed that
> Japanese children were peeking at him from around the corner; when he
> turned to look at them, they screamed and ran away. He took this in
> good humor since he knew they had probably never seen a person with
> such dark skin before. Finally one brave little spirit kept his ground
> long enough to pull his eyes into a round shape before running away.
> The sociologist said he nearly rolled on the ground with laughter when
> he realized it was his eyes that had caught their attention as being
> the most important difference.  Obviously the children were not
> "racist" in their teasing as we understand the term; how they would
> feel about people like this American man would depend on how the
> adults around them reacted. Speaking of Japan, we in the West tend to
> think of Japanese people as being one race and it is true that there
> is relatively little diversity there. However, that does not stop
> Japanese society from selecting certain of those among them for
> "special" treatment as being of a different "race". I am referring to
> the Eta, descendants of the Japanese equivalent to the "untouchable"
> caste. You and I would not be able to tell the difference, but it is
> still a matter of importance.  The treatment of Koreans is based on a
> colonial relationship; the treatment of Ainu is a version of the
> standard native-versus-settler history. The Eta, however, are as
> Japanese as anyone, yet are called a different race because of their
> social status. There are cultural and historical differences in the
> criteria used to describe "like us" and "not like us" everywhere; that
> is the reality of the concept of "race". It is simply not a biological
> reality. - Bronwen


This thread: