🎥 Watch more than 190+ other exclusive videos on youtube: th-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patreon: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. Support us on Paypal www.paypal.com/paypalme/kingsandgenerals as well!
Why you didn't include also how ancient Greek writers describe the black people while calling them blameless and choosen people by the gods👉🏼the ancient Greeks often referred to the Ethiopians as "blameless" in their literature. This characterization is most famously found in Homer's works, such as the Iliad and the Odyssey, where the Ethiopians are described as a noble and favored people. For instance, in the Odyssey (Book 1, lines 22-25), Homer mentions that the gods themselves visit the Ethiopians for feasts and sacrifices, indicating their special status: > "The gods went to Ethiopia to feast with the blameless Ethiopians." The term "blameless" (Greek: ἀμύμονες, amymones) reflects the Greeks' perception of the Ethiopians as a distant, virtuous, and almost mythical people living on the edges of the known world. It is worth noting that "Ethiopian" in ancient Greek (Aithiops, meaning "burnt face") referred broadly to dark-skinned peoples from regions south of Egypt, not just the modern nation of Ethiopia.
according to ancient Greek mythology, the gods were said to feast with the Ethiopians. This idea is mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey (Book 1, lines 22-25), where it is stated that the gods traveled to Ethiopia to enjoy banquets and sacrifices offered by the Ethiopians. The passage reads: > "But now Poseidon had gone to the distant Ethiopians, the Ethiopians, who are divided in two, the farthermost of men, some where Hyperion sets, and some where he rises. There he went to accept a hecatomb of bulls and rams, and he sat at the feast, enjoying himself." This imagery highlights the ancient Greeks' admiration for the Ethiopians, portraying them as a pious and virtuous people. The Ethiopians were thought to live at the edges of the world, which in Greek cosmology was associated with purity and a closer relationship with the divine. It also reflects the belief that the gods themselves valued their offerings and hospitality.
What we call "racism" has existed since humans walked the earth and encountered people that were different than them in appearance, behavior, mentality, and culture. It is not unique to one race of people. Problems arose from this contact with one or both groups of people not wanting to be exposed and subjected to the others behavior, mentality, and culture. It still goes on today like it or not.
but some are more engrained into the culture than others. Rome and latin were certainly one of the worst ever - and that is what our western culture stems from
As a Greek who has studied extensively the ancient Greek mythology, allow me to point out that the people that were created by Deucalion and Pyrra throwing rocks behind them, were not foreign people but Greek people. The descendants of their own actual children were not the Greeks in general but the Greek kings. The distinction is between common and noble people, not between foreign and Greek people. Ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race in the modern sense. Hence the name Ethiopia. It just means land of the sunburned people. To them Black people was just people with a deep tan. At the same time they did consider that peoples traits were defined by their environment. But that also meant that in ancient Greece and Rome someone who had foreign ancestry but was born or lived in Greece and Rome and adopted the culture was not viewed as an outsider. Ofcourse they considered the slaves to be inherently inferior. How else would they justify slavery? At the same time slaves could become free people. The athenian citizenship laws were more of a class thing, as you pointed out. Other Greeks were not accepted, although they were not viewed as different. In general, in ancient times race was not defined by blood and skin colour but mainly by culture, language and religion. Anyone with different culture was a barbarian. The main reason the Roman empire pursuit the Jews and (at first) the Christians was because the Abrahaimic religions do not accept any other god than their own (something unheard of in the pagan world) and thus did not take part in the public religious ceremonies, which were a political thing. Taking part in them meant you recognized the authority of the state. So were the ancient Greeks racist? Not in the modern sense. In their own way, yes they had prejudices. And that is a very important distinction in my humble opinion.
What about Aristoteles Natural law? His views was often used as a source to justify slavery. I also remember there being a law in place that to be an Athenian citizen you had to be pure blood with Athenian parents on both sides. “Modern” views on race weren’t based on one theory that all agreed on and i would say that was the same with the Ancient Greeks
@@inigo9000 the video maker has not study Aristotle and cannot understand him and hiw era.there was not even one theory in the ancient world about liberation of the slaves. The ancient worlda economy could not stand without slavery. There was not even one political philosopher dare to think of a world without slavery. Especially a teacher of kings as Aristotle was. But for the first time in history Aristotle in his writings open a window gor slave rights. For him the slaves are people who have no ability of wise thinking, just like the women and the kids. They both need leadership as a help not to be abused. He wrote that none should be enslaved for debts and none has the right to kill or harm a slave . He also wrote that the good slaves should be liberated from their master and believe me at that time noone could try to declare more rights for the slaves than Aristotle did.he was the first one to open a window for the slaves
@@inigo9000 Slavery in ancient Greece wasnt based on ethnicity or skin color. Aristotle's interpretation of slavery was more that personality traits make someone more suitable to be a slave.
ΒασιλικήΣαμαρά the problem with studing ancient mythology and hostorical text is that it can be interpreted any which way, no one can realy understand what the original creators of those things realy where thinking.
"Everybody knows that the Senones hands are built for wielding a heavy sword, but their fingers are not dexterous enough to wield a quill, while the Punics are good at trading, their right arms are too weak to raise a heavy shield." Bigotus Maximus
THANK YOU!!!! I clicked to post the same thing. We need to stop with is this group racist or more racist BS. Every group, society etc is racist/ prejudice to some degree. It is human evolution/biology. Being weary of something/someone different meant you avoided danger more often. It's in our DNA, and there is nothing wrong with noticing "patterns" withing certain demographic groups in order to avoid trouble even today.
'luv me olives 'luv me oil 'luv me bois 'luv me polis 'luv me drama 'ate kings 'ate barbarians (not racist, just don understand 'em) 'ate greeks (gitz from da next pol' over) simple as
@@KingsandGenerals Having watched your videos for many years already, it's always a delight, so happy to return the favor! ;-) Thank you for the cool channel!
We are the best race, they are lesser. This is known. Also our god is the only true god. You’re just a bunch of crazies for believing in that other god stuff.
It's funny how Greeks described Goths in a negative way, considering them to be ugly because they were too tall and too big by Greek standards: "The 4th-century Greek historian Eunapius described their characteristic powerful musculature in a pejorative way: "Their bodies provoked contempt in all who saw them, for they were far too big and far too heavy for their feet to carry them, and they were pinched in at the waist - just like those insects Aristotle writes of."
friendly reminder the Greeks preferred small, feminine penises and were revolted by big and meaty phalluses. one does think of athletic games where the athletes famously tied/strung their penis to a rope/twine belt around their waist if it was too big and unwieldy, or "animalistic." crazy, huh?
@@sologemeni The small penises thing ("feminine penises"?) : The way they saw it, penises represent, for obvious reasons, our animalistic side so big fat phalluses do not belong on, say, a statue representing the beauty and whichever else quality of a god or hero. It's not the side they are interested in representing and, frankly, it's going to catch everyone's attention. In comedies or statues of Priapus and such though, the dongs have their big day, ;) As for the string thing. Kynodesme was done regardless of the size of the penis. It was for not showing the end as it was considered kind of gauche and, I think most importantly, because you never know who or what can accidentally whack a free bouncing trio.
The Macedonians were a tribe that left Sparta to build a place of their own, so they were as Hellenic as the Spartans. But yes! There wasn't a Hellenic Nation back then, but city-states competing with each other and bad-mouthing each other, too. The language and religion were enough to allow them to join the Olympics.
It's not just the Macedonians. First ancient greeks were racist with one another then with the greeks of the colonies. Anywhere where greeks build colonies. They didn't consider them pure greeks for some reason and then with all the foreigners.
@@user-McGiver This just isn't true. That is the story the Argaeads told (but from Argos, not Sparta). The Argaead family were Greek, but they ruled over a kingdom that was made up of Illyrians in the western mountains, Thracians in the northeast, and Greeks in the lowlands. Their language was mutually unintelligible to Koine, they worshiped a number of different gods that weren't Greek (along with the Greek ones), they had a monarchy that was based on Argos' legendary laws that weren't ever written down, and used bigomous marriage alliances. The Macedonians were a syncretic culture. The minor portion of that was Greek. That didn't change until Philip II. Alexander I had to make up a family lineage to be allowed in the Olympic games, and even then only the Argaeads were allowed to compete. Macedonians were HellenIZED Thracians and Illyrians, with a tiny Greek ruling elite.
Literally every group of people in antiquity thought they were better than anyone else. I don’t think for the Greeks that it was based solely on skin color but more just being non-Greek
I’d rather hear about the Egyptians, who were definitely racist by modern standards. Israelites were also extremely racist and xenophobic. Greeks? More just xenophobes.
Except, not really. Elite Egyptian propaganda definitely demonstrates extreme prejudice against Nubians, Libyans, and Western Asians... But then numerous pharaohs and elite officials took women from each of these groups as their wives, and their children then held elite positions. When you get "on the ground", archaeological evidence from sites in the Levant, and Nubia, show extreme cultural cross pollination. It is also thought that Egyptians adopted at least one god from the Libyans, and various aspects of gods from Nubia. The Nubiologist Lazlo Torok, among other scholars, has additionally demonstrated that during late-Egyptian times, the era of Nubian pharaohs had become a "positive" historical memory in the minds of Egyptian priests, to the extent that they made incorrect claims about Egyptian writing originating to its south, instead of in Egypt.
The Egyptians weren't racist. They were xenophobic, yes. Modern Egyptians but the ancient Egyptians weren't. Ground art shows the average Egyptians married nubians all the time & Egyptians were mainly invaded from the west & ran to nubia for help from those invaders who couldn't step foot in upper Egypt(south)
It depends! Now we believe foreigns can be of the same race as us, so there can be both racism and xenophobia. But imagine you lived in a secluded village in africa where everyone looked like you and then came a guy from the other tribe and you felt he was from a difference race than you altogether... There were some times in history where they were one and the same.
@@yashenumulla4068African villages where black people until person into village or black person in European village they will strange reaction in modern red skin or blue skin person come near us
While I don't think modern racism begins with European colonialism. The Islamic World was taking Black slaves from Africa long before the Europeans were and seems to have influenced the Europeans. The justification for enslaving Black Africans has its origins in interpretations of the "Curse of Ham" in the book of Genesis.
@@Crow22Darkness I agree. Arabs aren't racist despite their early participation in the slave trade, therefore it's doubtful the slave trade is the origin of racism. It likely was a pre-existing prejudice European slave traders capitalized on to embark on these financial endeavours, using scripture to legitimize such prejudices.
The claim that the Islamic world influenced Europeans to enslave Black Africans oversimplifies history. Slavery existed in many cultures long before Islam, including in the Roman Empire, which heavily influenced Europe. While the Islamic world engaged in the African slave trade and had diverse slave populations, their system was not racialized like the transatlantic slave trade. European motivations for slavery were largely driven by economic needs in the Americas and colonial ambitions, with practices evolving independently, even if some trade routes or methods overlapped.
Certainly, the system of slavery in the Islamic world could have developed into a racialized form of slavery. However, the Zanj Rebellion in 883 CE halted this progression. This occurred long before there was significant interaction between the Islamic world and Europeans, as far as I know. (There’s an episode discussing this on the Kings and Generals)
The islamic civilizations took slaves from every where whjch includes africans but they were not the larticular prized slaves those were for kost of islamoc rule infact greeks and people from near regions
The ancient world could prove a brutal place for foreigners, but I think that maritime and commercial nations such as the ancient Greeks were more tolerant to foreigners
I'm sorry, but putting the origin of modern racism on European colonialism and slave trading seems like motivated reasoning. A neat singular source that fits neatly into modern identity politics? Yeah, nothing is ever that simple and convenient in history.
Very well stated! I had come to expect balanced and impartial presentations from this channel which makes this topic and presentation all the more... disapointing.
People really think that judging someone based on their appearance is some modern invention😮💨 Sure it's probably different today in some ways than it was back then after thousands of years inbetween, but it just sounds goofy.
Colonialism is more of why racism developed to be like it is today, but its beginnings definitely begin earlier. The Reconquista, during which ideas like "Limpieza de Sangre" ("Cleanliness of blood") led to a morphing of religious prejudice into racial prejudice, as Moors and Jews (and their descendants) were discriminated against even after conversion to Christianity simply for having infidel ancestry seems like a more helpful starting point, with Spanish and Portuguese colonialism only spreading that original idea and leading to its development.
@awtqrtrkjsrs I agree, the Reconquista seems like a good candidate since in addition to priming two major colonialist nations it also majorly influenced the Crusades where racial rhetoric was also present, both in the Crusades against Muslim states as well as the Northern Crusades. Edit: Typo corrections
When some first encountered white people they assumed Europeans had peeled skin. Look up the Ottoman ambassador Evliya Çelebi's account of the Funj governor in Arbaji (Gezira state, modern Sudan). The governor thought the Turk had been skinned alive since he was so white/pale . The Yoruba word for a European means peeled man! According to European accounts these people believed Europeans exuded rancid odour, they saw European as plague carriers too and some assumed they were cannibals. There is more when it comes to internal attitudes towards other ethnic groups and other races different Africans encountered, this is just an example.
Every society is xenophobic, that is true, us vs them... but racism is different, that's another level of hate and no, I don't think it's universal in any way.
I think little kids don't give a care what race someone is, and that proves racism is learned. People could be curious about why someone has more melanin, or even prefer a certain skin color just for looks, but that wouldn't make it any kind of ism. Kindness is an attribute of personality and can be shaped and learned but never inherent unless it's one of the personality attributes. Most people are born with a level of empathy that can't be learned, only imitated.
0:10 well it is one of the most natural human impulses, the stranger can bring war to you community, the aversion towards people from a different background has always been present
Well. You are describing a norm. Natural states and normal states are different though often confused. Making “racial and ethnic stereotypes” (which is what the quote said) is not natural because race and even ethnicity are not “natural” categories but instead are social ones. To your example (which is not directly responding to the video), anyone who is not “of your community” can bring a whole host of good and bad to you and confusion, curiosity, intrigue, and apprehension are all natural. Aversion is a lot stronger of an emotion motion and aversion based on kin/clan-ship is not inherent or natural in most cases. In fact, most of our “aversions” are nurture as opposed to nature. In 2025, with all the history, science, and readily available search engines at our disposal, let’s leave the disproven assumptions behind and embrace the truth.
It was just that Greeks followed civil laws made by the puplic, while others were killing each other over a dead animal and obeyed rulers only by fear of death. So of course you will view such "cultures" as inferior.
@@trailblazing2576 I have no respect for the group of people who drove Socrates to death, and institutionalized slavery even more than the Persians. Athenians and their so called "democracy" sucked. They were simply masquerading their cruelty with a thin layer of civilization; you can see their hypocrisy when they dealt with the Melians.
@@ElBandito True, Athenians were much brutal than Spartans..They proved to be the bad guy of the P war,and in the end found their Nemesis in Sicily. My comments are deleted for some reason ..but anyway,I will agree with you merely ,because Athens was inhabited from the beginning by rich people,so elitism and slavery was part of their common urban mentality.
Putting your own tribe as the selected one is as old as humanity and always an easy play to justify whatever you want. Truth is that every tribe and ethnicity that existed survived through the same evolutionary process as individuals do. The ones that survived in harsh environnement are right to say they are the best but they only are the best where they are and until a better comes or the environnement change. This is why mixing culture is a vital play because the environnement, be it human, economic or physical, changes all the time. Clinging to one fixed culture is basically asking to be destroyed...
This is a well researched topic and I am looking forward to the entire series. Thank you for pointing out that modern racism is different than the prejudices from the past. It is also, as you pointed out, a social construct.
kind of a moot question, as 'racism' is a modern construct (the word was coined by Leon Trotsky in the 20's to describe those within the USSR's leadership who prioritized the interest of their own ethnic groups, such as georgians and armenians, over the pursuit and implementation of communist ideas). Up to then, this was just considered natural human behavior (differentiating between strangers and protecting your own 'tribe')..
The ancient greeks (and indeed most of the mediterranean world) were not racist in the modern sense, but they were incredibly *xenophobic.* Lines were drawn, not racially, but culturally, and you might find people who are ethnically very closely related to you on the other side of the xenophobic line because they are a *cultural* out-group. The Greeks in particular were very picky about this, and would often talk about rival poleis - fellow Greeks! - in the same sort of terms they would use for foreigners like Phoenicians. "Your culture" might encompass the Hellenic world, or it might stop at the walls of your own city, depending on how xenophobic you were feeling that day. One of the things which made Rome exceptional was their ability and willingness to allow cultural foreigners (a term which, for a very long time, included most of the people Rome ruled in Italy itself) to become a part of the cultural in-group by earning Roman citizenship - AND making the status hereditary. For many of the Mediterranean states contemporary with Rome, such a thing was unthinkable.
@@KingsandGenerals Thats good to hear !! We eagerly await for the arabic/islamic and east asian part of the series since sources are rich in those cultures !! Like and sub!! All the best !!
Of course we were ... but still developed trade with all mediterrean sea , adopt and shared customs and traditions etc... We were and are "racists" among us Greeks , people from Thessaloniki moke Atheneans etc , is something commom . It is not described as racist , but more like "being cocky" in a funny way to other people
We are not racist my dude. We just simply Greeks. Being greek is not just a nationality it's a way of existance. We love making fun of each other and especially the foreigners. Greeks we fight each other a lot but when it comes to foreigners we are all united.
Uh oh, called out. Time to delete my comment and run. 😅. It was a premature comment on a video I actually enjoyed, but I will share my two complaints from the beginning. One was the assumption that
Because we have the writings of elites, the beliefs weren't shared by commoners. The other was that modern racism is a recent conception. The distinction between heredity and culture is at least a little bit spurious, I think. That modern racism was wielded as a tool isn't as relevant, because being born into a culture that is despised is functionally the same as being born into a race.
@@KingsandGenerals true enough, but it's not what the average layman has in view when he thinks of racism. He's likely looking at effects rather than causes. The outcomes are the same in different scenarios. I just think it was worth the time to elaborate on your two points rather than just state them as givens. Seems like you may have gotten a lot of criticism on this video from the above comment. Wasn't my attention to be a part of that. Excellent work.
7:50 if i recall correctly Herodotus also calls the Ethiopian peoples some of "the tallest, most handsome and longest lived". Edit: To clarify i've got my Rome II provincial borders stuck in my brain, when i mentioned Ethiopians im not referring to the modern country (though part of modern day Ethiopia would fall into the roman province of Ethiopia)
Its not surprise really. Ancient Greeks saw beauty much like their artworks depict. Chiselled, lean, muscular defined bodies being the peak of beauty for a male. This is for sure emphasised with darker skin, even in today's body building competitions all opt for fake tanning oils.
If I recall, this was only said of one particular group. In either case, Herodotus is better understood not as saying that the Ethiopians are "servile", but rather than they lack prowess or martial ability. This contrasts his description of northerners, who are "brutish". Thus, both southerners and northerners are worse than the Greeks, who have the perfect mix of martial prowess and also sophisticated "civility".
"Ancient Greece" might give a hint to what part of the world the video is about. The islamic world is to big and varied I think to do a good comparison? Ancient China souns a lot easier.
@@PMMagro well no, they could go into the Islamic slave trade and just start with Arabia....Then we'd probably see that every nation of peoples had prejudices and that we have a disgusting self flagellating pathology in the west, while places with a much arguably worse attitude remain unashamed of anything and offended by everything else.
[...] PROVEN IN EVERY PERIOD of its development, the western European culture has tried to rid himself of the Greeks. This effort is imbued with deep dissatisfaction, because whatever they (the Western Europeans) created, seemingly original and admirable, lost color and life in its comparison with the Greek model, shrank, ended up looking like a cheap copy, a caricature. So again and again a hateful rage breaks out against the Greeks, against that small and arrogant nation which had the nerve to call barbarous (for any age) what was not created on its soil. But who, finally, are they whose historical glory has been so ephemeral, their institutions so limited, their morals dubious as to be unacceptable, and who claim a distinguished place among the nations, a place above the crowd. None of their reappearing enemies had the luck to discover the hemlock, with which we could get rid of them once and for all. All the poisons of envy, infamy, hatred have proved insufficient to disturb their great beauty. Thus, people continue to feel shame and fear towards the Greeks. Of course, here and there, someone appears who recognizes the whole truth, the truth that teaches that the Greeks are the charioteers of every coming civilization and almost always both the ace chariots and the horses of the coming civilizations are of very low quality compared to the charioteers ( Greeks), who finally sport themselves by driving the chariot into the abyss, which they overcome with an Achilles' leap." [...] *Excerpt from Friedrich Nietzsche's book, The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, ch. 15.
This video does a great job exploring how the ancient Greeks viewed ethnicity and identity in their time. I hope you continue making videos that challenge modern assumptions about historical societies.
Meh. Totally different mindset back then. You were likely to look down on anyone not of your people, especially your neighbors. As Tacitus said - The Germanic tribes preferred fighting amongst themselves more so than against The Romans. I can certainly understand that. Romans are no fun to fight. Hiveminded, unnaturally disciplined, small yet tough, and damn hard to get rid of.
It is abundantly clear that most of the people in this comment section did not watch the video. Many assumptions being made based on the title that are almost immediately addressed in the video itself.
I like how this channel just dumps a whole lot of history on me. I have never been so interested in the people of history and their interactions that developed over time to get us to today as I am now. You all do a great job of bringing history to life, presenting it clearly, and making the viewer possibly confront some incorrect ideas they have. The best way you do this is painting the picture of the time. Providing context. Makes it easier to see the long trails we all have taken to get here. And more importantly how those trails have intersected countless times. History is indeed written in blood, but it’s also the greatest story ever told. The story of everyone and everything. Pretty cool. Slowly working my way through all your previous content, but excited about checking it out. Thank you.
@@KingsandGenerals 1) Humans are not chickens, so your argument is the old "apples and oranges" comparison. 2) Chickens don't mix with other birds unless they are cooped up together.
I heard the intro and instantly knew the average Greek history buff wasn’t gonna like that 😂 the comments are exactly what I expected. I really respect making this kind of content and think it’s extremely important, looking forward to more!
Problem is semantics or definitions --- racism has lost its meaning and even to the point that it is broadly applied to anyone who disagrees with someone else.. it is dumbing down.. and misinformation... conform to stupidity. Going against foolish arguments is hate speech.. etc. Short circuits the mind to accept any interpretation etc. If the Greeks were racist, believe me they would have come up with the word back then.
I’m SO GLAD you began by defining racism as a modern concept originating in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, meanwhile , here in the comments, crickets, like they watched a different video… People seem to bring their own agenda no matter how much work was put into the video…
@@Phosphoreus I suppose I was probably a bit unclear… I kinda followed up on the last part about people bringing in their own agenda no matter what. I added to that the idea that said folks were scared/unwilling to be professional about the subject because their thinking’d be “other perspectives are scary.” Did I clarify? I promise I didn’t mean to be confusing. I just… kinda write a bit weird sometimes…
@@davidthor4405 Aaah, ok, I understand better now. I too am disappointed with the commenters who are unaware of the difference between “Racism” and “racism”, yet come here and comment as if they’re experts. Lowercase "racism" refers to individual prejudice or discriminatory acts, while capitalized "Racism" emphasizes systemic and institutionalized racial oppression.
The origin of the word “Barbarian” came from the greeks, whom heard their “uncivilized” neighbors’ language, thought it sounded like “Bar bar bar”, and called them barbarians. Fair to say, them, and literally every other group of people were racists.
Don't know why this video has so many dislikes. This is a pretty neutral and solid view on different prejudices in the ancient world. Did any of the people who disliked it watch it?
The discussion of racism has become tired and used to sow bad faith arguments. It's used by race hustlers to push self-serving agendas under the guise of moral righteousness. currently the discussion of racism has been used to browbeat others into guilt for sins of their grandfathers. It no wonder people groan when they hear this topic mentioned This video is NOT that. It's always fun to try to understand the people of the past and their mindsets and the video did it in informative and non agenda pushing presentation
The Greeks and Romans hated everyone equally. The Romans wanted the Greeks to like them so much they asked if the Greeks would give them a pass and they essentially did lol
You should make a video about prejudices that every Greek tribe, kingdom or city had to each other. That would be very interesting and funny! Judging ancient people customs and opinions by today's standards is wrong, but still very useful to study those eras.
From the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE to the Roman conquest in 30 BCE, Egypt was ruled by a Greek dynasty known as the Ptolemies. During this time, Egypt was settled by a large number of Greek immigrants who tended to dominate the upper and middle classes of Egyptian society. In Race: Antiquity and Its Legacy, Denise McCoskey makes the argument that Prolemaic Egypt was a highly racialized state, where Greeks were systematically privileged by the state at the expense of the native Egyptians. The case for describing Ptolemaic Egypt as a systemically racist state draws from the behaviors of various political, economic, and social institutions to argue that Greek immigrants were privileged at the expense of native Egyptians on the basis of racial beliefs and perceived racial identities. The institution of Greek as the official language of the Ptolemaic state certainly afforded privileges to those who could speak it. McCoskey argues that “knowledge of Greek… provided tangible benefit to the individuals who were able to attain it”. In this way, Greek immigrants and their descendants stood at a natural advantage over native Egyptians. By speaking Greek natively, they were able to “work within or negotiate the state bureaucracy more skillfully”. However even McCoskey concedes that “Greek and Greek education were not the sole possession of Greeks”. Many Egyptians were not only able to learn Greek privately, but were actively encouraged to so and rewarded with access to public offices. This was likely not an expression of some sort of anachronistic cosmopolitan desire for diversity and integration, but the product of pragmatic calculation. The Ptolemaic state relied on bilingual village scribes to occupy its front lines and act as the primary nexus between itself and the rural masses, allowing even illiterate Egyptian peasants to interact with its bureaucracy. The usefulness of Greek-speaking Egyptians to the Ptolemies is evident in the fact that Greek teachers were eventually given tax breaks, presumably to incentivize the practice of their trade. McCoskey describes these efforts as an exercise in cultural assimilation, not unlike those carried out by colonial regimes in the 19th century. The evidence, however, suggests that the active promotion of Greek culture was largely limited to the realm of language, and even then not as an attempt to replace Egyptian but to complement it. Most Egyptian institutions were left untouched, even when they existed in parallel to Greek ones. For example, a dual legal system of Greek and Egyptian courts was operated throughout the period. In Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, Naphtali Lewis asserts that the traditional understanding of Ptolemaic Egypt as a cultural melting-pot that largely synthesized Greek and Egyptian cultures is inaccurate, and that “in Hellenistic Egypt such mutual [cultural] influences were minimal”. Even such minimal influences, however, flowed both ways. The Ptolemies certainly went out of their way to "assimilate" themselves into the Egyptian image of kingship by adopting all kinds of Egyptian styles and symbols to represent themselves. Thus, it is an exaggeration to describe the limited promotion of Greek language as a colonial attempt at cultural assimilation. Considering the equally limited, but clearly visible adoption of aspects of Egyptian culture by Greeks, the relation between the two groups is more symmetrical and complex than it seems. Still, keep in mind education remained a privately funded endeavor, available only to those who could afford it. In particular, access to the services of a rhetor, a teacher of rhetoric, deliberation, and public speaking at the final stage of Greek education, was extremely limited and only available to the upper classes of Greco-Egyptian society. Another aspect of Ptolemaic Egypt that is prone to misinterpretation as a racist practice is the system of land tenure. Most of the land in Ptolemaic Egypt fell into one of three categories: state (royal) land, temple land, and cleruchic land allotments. State land was controlled directly by the king, and would be either worked directly or temporarily leased to tenants. Temples operated like economic institutions, working and leasing the land under their control. Finally, individual land allotments were given to Greek military settlers (i.e. cleruchs) as reward for their service. In one particular village of the Fayyum region in the second century CE, about half the land was owned by the state, one third by cleruchs, and one twentieth by temples. Thus, the vast majority of the land was controlled by the Greek state and Greek settlers. The only way to gain private control of land was through military service in the Ptolemaic army, which was not open to Egyptians until 217 BCE. McCoskey points out that “the majority of Egyptians, labored on the land as tenant farmers, taking leases either from the crown of from the Greek cleruchs” and as such, they were responsible for taxes on the land, but were given little opportunity to amass economic advantages. Even when Egyptians were admitted to cleruchic status, they were given lesser plots of 5 to 30 arouras (1 urora = roughly 0.275 hectares), whereas Greek infantrymen had been given 20 to 40 arouras. In a landscape where agriculture was the main economic activity, this system of land tenure seems to place most Egyptians in a position of economic disadvantage and vulnerability relative to their Greek landlords. Whether or not this system is evidence of racial discrimination, however, is an entirely different matter. To begin with, McCoskey ignores the fact that there was no such thing as private ownership of land in Ptolemaic Egypt. While control over some land and the right to exploit it was delegated to cleruchs, it did not cease to be crown property. This fundamental aspect of the system of land tenure is reflected in the literal meaning of the word κληροῦχος (cleruchos), which refers to a lot holder, not owner. The development of a true “aristocracy” was checked by the king’s prerogative, as the nominal owner of all land in Egypt, to take back and redistribute cleruchic land allotments as it best served the interests of the state. Even as land holders, though, it would be naïve to completely deny that Greek cleruchs found themselves at a position of economic advantage over tenant farmers who did not own or control the land they worked. This position was not, however, an arbitrary consequence of their Greek identity, but entirely a reward for military service. Even though at first, all cleruchs were Greek, not all Greeks were cleruchs. The Greek population of Egypt included a large number of civilians who, in stark contrast to military settlers, immigrated and made a living essentially on their own way. Lewis mentions out that “those who came to Ptolemaic Egypt for employment in the armed forces… were processed by agents and officers of the crown the moment they set foot on Egyptian soil”, but also that “if there was an immigration and naturalization service through which the [other] new arrivals had to pass on reaching Egypt, there is no hint of it in the sources”. Lacking access to state land grants, they sought profit and social advancement through alternative means in the public and private sectors. Making use of their preexisting wealth and skills, they occupied themselves as shopkeepers, bankers, industrialists, merchants, moneylenders, shippers, private tax farmers, landholders’ middlemen, and public servants. Some, no doubt, found success, but, as Lewis points out, “for many the new Eldorado on the Nice turned out to be a land of false promise and deluded hopes… never [rising] out of the ranks of the poor, eking out their existences in the same menial, lowly occupations and the Egyptians”. Racism, by its institutional nature, permeates through the ranks of society and intersects the identities of its members to privilege a given group across the board. Thus, a comparison Greek and Egyptian civilians ceteris paribus provides no evidence that the Ptolemaic state was racist. On the contrary, it supports an interpretation of the cleruch’s privilege as a consequence of their occupation as soldiers rather than their identity as Greeks.
Gotta love these comments from people who did not watch the vid, while approaching this topic from their modern perspective... "Well everyone is racist" no you just don't know what u talking about
''Barbarian'' is a Greek word but it doesn't mean ''brutal'' like today... it means ''Foreigner''... someone who speaks a language that's difficult to understand and sounds like ''Bar-bar-bar-bar'' like in English we say '' gibberish'', it was the Romans who took the word and changed the meaning... [just as they did with everything else...]
@@Dimitris_Halfhow is that racist even to the slightest. They were against anyone who didnt speak greek race wasnt a point of discussion. The word you are looking for can be xenophobic.
Its not a racist term. It's a funny term. It's a joke. Greeks lobe making jokes against one another and against foreigners. Yeah we make fun of each other and yeah we ginna make fun of you. If you can't take humor and been making fun of dont come to Greece.
Herodotus traveled extensively, but his accounts often reflect a deeply biased perspective, particularly toward Persians. For example, he described the Persian king Xerxes as excessively arrogant and tyrannical, portraying him as someone who thought he could whip the sea into submission during his campaign against Greece. Additionally, Herodotus exaggerated the Persian practice of "proskynesis" (bowing to superiors) to frame them as servile and despotic, contrasting them unfavorably with the supposedly "free" Greeks. A third example is his depiction of Persian women, whom he claimed were overly indulgent and morally corrupt, reinforcing stereotypes of decadence and excess in Persian society. He demonized Persians as much as he could without completely losing credibility in his own time. Even so, when we read his works now, his narratives often feel detached from reality. In essence, it is undeniable that Hellenistic Greek culture had deeply ingrained prejudices, making it impossible to ignore the presence of racism in their worldview.
Oh this comment better get all the likes, it's actually informed And what highlights why this discussion is needed is that Herodotus was called a philbarbaros of all things by later Greco-Roman historians for being "too nice" in writing of the Persians. Initial prejudices may be based on communal instinct, but internalized xenophobia and racism is socialized over time and is harder to argue against
@@thedeviousgreek1540 To say that Herodotus was "nice" or even "Fair" to Persians in his second book (Euterpe) is, frankly, a misunderstanding of both the text and the man himself. While Herodotus provides valuable historical accounts, his biases as a Greek historian writing in a time of Persian-Greek conflict are evident throughout The Histories, including Book 2. Let's look at three specific examples from his second book that demonstrate his consistent prejudice against the Persians: 1. Cambyses’ Disrespect for Egyptian Customs: Herodotus portrays Cambyses II, the Persian king, as a barbaric conqueror who desecrated sacred Egyptian practices, such as killing the Apis bull-a holy symbol of fertility and prosperity. However, modern historical findings challenge this depiction. Evidence, including the Apis bull stele, shows Cambyses honored Egyptian religious traditions, aligning more with the administrative policies of Cyrus the Great. Herodotus’ account likely stems from Egyptian propaganda or his own cultural bias, making his version both unfair and inaccurate. 2. Cambyses’ Madness Narrative: Herodotus labels Cambyses as a tyrant who allegedly descended into madness, killing family members and showing no respect for his own court. This story is unverifiable and suspiciously echoes Greek stereotypes of "barbarian despotism." Modern historians argue that Cambyses' rule was far more calculated and administrative, as evidenced by records from Babylon and Egypt. Herodotus' narrative seems designed to discredit Persian leaders and bolster Greek self-perceptions of cultural superiority. 3. Unjust Depiction of Persian Rule: Herodotus describes Persian taxation and labor policies in Egypt as oppressive and exploitative, portraying the Persians as cruel rulers. Yet this ignores the fact that heavy taxation and labor systems were standard across ancient empires, including Greek city-states. Archaeological evidence suggests Persian rule in Egypt incorporated local governance and respected Egyptian traditions far more than Herodotus implies. Herodotus' bias is not surprising given the context-he wrote during an era of fierce Greek-Persian rivalry, and his work was aimed at a Greek audience. His tendency to romanticize Greek culture while vilifying non-Greek peoples, especially the Persians, is well-documented. Modern scholarship, supported by archaeological evidence and comparative historical analysis, paints a more balanced picture of Persian rulers like Cambyses. Far from the irrational and destructive figure Herodotus describes, Cambyses was pragmatic, maintaining order in his empire and respecting local customs. These findings expose Herodotus’ narratives as partial at best and deliberately hostile at worst. In short, Herodotus in Euterpe remains the same "Father of Lies" many have critiqued for centuries. His second book continues his pattern of unfair treatment of the Persians, using exaggeration, propaganda, and cultural prejudice to undermine their legacy. Any claim that he was "nice" to Persians in this context is a misreading of both the text and modern historical evidence.
@@Payamjafarian Cambyses had many issues with the egyptian temples by cutting their tax income and also the egyptian citizens who were considered second class. There was also a rebellion against him by Psamtik the 3rd and many consequent rebellions against Persian rule. To try and portray him as a peaceful conqueror is surely a modern idea born out of the critique against Herodotus. The persian yoke in Egypt was never really accepted by the egyptians no matter how ''respectable'' you think the Persian rule was. The manner of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander just adds to it. To pretend as if palace drama and assasinations are just propaganda is a bold idea considering how common they were. Cambyses consolidated his power to a great degree which quite often results in friction. Taxation enforced by an emperor has nothing in common with the taxation of the greek city states. Barbarian despotism isnt a greek idea, its a historical fact for non barbarians too. There is nothing wrong with portraying an empire of a thousand nations under one king as servile and despotic compared to the self governed free Greeks. Being a vassal is not the same as being sovereign. Nobody ever argued that Herodotus was not biased. The modern idea of revisionism on Herodotus can only get you so far but trying to claim that everything is a lie or just propaganda is as foolish as believing everything Herodotus wrote is true.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 "Your attempt to portray Persian rule as universally despotic reeks of selective bias and falls apart under historical scrutiny. Let’s dissect your claims systematically: 1. Cambyses and Egypt: Yes, Cambyses had issues in Egypt, but your fixation on rebellion and 'second-class citizens' ignores the larger context. Rebellions were common in every ancient empire, including your so-called 'free Greeks.' The Delian League, for instance, was nothing more than an Athenian empire masquerading as a coalition. Did the Persians enforce tributes? Yes, but so did the Greeks-except Athens used force to suppress its allies, as documented by Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War). So spare us the sanctimony. 2. Persian Respect for Egyptian Culture: Cambyses may have had friction, but Darius I not only stabilized Egypt but embraced its culture, declaring himself Pharaoh and respecting its traditions. Egyptian inscriptions like the trilingual Rosetta Stone confirm this. If Persians were so 'despotic,' why did they invest in infrastructure and religious preservation? 3. Alexander and Conquest: Using Alexander’s conquest of Egypt as a justification for your argument is laughable. Alexander didn’t 'liberate' Egypt; he replaced one imperial rule with another. Worse, the Ptolemies that followed were infamous for their heavy-handed Greek-centric rule, which alienated native Egyptians far more than the Persians ever did. 4. Barbarian Despotism: You seem enamored with this idea of 'barbarian despotism,' but guess what? The term 'barbarian' was a Greek invention used to demean non-Greeks, regardless of their accomplishments. The Persians ruled a multi-ethnic empire of unparalleled tolerance for the era, allowing local customs and religions to thrive. Compare this to the Athenians, who burned rival cities like Melos and enslaved its population. Which sounds more 'despotic' to you? 5. Herodotus and Bias: You cling to Herodotus like a lifeboat, but even he acknowledges the administrative brilliance and cultural tolerance of the Persians (Herodotus, Histories, 1.136). Revisionism? No. Critical thinking? Yes. Herodotus’s accounts reflect Greek anxieties about a superior civilization, not objective truth. 6. Self-Governed Greeks: This romanticized notion of 'self-governed free Greeks' ignores the brutal class hierarchies, rampant slavery, and oligarchic rule in most city-states. Sparta’s helots lived under constant terror, while Athens’ so-called democracy excluded women, slaves, and non-citizens. At least the Persian system allowed different regions autonomy under satrapies, a model more progressive than anything in Greece. In conclusion, your arguments are cherry-picked, historically shallow, and steeped in outdated Greek propaganda. The Persians were far from perfect, but their empire was an unprecedented experiment in multicultural governance that your beloved 'free Greeks' could never match."
"After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland”
“The historian Appian claims that the military commander Brutus, before the battle of Philippi in 42BC, met an ‘Ethiopian’ outside the gates of his camp: his soldiers instantly hacked the man to pieces, taking his appearance for a bad omen - to the superstitious Roman, black was the colour of death.”
@@Dimitris_Half Google is your friend. The term barbarian in Greek times was about language and it was then expanded into something different in the roman times.
This is a fascinating question that challenges modern perspectives on ancient societies. The Greeks often distinguished people more by culture and language than skin color, labeling non-Greeks as "barbarians," not necessarily out of racism in the modern sense but due to cultural chauvinism. This video does a great job unpacking those nuances.
Yo they have a greek version of Noah’s arc that’s awesome! The fact that so many different cultures have a giant flood myth has to mean that at least sometime in history there was a big flood.
The Ancient Greeks had I believe 5 flood myths but the truth is that they are related to local phenomena. For example we had a flood in the region of Thessaly more than a year ago, that killed many and made a whole region into a lake for many many months. This phenomenon has a periodicity, I believe of a few decades of years as it has happens in the past, but now scientists are saying that it will be happening every few years due to climate change. Other regions of the world have floods too, like recently we've seen in Spain. Thus flood myths are not connected to a single phenomenon but they have the same root for existing and in most cases it is because of actual floods that happen in areas that people settle, near big rivers that are used for irrigation near fertile lands.
There is no physical evidence of any large flood, except for one in Mesopotamia I believe after the Tigris flooded or something, this may be the origin but it definitely is nothing close to a global flood
@ thank you for this new information. It makes sense that it being a myth it would be extremely exaggerated, but it’s still interesting. Seeing that even some of humanities most fantastic tales have a tiny smidge of truth in there somewhere.
@@jankodrakic786 Legends and myths possess more truth than empirical facts. Don"t listen to the other guy. Try to think outside the boundaries of modern logic.
@@noobzie8963 I’m sorry what are you talking about? I am thinking about it critically. May you please explain your position? I really don’t know how it’s relevant in this situation. If you are willing to explain yourself, I will always lend an ear.
Αιθίοψ (=Ethiopian) in Ancient Greek meant the burned face. Another word that passed by Greeks to nowadays is the Barbarian (Βάρβαρος) which is not comes from Berberic tribes but by mimitising the alien sound of near East non Greek languages (bar bar , in a way when non Asians try to pretend that they speak Chinese today). Finally, Alexander married foreign woman who was not even a Persian but an Afghani !
All these emotional people in here talking and not listening lol forget what you know about modern racism, which yes, is rooted in systems and policies long before us, and take in Ancient prejudices... they didn't give af about skin color, moreso your culture and way of life. Get your own racial biases outta your head when learning, it will help.
@@mauricelevonte I fairness, skin colour IS a thing that’s always visible, and a clear identifier. I doubt there wasn’t a guy that got beaten up for being the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time, but you are right in that older prejudice was more… in depth, I guess? Your skin was more just another rock to throw at you for being an outsider, as opposed to the later scientific racism, where your skin was THE deciding factor. Now, if you spoke the wrong language, or (Mars forbid) the “right language” with an ACCENT, THEN you’re a real dirty barbarian.
My social studies professor once said that if you could transport anyone who lived before the 20th century into the present with a time machine, such a person would think that the present era is weird for how easily various people get along.
Here in Greece, we were taught the phrase “Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος” ("Whoever is not Greek is a barbarian"). Unfortunately, some people have taken this idea to heart.
It is totally stupid to use modern terminology for describing people 2500 years ago. For putting into a perspective, your literally neighbor could end up being your slave after a war between polis.
@5:30 . Its interesting that Aristotle argued that slaves deserved to be slaves because they were inherently servile during the golden era of Ancient Greece when he lived. The implication is that Greeks were not servile, by nature, and were a level above. Yet, not too soon after the time he was alive, a large amount of Greeks would go on to be enslaved by Romans. I wonder if Aristotle lived during this time, he would argue that the Greek race suddenly developed servile genes somehow. I think this shows his viewpoint may have been flawed here.
Plenty of Greeks were enslaved during Aristotle's time, he definitely knew Greeks could be enslaved. That would have been a non-point had the argument been that you literally can't enslave Greeks. But what he was saying was that you can enslave Plato i(ndeed Plato was enslaved for a while) but he's not a slave by nature, he doesn't have a servile nature. So you have enslaved someone who is not fit to be a slave. Similarly, you might place a "slave by nature" into a ruling class position, a King. You could but again, he would be unfit to be a King due to his nature.
@2:06 there is nothing wrong with being racist based on this last explanation. Cultural traits are real, and they can be objectively bad. Its important to note these distinctions and act upon them
@@thedeviousgreek1540 yeah you dont like to hear the truth but it is the truth. some greeks got lucky that some slavs shared their genetics with him when the slavs migrated into the balkans. pure greeks are brown.
@@DrewbattleTheGreat So far I’ve found 3 replies going “WOKE CHANNEL! WOKE CHANNEL! REALITY IS RACIST!” It’s absurd how eager some people seem to be to try to normalise their beliefs by distorting history, ‘cause yeah, tribalism and xenophobia isn’t new whatsoever, but that’s not all that racism is, either. It’s almost like reality is complicated or something. Like, yeah Jake, your irrational fear and distrust towards outside groups IS natural, but so is getting polio and dying at 17 and I don’t see people going on about accepting that as “the natural order”.
This take that "Modern racism is built on capitalism and colonialism"... I just can't. All I can think of is thinking about Berber slavers enslaving specifically Christian sailors, how prevalent slavery in general was in Islam in the middle ages, how the United Emirates have a long history of black slavery long since colonialism and industrial capitalism was a thing and the brutal racism between several Asian countries all doing the "are we a joke to you?" meme. Just look at Chinese, Japanese and Korean people up to this day, not only towards themselves but also towards foreigners, white but *especially* black people. And here the Americans in their ignorance are all like "we invented racism and slavery, let us explain it to you!", if that's not the peak of centrism and arrogance I don't know what is.
@KingsandGenerals Well, but that's what I'm getting at though: Look at the racism prevalent in many Asian country towards foreigners. How many Japanese people e.g. view foreigners as dirty and would literally disown their kids for marrying a black person or at least shun them. Their behavior is exaxtly the same as your stereotypical redneck doing the same thing to their child. So how can you blame "capitalism" and "colonialism" when Japan never was part of the African slave trade? When their stereotypes against e.g. black people are clearly not based on those of the West because many (broad strokes here, I know) view outsiders in general as inferior? That's what's bugging me: This widely seen phenomenon of racism that's been human nature for thousands of years, but then this one big example being seen as "more special" and the centre and cause of all racism in today's society. It's like your great-grandfather hatching chicken eggs himself and then you claiming that all other "modern" chickens in the world a hundred years later must be their offspring. No. They're just chickens. Slightly different from others, tailored to your environment maybe, but still chickens. And in nowaday's connected society, racism like everything else mixes. No, I'm not saying institutionalized racism in the US today doesn't exist, the evidence is clear on that when you e.g. look at redlining. But you can't just claim everything is a nail because the only tool you have is a hammer!
By modern racism the video obv means the general perception of ravism in recent times, and recent cases of racism. The koreans had the longest line of slavery but in a discussion about modern slavery you wouldnt expect for it to be discussed or would you?
@eshaal1239 You seem to mix up racism and slavery, but while we're at it: American slavery was abolished 1865, Korea only abolished it in 1894. There's still slavery in several parts of Africa to this day. So yes, if American slavery is "Modern slavery", those two more recent examples should be too I'd argue.
"Cultural fluidity" are easier to achieve when said Greeks ruled by Hellenic rulers and Egyptian and Persian are forced to contend with Hellenic ruler, assuming they don't simply revolt
I have a suggestion, can you guys make a video on the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Their culture, language, religion, societal and political structure, etc.
As an Australian, there isn’t much to talk about, honestly. It’s a compulsory subject in some of our schools and we learn the basics and then it’s just a flog class. for being “the oldest continuous civilisation” they’re the least advanced.
How could you have not mentioned that the roots and origin of antisemitism were in Hellenic Egypt, propagated by people such as Manetho, and that the first pogrom took place in Alexandria, in a video discussing racism in the Hellenic world?
Most jews and eastern people at that time converted to hellenism(religiously,linguisticly and culturally) due to its superiority. That made priests of other religions angry and often spewd hatred that resulted in violence. Authorities in the seleucid kingdom , egypt and later Rome had to take action in order to quell the violence. I have no problem with modern israelites and support their right to exist peacefully , just stating the historical facts.
Anti semitism is a new and very flawed concept, the Phoenicians were the semites that the Greeks had relations with. Manetho tried to combat the jewish fables against egypt with some stories of his own. The video mentions the alexandrian pogrom in 38 CE, in which time it was roman teritorry.
Depends on how you define racism in comparison to xenophobia. I know it's hard for your 21st Century brain to wrap around this idea, but those are different concepts.
Τhere is an interesting theory that I have read in a book of Valerio Massimo Manfredi a known historian and writer. Women very rarely travel by ships during the greek colonism era,colonists being mostly young and strong men.This meant that after the founding of a colony they must have been some kind of interaction with local societies providing them female partners. The logical conclusion is that from the shores of Iberia to those of Egypt and Crimaea the Greeks of the colonies were a mixed breed.This is a plausible explanation about the success of these colonies and the usually friendly relations with the neighbouring nations.
@@KingsandGeneralshe's celebrating a supposed monocultural people's fight to abstain from being engulfed into a larger multicultural political unit. That there is a shaky supposition because there's always been questions as to the greekness of the Macedonians, because their Greek origin has been questioned even in antiquity.
Another story that I was thinking about when I was reading the book "kathodos" from Xenophon: When Xenophon describes their encounter with a tribe that had completely different behaviour than they (e.g. they were doing private things in public without considering this to be weird or immoral), he used the phrase: "their customs are alien to us" (for the greek word xenos=ξένος). He did not use words like immoral or evil. My understanding from this was that they did not necessary view other people or customs as bad but as something that they would not do or approve. That being said, if the other people tried to do the same things in Xenophon's city, they would face consequences and I do not believe they would be tolerated.
lol ok this is a funny topic for a video. Projecting modern things onto the past always gives me a chuckle. You cannot hold people of the past to the same standards of today. Looking back and trying to categorize them in such ways is ridiculous.
The most annoying thing is that people leaving negative comments are not even trying to watch and understand the video. No one does any of what you have in your comment. It is just very basic summary of primary sources on the racial attitudes of the era.
@@KingsandGenerals There are too many simple mindsets in society today. You guys did an excellent job in the video explaining how things were done in the past.
Short answear, yes. Long answear, it would differ from individual to individual and from state to state, Macedonians were exclusive even towards other Greeks and the Athenians and Spartans definetly had a form of racism due to their institutions (of the later) and to to races place in their identity, for example Athenians believed that they grew directly from the land and were descended from Pelasgians and shot out to preserve their "purity". However other states like the city states of the western mediterrainian were more inclusive due to being melting pots of Greeks and other peoples, often intermixing with each other without shame and probably accepting foreigners if they were hellenised completely like the late Hellenistic kingdoms. (please keep in mind that views on racism would change depending on the political situation and that there would never be uninamity of opinion just as today)
I am a dark-skinned Mexican of indigenous descent and I always wondered how the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans would have reacted when they saw me. 😅
Racism is absolutely a human impulse, hence the globally ubiquitous nature of it. Racism in East Asia is alive and well and entirely home grown, just as it is in India and even Africa.
In those days there wouldn't have been enough examples for stereotypes. They would have just had true stereotypes of groups they came into contact with.
🎥 Watch more than 190+ other exclusive videos on youtube: th-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patreon: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. Support us on Paypal www.paypal.com/paypalme/kingsandgenerals as well!
Why you didn't include also how ancient Greek writers describe the black people while calling them blameless and choosen people by the gods👉🏼the ancient Greeks often referred to the Ethiopians as "blameless" in their literature. This characterization is most famously found in Homer's works, such as the Iliad and the Odyssey, where the Ethiopians are described as a noble and favored people. For instance, in the Odyssey (Book 1, lines 22-25), Homer mentions that the gods themselves visit the Ethiopians for feasts and sacrifices, indicating their special status:
> "The gods went to Ethiopia to feast with the blameless Ethiopians."
The term "blameless" (Greek: ἀμύμονες, amymones) reflects the Greeks' perception of the Ethiopians as a distant, virtuous, and almost mythical people living on the edges of the known world. It is worth noting that "Ethiopian" in ancient Greek (Aithiops, meaning "burnt face") referred broadly to dark-skinned peoples from regions south of Egypt, not just the modern nation of Ethiopia.
according to ancient Greek mythology, the gods were said to feast with the Ethiopians. This idea is mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey (Book 1, lines 22-25), where it is stated that the gods traveled to Ethiopia to enjoy banquets and sacrifices offered by the Ethiopians.
The passage reads:
> "But now Poseidon had gone to the distant Ethiopians,
the Ethiopians, who are divided in two, the farthermost of men,
some where Hyperion sets, and some where he rises.
There he went to accept a hecatomb of bulls and rams,
and he sat at the feast, enjoying himself."
This imagery highlights the ancient Greeks' admiration for the Ethiopians, portraying them as a pious and virtuous people. The Ethiopians were thought to live at the edges of the world, which in Greek cosmology was associated with purity and a closer relationship with the divine. It also reflects the belief that the gods themselves valued their offerings and hospitality.
Guys you will start loosing subs if you continue this current world propaganda crap.Stick to history plz.
What we call "racism" has existed since humans walked the earth and encountered people that were different than them in appearance, behavior, mentality, and culture. It is not unique to one race of people. Problems arose from this contact with one or both groups of people not wanting to be exposed and subjected to the others behavior, mentality, and culture. It still goes on today like it or not.
@@BearFlagRebel can I call bullshit on this and not be cancelled?
As an ancient racist myself I really appreciate this dive into my people
Glad you feel represented!
I hate ancient racists, you are an inferior people due to head shape.
Oh no, I've become what I hate! MY HEAD SHAPE!
Based
😂
Whats your opinion on men with faces on their chest or dogmen?
All civilizations in the ancient world from Rome to China had their ethnic prejudices towards outside groups which they considered to be "barbarians".
@@Crow22Darkness Persians were not.😁
All civilizations to this day have racism, with the only exceptions being in the west.
@@PayamjafarianIt depends on your point of view. For the barbarians, they were 😂
Your source? Middle school history teacher?
but some are more engrained into the culture than others. Rome and latin were certainly one of the worst ever - and that is what our western culture stems from
As a Greek who has studied extensively the ancient Greek mythology, allow me to point out that the people that were created by Deucalion and Pyrra throwing rocks behind them, were not foreign people but Greek people. The descendants of their own actual children were not the Greeks in general but the Greek kings. The distinction is between common and noble people, not between foreign and Greek people.
Ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race in the modern sense. Hence the name Ethiopia. It just means land of the sunburned people. To them Black people was just people with a deep tan. At the same time they did consider that peoples traits were defined by their environment. But that also meant that in ancient Greece and Rome someone who had foreign ancestry but was born or lived in Greece and Rome and adopted the culture was not viewed as an outsider.
Ofcourse they considered the slaves to be inherently inferior. How else would they justify slavery? At the same time slaves could become free people. The athenian citizenship laws were more of a class thing, as you pointed out. Other Greeks were not accepted, although they were not viewed as different. In general, in ancient times race was not defined by blood and skin colour but mainly by culture, language and religion. Anyone with different culture was a barbarian.
The main reason the Roman empire pursuit the Jews and (at first) the Christians was because the Abrahaimic religions do not accept any other god than their own (something unheard of in the pagan world) and thus did not take part in the public religious ceremonies, which were a political thing. Taking part in them meant you recognized the authority of the state.
So were the ancient Greeks racist? Not in the modern sense. In their own way, yes they had prejudices. And that is a very important distinction in my humble opinion.
What about Aristoteles Natural law? His views was often used as a source to justify slavery. I also remember there being a law in place that to be an Athenian citizen you had to be pure blood with Athenian parents on both sides. “Modern” views on race weren’t based on one theory that all agreed on and i would say that was the same with the Ancient Greeks
@@inigo9000 the video maker has not study Aristotle and cannot understand him and hiw era.there was not even one theory in the ancient world about liberation of the slaves. The ancient worlda economy could not stand without slavery. There was not even one political philosopher dare to think of a world without slavery. Especially a teacher of kings as Aristotle was. But for the first time in history Aristotle in his writings open a window gor slave rights. For him the slaves are people who have no ability of wise thinking, just like the women and the kids. They both need leadership as a help not to be abused. He wrote that none should be enslaved for debts and none has the right to kill or harm a slave . He also wrote that the good slaves should be liberated from their master and believe me at that time noone could try to declare more rights for the slaves than Aristotle did.he was the first one to open a window for the slaves
@@inigo9000 Slavery in ancient Greece wasnt based on ethnicity or skin color. Aristotle's interpretation of slavery was more that personality traits make someone more suitable to be a slave.
But they were not sons of Hellen
ΒασιλικήΣαμαρά the problem with studing ancient mythology and hostorical text is that it can be interpreted any which way, no one can realy understand what the original creators of those things realy where thinking.
"Everybody knows that the Senones hands are built for wielding a heavy sword, but their fingers are not dexterous enough to wield a quill, while the Punics are good at trading, their right arms are too weak to raise a heavy shield." Bigotus Maximus
Biggus diccus
Biggus diccus
@@Liquidsback
“WHAT’S so controversial about Bigotus Maximus?!”
@@davidthor4405 I have a fwiend in Rome named Bigotus Maximus.
😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉
Short answer: YES
Longer answer: every society is racist in some form or another so yes.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.
Xenophobia and racism are different concepts...
THANK YOU!!!! I clicked to post the same thing. We need to stop with is this group racist or more racist BS. Every group, society etc is racist/ prejudice to some degree. It is human evolution/biology. Being weary of something/someone different meant you avoided danger more often. It's in our DNA, and there is nothing wrong with noticing "patterns" withing certain demographic groups in order to avoid trouble even today.
no, as races didn't exist as a social construct until the late middle ages, so xenophobia, sure, but no racism
The concept of racism only began to develop in the Middle Ages as an evolution of religious prejudice. Xenophobia is not the same as racism.
'luv me olives
'luv me oil
'luv me bois
'luv me polis
'luv me drama
'ate kings
'ate barbarians (not racist, just don understand 'em)
'ate greeks (gitz from da next pol' over)
simple as
this meme always makes me smile
@@KingsandGenerals Having watched your videos for many years already, it's always a delight, so happy to return the favor! ;-) Thank you for the cool channel!
Divided by race, United by racism
We are the best race, they are lesser. This is known.
Also our god is the only true god. You’re just a bunch of crazies for believing in that other god stuff.
@raftguy1376 me when I'm around people that don't use their blinker when changing lanes
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Divided by racism , United by Race . There fixed it for you
Isn't racism kinda like a relatively modern thing? I think the ancient greeks would be closer to xenophobic than actually full on racist.
Not to imply xenophobic is any better but ya know
No it’s not new , every majority culture believed their culture was the norm and outsiders were wrong
@@SDDT24 That's xenophobia
why would they be cucks? that's the modern thing.
@@Bayard1503no, it's survival.
It's funny how Greeks described Goths in a negative way, considering them to be ugly because they were too tall and too big by Greek standards: "The 4th-century Greek historian Eunapius described their characteristic powerful musculature in a pejorative way: "Their bodies provoked contempt in all who saw them, for they were far too big and far too heavy for their feet to carry them, and they were pinched in at the waist - just like those insects Aristotle writes of."
friendly reminder the Greeks preferred small, feminine penises and were revolted by big and meaty phalluses. one does think of athletic games where the athletes famously tied/strung their penis to a rope/twine belt around their waist if it was too big and unwieldy, or "animalistic." crazy, huh?
@@sologemeni "Greeks preferred small, feminine penises" aww yeaaa femboys
Eunapius mad he didn't have a snatched waist
@@sologemeni The small penises thing ("feminine penises"?) : The way they saw it, penises represent, for obvious reasons, our animalistic side so big fat phalluses do not belong on, say, a statue representing the beauty and whichever else quality of a god or hero. It's not the side they are interested in representing and, frankly, it's going to catch everyone's attention. In comedies or statues of Priapus and such though, the dongs have their big day, ;)
As for the string thing. Kynodesme was done regardless of the size of the penis. It was for not showing the end as it was considered kind of gauche and, I think most importantly, because you never know who or what can accidentally whack a free bouncing trio.
Greeks were racist against each other. Like looking down on the macedonians
It is mentioned in the video.
The Macedonians were a tribe that left Sparta to build a place of their own, so they were as Hellenic as the Spartans. But yes! There wasn't a Hellenic Nation back then, but city-states competing with each other and bad-mouthing each other, too. The language and religion were enough to allow them to join the Olympics.
It's not just the Macedonians. First ancient greeks were racist with one another then with the greeks of the colonies. Anywhere where greeks build colonies. They didn't consider them pure greeks for some reason and then with all the foreigners.
Macedonians weren't Greek, they were a mix of Greek, Illyrian and Thracian. With Greek being the minority group, just the ruling elite minority.
@@user-McGiver This just isn't true. That is the story the Argaeads told (but from Argos, not Sparta). The Argaead family were Greek, but they ruled over a kingdom that was made up of Illyrians in the western mountains, Thracians in the northeast, and Greeks in the lowlands.
Their language was mutually unintelligible to Koine, they worshiped a number of different gods that weren't Greek (along with the Greek ones), they had a monarchy that was based on Argos' legendary laws that weren't ever written down, and used bigomous marriage alliances.
The Macedonians were a syncretic culture. The minor portion of that was Greek. That didn't change until Philip II. Alexander I had to make up a family lineage to be allowed in the Olympic games, and even then only the Argaeads were allowed to compete.
Macedonians were HellenIZED Thracians and Illyrians, with a tiny Greek ruling elite.
Literally every group of people in antiquity thought they were better than anyone else. I don’t think for the Greeks that it was based solely on skin color but more just being non-Greek
Not even non greek an ancient Athenian would consider a Spartan or Theban as foreign trash
I’d rather hear about the Egyptians, who were definitely racist by modern standards. Israelites were also extremely racist and xenophobic. Greeks? More just xenophobes.
What is the difference
Except, not really. Elite Egyptian propaganda definitely demonstrates extreme prejudice against Nubians, Libyans, and Western Asians... But then numerous pharaohs and elite officials took women from each of these groups as their wives, and their children then held elite positions. When you get "on the ground", archaeological evidence from sites in the Levant, and Nubia, show extreme cultural cross pollination. It is also thought that Egyptians adopted at least one god from the Libyans, and various aspects of gods from Nubia. The Nubiologist Lazlo Torok, among other scholars, has additionally demonstrated that during late-Egyptian times, the era of Nubian pharaohs had become a "positive" historical memory in the minds of Egyptian priests, to the extent that they made incorrect claims about Egyptian writing originating to its south, instead of in Egypt.
Can you give some examples of the Israelites being specifically racist? Xenophobic for sure, but I can't think of any instances of racism per se.
The Egyptians weren't racist. They were xenophobic, yes. Modern Egyptians but the ancient Egyptians weren't. Ground art shows the average Egyptians married nubians all the time & Egyptians were mainly invaded from the west & ran to nubia for help from those invaders who couldn't step foot in upper Egypt(south)
I feel like ancient peoples were more xenophobic than racist. Though there was prejudice, it was mostly enforced by the former rather than the latter.
It depends! Now we believe foreigns can be of the same race as us, so there can be both racism and xenophobia.
But imagine you lived in a secluded village in africa where everyone looked like you and then came a guy from the other tribe and you felt he was from a difference race than you altogether...
There were some times in history where they were one and the same.
@markus-ks9sf That makes sense in a way.
@@yashenumulla4068African villages where black people until person into village or black person in European village they will strange reaction in modern red skin or blue skin person come near us
@@markus-ks9sf This is a pretty good analogy, actually. I think I’ll steal this.
While I don't think modern racism begins with European colonialism. The Islamic World was taking Black slaves from Africa long before the Europeans were and seems to have influenced the Europeans. The justification for enslaving Black Africans has its origins in interpretations of the "Curse of Ham" in the book of Genesis.
@@Crow22Darkness I agree. Arabs aren't racist despite their early participation in the slave trade, therefore it's doubtful the slave trade is the origin of racism.
It likely was a pre-existing prejudice European slave traders capitalized on to embark on these financial endeavours, using scripture to legitimize such prejudices.
The claim that the Islamic world influenced Europeans to enslave Black Africans oversimplifies history. Slavery existed in many cultures long before Islam, including in the Roman Empire, which heavily influenced Europe. While the Islamic world engaged in the African slave trade and had diverse slave populations, their system was not racialized like the transatlantic slave trade. European motivations for slavery were largely driven by economic needs in the Americas and colonial ambitions, with practices evolving independently, even if some trade routes or methods overlapped.
Certainly, the system of slavery in the Islamic world could have developed into a racialized form of slavery. However, the Zanj Rebellion in 883 CE halted this progression. This occurred long before there was significant interaction between the Islamic world and Europeans, as far as I know. (There’s an episode discussing this on the Kings and Generals)
The islamic civilizations took slaves from every where whjch includes africans but they were not the larticular prized slaves those were for kost of islamoc rule infact greeks and people from near regions
@@Crow22Darkness wow, has this thread been censured!!! Most of the comments have disappeared.
The ancient world could prove a brutal place for foreigners, but I think that maritime and commercial nations such as the ancient Greeks were more tolerant to foreigners
I think we see better attitudes from the people who have actually travelled and interacted with other peoples
Oh boy I can’t wait for the polite and civil conversation in the comments
should be ok
😂😂😂😂
@@KingsandGenerals that I doubt
Such a unique and funny comment
Lmao
I'm sorry, but putting the origin of modern racism on European colonialism and slave trading seems like motivated reasoning.
A neat singular source that fits neatly into modern identity politics? Yeah, nothing is ever that simple and convenient in history.
Very well stated! I had come to expect balanced and impartial presentations from this channel which makes this topic and presentation all the more... disapointing.
People really think that judging someone based on their appearance is some modern invention😮💨 Sure it's probably different today in some ways than it was back then after thousands of years inbetween, but it just sounds goofy.
Colonialism is more of why racism developed to be like it is today, but its beginnings definitely begin earlier. The Reconquista, during which ideas like "Limpieza de Sangre" ("Cleanliness of blood") led to a morphing of religious prejudice into racial prejudice, as Moors and Jews (and their descendants) were discriminated against even after conversion to Christianity simply for having infidel ancestry seems like a more helpful starting point, with Spanish and Portuguese colonialism only spreading that original idea and leading to its development.
@awtqrtrkjsrs I agree, the Reconquista seems like a good candidate since in addition to priming two major colonialist nations it also majorly influenced the Crusades where racial rhetoric was also present, both in the Crusades against Muslim states as well as the Northern Crusades.
Edit: Typo corrections
It is YOU that has motivated reasoning…
But but what about racism practiced by african tribes?
"what about"
what about the droid attack on the wookies?
When some first encountered white people they assumed Europeans had peeled skin.
Look up the Ottoman ambassador Evliya Çelebi's account of the Funj governor in Arbaji (Gezira state, modern Sudan). The governor thought the Turk had been skinned alive since he was so white/pale .
The Yoruba word for a European means peeled man! According to European accounts these people believed Europeans exuded rancid odour, they saw European as plague carriers too and some assumed they were cannibals. There is more when it comes to internal attitudes towards other ethnic groups and other races different Africans encountered, this is just an example.
Hard truth. Every society is racist. It's biologically built in. Kindness is taught.
Every society is xenophobic, that is true, us vs them... but racism is different, that's another level of hate and no, I don't think it's universal in any way.
Exactly but they'll deny it forever😂
you're unkind if you don't side with your own kin.
I think little kids don't give a care what race someone is, and that proves racism is learned. People could be curious about why someone has more melanin, or even prefer a certain skin color just for looks, but that wouldn't make it any kind of ism.
Kindness is an attribute of personality and can be shaped and learned but never inherent unless it's one of the personality attributes. Most people are born with a level of empathy that can't be learned, only imitated.
It’s quite literally the other way around
0:10 well it is one of the most natural human impulses, the stranger can bring war to you community, the aversion towards people from a different background has always been present
Well. You are describing a norm. Natural states and normal states are different though often confused.
Making “racial and ethnic stereotypes” (which is what the quote said) is not natural because race and even ethnicity are not “natural” categories but instead are social ones.
To your example (which is not directly responding to the video), anyone who is not “of your community” can bring a whole host of good and bad to you and confusion, curiosity, intrigue, and apprehension are all natural. Aversion is a lot stronger of an emotion motion and aversion based on kin/clan-ship is not inherent or natural in most cases. In fact, most of our “aversions” are nurture as opposed to nature.
In 2025, with all the history, science, and readily available search engines at our disposal, let’s leave the disproven assumptions behind and embrace the truth.
They where not racist, they hated everyone equally much
Nah, thats just an excuse for the worst form of racism.
It was just that Greeks followed civil laws made by the puplic, while others were killing each other over a dead animal and obeyed rulers only by fear of death. So of course you will view such "cultures" as inferior.
@@trailblazing2576 I have no respect for the group of people who drove Socrates to death, and institutionalized slavery even more than the Persians. Athenians and their so called "democracy" sucked. They were simply masquerading their cruelty with a thin layer of civilization; you can see their hypocrisy when they dealt with the Melians.
@@ElBandito True, Athenians were much brutal than Spartans..They proved to be the bad guy of the P war,and in the end found their Nemesis in Sicily.
My comments are deleted for some reason ..but anyway,I will agree with you merely ,because Athens was inhabited from the beginning by rich people,so elitism and slavery was part of their common urban mentality.
Putting your own tribe as the selected one is as old as humanity and always an easy play to justify whatever you want. Truth is that every tribe and ethnicity that existed survived through the same evolutionary process as individuals do. The ones that survived in harsh environnement are right to say they are the best but they only are the best where they are and until a better comes or the environnement change. This is why mixing culture is a vital play because the environnement, be it human, economic or physical, changes all the time. Clinging to one fixed culture is basically asking to be destroyed...
@@abderrahimbenmoussa4359 couldn’t have said it better myself. Take notes, Qing Dynasty! Oh, wait…
This is a well researched topic and I am looking forward to the entire series. Thank you for pointing out that modern racism is different than the prejudices from the past. It is also, as you pointed out, a social construct.
kind of a moot question, as 'racism' is a modern construct (the word was coined by Leon Trotsky in the 20's to describe those within the USSR's leadership who prioritized the interest of their own ethnic groups, such as georgians and armenians, over the pursuit and implementation of communist ideas). Up to then, this was just considered natural human behavior (differentiating between strangers and protecting your own 'tribe')..
kind of a moot comment
The ancient greeks (and indeed most of the mediterranean world) were not racist in the modern sense, but they were incredibly *xenophobic.* Lines were drawn, not racially, but culturally, and you might find people who are ethnically very closely related to you on the other side of the xenophobic line because they are a *cultural* out-group.
The Greeks in particular were very picky about this, and would often talk about rival poleis - fellow Greeks! - in the same sort of terms they would use for foreigners like Phoenicians. "Your culture" might encompass the Hellenic world, or it might stop at the walls of your own city, depending on how xenophobic you were feeling that day.
One of the things which made Rome exceptional was their ability and willingness to allow cultural foreigners (a term which, for a very long time, included most of the people Rome ruled in Italy itself) to become a part of the cultural in-group by earning Roman citizenship - AND making the status hereditary. For many of the Mediterranean states contemporary with Rome, such a thing was unthinkable.
So is this gonna be a series? Like your gonna talk about racism on every historical culture?
Not every, but a few. Unfortunately, sources are not there for every culture.
@@KingsandGenerals Thats good to hear !! We eagerly await for the arabic/islamic and east asian part of the series since sources are rich in those cultures !! Like and sub!! All the best !!
Uhhh why? @@KingsandGenerals
@@KingsandGenerals Do the Js i dare you.
5000+ years of history and counting
Of course we were ... but still developed trade with all mediterrean sea , adopt and shared customs and traditions etc... We were and are "racists" among us Greeks , people from Thessaloniki moke Atheneans etc , is something commom . It is not described as racist , but more like "being cocky" in a funny way to other people
We are not racist my dude. We just simply Greeks. Being greek is not just a nationality it's a way of existance. We love making fun of each other and especially the foreigners. Greeks we fight each other a lot but when it comes to foreigners we are all united.
@@mrawesome1688 thats what i meant
Way way too many unfounded assumptions and assertions in the opening minutes.
Elaborate
Uh oh, called out. Time to delete my comment and run. 😅. It was a premature comment on a video I actually enjoyed, but I will share my two complaints from the beginning. One was the assumption that
Because we have the writings of elites, the beliefs weren't shared by commoners. The other was that modern racism is a recent conception. The distinction between heredity and culture is at least a little bit spurious, I think. That modern racism was wielded as a tool isn't as relevant, because being born into a culture that is despised is functionally the same as being born into a race.
Modern racism is recent. I don't see how it can be questioned. It is correct by definition.
@@KingsandGenerals true enough, but it's not what the average layman has in view when he thinks of racism. He's likely looking at effects rather than causes. The outcomes are the same in different scenarios. I just think it was worth the time to elaborate on your two points rather than just state them as givens. Seems like you may have gotten a lot of criticism on this video from the above comment. Wasn't my attention to be a part of that. Excellent work.
7:50 if i recall correctly Herodotus also calls the Ethiopian peoples some of "the tallest, most handsome and longest lived".
Edit: To clarify i've got my Rome II provincial borders stuck in my brain, when i mentioned Ethiopians im not referring to the modern country (though part of modern day Ethiopia would fall into the roman province of Ethiopia)
yeah but you can fetishise a group and still be racist
Its not surprise really. Ancient Greeks saw beauty much like their artworks depict. Chiselled, lean, muscular defined bodies being the peak of beauty for a male. This is for sure emphasised with darker skin, even in today's body building competitions all opt for fake tanning oils.
@@stelvis1984ifyexcept the ancient ethiopians were white....
If I recall, this was only said of one particular group. In either case, Herodotus is better understood not as saying that the Ethiopians are "servile", but rather than they lack prowess or martial ability. This contrasts his description of northerners, who are "brutish". Thus, both southerners and northerners are worse than the Greeks, who have the perfect mix of martial prowess and also sophisticated "civility".
Etiopians are short people he meant proto-somalis
I hope this series also tackles places like China and the Islamic World.
"Ancient Greece" might give a hint to what part of the world the video is about. The islamic world is to big and varied I think to do a good comparison? Ancient China souns a lot easier.
@@PMMagro well no, they could go into the Islamic slave trade and just start with Arabia....Then we'd probably see that every nation of peoples had prejudices and that we have a disgusting self flagellating pathology in the west, while places with a much arguably worse attitude remain unashamed of anything and offended by everything else.
You forgot Ancient india Ancient Persia
[...] PROVEN IN EVERY PERIOD of its development, the western European culture has tried to rid himself of the Greeks.
This effort is imbued with deep dissatisfaction, because whatever they (the Western Europeans) created, seemingly original and admirable, lost color and life in its comparison with the Greek model, shrank, ended up looking like a cheap copy, a caricature.
So again and again a hateful rage breaks out against the Greeks, against that small and arrogant nation which had the nerve to call barbarous (for any age) what was not created on its soil.
But who, finally, are they whose historical glory has been so ephemeral, their institutions so limited, their morals dubious as to be unacceptable, and who claim a distinguished place among the nations, a place above the crowd.
None of their reappearing enemies had the luck to discover the hemlock, with which we could get rid of them once and for all.
All the poisons of envy, infamy, hatred have proved insufficient to disturb their great beauty.
Thus, people continue to feel shame and fear towards the Greeks.
Of course, here and there, someone appears who recognizes the whole truth, the truth that teaches that the Greeks are the charioteers of every coming civilization and almost always both the ace chariots and the horses of the coming civilizations are of very low quality compared to the charioteers ( Greeks), who finally sport themselves by driving the chariot into the abyss, which they overcome with an Achilles' leap." [...]
*Excerpt from Friedrich Nietzsche's book, The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, ch. 15.
This video does a great job exploring how the ancient Greeks viewed ethnicity and identity in their time. I hope you continue making videos that challenge modern assumptions about historical societies.
Meh. Totally different mindset back then. You were likely to look down on anyone not of your people, especially your neighbors. As Tacitus said - The Germanic tribes preferred fighting amongst themselves more so than against The Romans. I can certainly understand that. Romans are no fun to fight. Hiveminded, unnaturally disciplined, small yet tough, and damn hard to get rid of.
It is abundantly clear that most of the people in this comment section did not watch the video. Many assumptions being made based on the title that are almost immediately addressed in the video itself.
Usually how it goes, the older I get the more echo chambers I see
I like how this channel just dumps a whole lot of history on me. I have never been so interested in the people of history and their interactions that developed over time to get us to today as I am now. You all do a great job of bringing history to life, presenting it clearly, and making the viewer possibly confront some incorrect ideas they have. The best way you do this is painting the picture of the time. Providing context. Makes it easier to see the long trails we all have taken to get here. And more importantly how those trails have intersected countless times. History is indeed written in blood, but it’s also the greatest story ever told. The story of everyone and everything. Pretty cool. Slowly working my way through all your previous content, but excited about checking it out. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Did you know the Achaemenid Persians abolished slavery?
Those pesky Barbarians! *raises fist in ancient greek gentry
>while not a natural human impulse
you sure
Fairly sure that if you put 20 random children in a complete social and cultural vacuum, they will not divide among the racial lines.
@@KingsandGenerals 1) Humans are not chickens, so your argument is the old "apples and oranges" comparison. 2) Chickens don't mix with other birds unless they are cooped up together.
@@jamesrailling9638 what? You are the one using chickens as an example.
@@KingsandGenerals Sorry, I misread children. I thought it was strange that you brought up chickens.
I heard the intro and instantly knew the average Greek history buff wasn’t gonna like that 😂 the comments are exactly what I expected. I really respect making this kind of content and think it’s extremely important, looking forward to more!
Problem is semantics or definitions --- racism has lost its meaning and even to the point that it is broadly applied to anyone who disagrees with someone else.. it is dumbing down.. and misinformation... conform to stupidity. Going against foolish arguments is hate speech.. etc. Short circuits the mind to accept any interpretation etc. If the Greeks were racist, believe me they would have come up with the word back then.
I’m SO GLAD you began by defining racism as a modern concept originating in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, meanwhile , here in the comments, crickets, like they watched a different video… People seem to bring their own agenda no matter how much work was put into the video…
I guess exploring new perspectives and being objective in the observation of the facts is hard and scary, huh?
“Muh narrative!”
@ I honestly don’t understand your comment. What are you trying to say?
@@Phosphoreus I suppose I was probably a bit unclear…
I kinda followed up on the last part about people bringing in their own agenda no matter what.
I added to that the idea that said folks were scared/unwilling to be professional about the subject because their thinking’d be “other perspectives are scary.”
Did I clarify? I promise I didn’t mean to be confusing. I just… kinda write a bit weird sometimes…
@@davidthor4405 Aaah, ok, I understand better now. I too am disappointed with the commenters who are unaware of the difference between “Racism” and “racism”, yet come here and comment as if they’re experts. Lowercase "racism" refers to individual prejudice or discriminatory acts, while capitalized "Racism" emphasizes systemic and institutionalized racial oppression.
The origin of the word “Barbarian” came from the greeks, whom heard their “uncivilized” neighbors’ language, thought it sounded like “Bar bar bar”, and called them barbarians.
Fair to say, them, and literally every other group of people were racists.
you're confusing racism with ethnic prejudice
As a big fan of history I love your content
Prejudice in aniquity was usually based on culture and primarely language than on skin color or any kind of race-based physical features.
Don't know why this video has so many dislikes. This is a pretty neutral and solid view on different prejudices in the ancient world. Did any of the people who disliked it watch it?
Around 20%
The discussion of racism has become tired and used to sow bad faith arguments. It's used by race hustlers to push self-serving agendas under the guise of moral righteousness. currently the discussion of racism has been used to browbeat others into guilt for sins of their grandfathers. It no wonder people groan when they hear this topic mentioned
This video is NOT that. It's always fun to try to understand the people of the past and their mindsets and the video did it in informative and non agenda pushing presentation
Racism and xenophobia is part of human nature, we are a tribal species, and thus everyone outside the tribe is a possible threat.
The Greeks and Romans hated everyone equally. The Romans wanted the Greeks to like them so much they asked if the Greeks would give them a pass and they essentially did lol
There will be a separate video on the Roman attitudes and Roman relations with the Greeks.
@KingsandGenerals Sweet
The ancient Greeks considered someone born in a different city as a foreigner !
You can't compare them to modern society
And we don't. You have to actually watch the video.
You should make a video about prejudices that every Greek tribe, kingdom or city had to each other. That would be very interesting and funny! Judging ancient people customs and opinions by today's standards is wrong, but still very useful to study those eras.
From the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE to the Roman conquest in 30 BCE, Egypt was ruled by a Greek dynasty known as the Ptolemies. During this time, Egypt was settled by a large number of Greek immigrants who tended to dominate the upper and middle classes of Egyptian society. In Race: Antiquity and Its Legacy, Denise McCoskey makes the argument that Prolemaic Egypt was a highly racialized state, where Greeks were systematically privileged by the state at the expense of the native Egyptians. The case for describing Ptolemaic Egypt as a systemically racist state draws from the behaviors of various political, economic, and social institutions to argue that Greek immigrants were privileged at the expense of native Egyptians on the basis of racial beliefs and perceived racial identities.
The institution of Greek as the official language of the Ptolemaic state certainly afforded privileges to those who could speak it. McCoskey argues that “knowledge of Greek… provided tangible benefit to the individuals who were able to attain it”. In this way, Greek immigrants and their descendants stood at a natural advantage over native Egyptians. By speaking Greek natively, they were able to “work within or negotiate the state bureaucracy more skillfully”.
However even McCoskey concedes that “Greek and Greek education were not the sole possession of Greeks”. Many Egyptians were not only able to learn Greek privately, but were actively encouraged to so and rewarded with access to public offices. This was likely not an expression of some sort of anachronistic cosmopolitan desire for diversity and integration, but the product of pragmatic calculation. The Ptolemaic state relied on bilingual village scribes to occupy its front lines and act as the primary nexus between itself and the rural masses, allowing even illiterate Egyptian peasants to interact with its bureaucracy. The usefulness of Greek-speaking Egyptians to the Ptolemies is evident in the fact that Greek teachers were eventually given tax breaks, presumably to incentivize the practice of their trade.
McCoskey describes these efforts as an exercise in cultural assimilation, not unlike those carried out by colonial regimes in the 19th century. The evidence, however, suggests that the active promotion of Greek culture was largely limited to the realm of language, and even then not as an attempt to replace Egyptian but to complement it. Most Egyptian institutions were left untouched, even when they existed in parallel to Greek ones. For example, a dual legal system of Greek and Egyptian courts was operated throughout the period. In Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, Naphtali Lewis asserts that the traditional understanding of Ptolemaic Egypt as a cultural melting-pot that largely synthesized Greek and Egyptian cultures is inaccurate, and that “in Hellenistic Egypt such mutual [cultural] influences were minimal”. Even such minimal influences, however, flowed both ways. The Ptolemies certainly went out of their way to "assimilate" themselves into the Egyptian image of kingship by adopting all kinds of Egyptian styles and symbols to represent themselves. Thus, it is an exaggeration to describe the limited promotion of Greek language as a colonial attempt at cultural assimilation. Considering the equally limited, but clearly visible adoption of aspects of Egyptian culture by Greeks, the relation between the two groups is more symmetrical and complex than it seems.
Still, keep in mind education remained a privately funded endeavor, available only to those who could afford it. In particular, access to the services of a rhetor, a teacher of rhetoric, deliberation, and public speaking at the final stage of Greek education, was extremely limited and only available to the upper classes of Greco-Egyptian society.
Another aspect of Ptolemaic Egypt that is prone to misinterpretation as a racist practice is the system of land tenure. Most of the land in Ptolemaic Egypt fell into one of three categories: state (royal) land, temple land, and cleruchic land allotments. State land was controlled directly by the king, and would be either worked directly or temporarily leased to tenants. Temples operated like economic institutions, working and leasing the land under their control. Finally, individual land allotments were given to Greek military settlers (i.e. cleruchs) as reward for their service. In one particular village of the Fayyum region in the second century CE, about half the land was owned by the state, one third by cleruchs, and one twentieth by temples. Thus, the vast majority of the land was controlled by the Greek state and Greek settlers. The only way to gain private control of land was through military service in the Ptolemaic army, which was not open to Egyptians until 217 BCE. McCoskey points out that “the majority of Egyptians, labored on the land as tenant farmers, taking leases either from the crown of from the Greek cleruchs” and as such, they were responsible for taxes on the land, but were given little opportunity to amass economic advantages. Even when Egyptians were admitted to cleruchic status, they were given lesser plots of 5 to 30 arouras (1 urora = roughly 0.275 hectares), whereas Greek infantrymen had been given 20 to 40 arouras. In a landscape where agriculture was the main economic activity, this system of land tenure seems to place most Egyptians in a position of economic disadvantage and vulnerability relative to their Greek landlords.
Whether or not this system is evidence of racial discrimination, however, is an entirely different matter. To begin with, McCoskey ignores the fact that there was no such thing as private ownership of land in Ptolemaic Egypt. While control over some land and the right to exploit it was delegated to cleruchs, it did not cease to be crown property. This fundamental aspect of the system of land tenure is reflected in the literal meaning of the word κληροῦχος (cleruchos), which refers to a lot holder, not owner. The development of a true “aristocracy” was checked by the king’s prerogative, as the nominal owner of all land in Egypt, to take back and redistribute cleruchic land allotments as it best served the interests of the state.
Even as land holders, though, it would be naïve to completely deny that Greek cleruchs found themselves at a position of economic advantage over tenant farmers who did not own or control the land they worked. This position was not, however, an arbitrary consequence of their Greek identity, but entirely a reward for military service. Even though at first, all cleruchs were Greek, not all Greeks were cleruchs. The Greek population of Egypt included a large number of civilians who, in stark contrast to military settlers, immigrated and made a living essentially on their own way. Lewis mentions out that “those who came to Ptolemaic Egypt for employment in the armed forces… were processed by agents and officers of the crown the moment they set foot on Egyptian soil”, but also that “if there was an immigration and naturalization service through which the [other] new arrivals had to pass on reaching Egypt, there is no hint of it in the sources”. Lacking access to state land grants, they sought profit and social advancement through alternative means in the public and private sectors. Making use of their preexisting wealth and skills, they occupied themselves as shopkeepers, bankers, industrialists, merchants, moneylenders, shippers, private tax farmers, landholders’ middlemen, and public servants. Some, no doubt, found success, but, as Lewis points out, “for many the new Eldorado on the Nice turned out to be a land of false promise and deluded hopes… never [rising] out of the ranks of the poor, eking out their existences in the same menial, lowly occupations and the Egyptians”. Racism, by its institutional nature, permeates through the ranks of society and intersects the identities of its members to privilege a given group across the board. Thus, a comparison Greek and Egyptian civilians ceteris paribus provides no evidence that the Ptolemaic state was racist. On the contrary, it supports an interpretation of the cleruch’s privilege as a consequence of their occupation as soldiers rather than their identity as Greeks.
Today's subject...
Gotta love these comments from people who did not watch the vid, while approaching this topic from their modern perspective... "Well everyone is racist" no you just don't know what u talking about
''Barbarian'' is a Greek word but it doesn't mean ''brutal'' like today... it means ''Foreigner''... someone who speaks a language that's difficult to understand and sounds like ''Bar-bar-bar-bar''
like in English we say '' gibberish'', it was the Romans who took the word and changed the meaning... [just as they did with everything else...]
That's literally a racist term, meaning "look how dumb they sound"
We have Welsch in German. That's why it's called Wales, or even Walnut.
xenophobic yes, racist no
@@Dimitris_Halfhow is that racist even to the slightest. They were against anyone who didnt speak greek race wasnt a point of discussion. The word you are looking for can be xenophobic.
Its not a racist term. It's a funny term. It's a joke. Greeks lobe making jokes against one another and against foreigners. Yeah we make fun of each other and yeah we ginna make fun of you. If you can't take humor and been making fun of dont come to Greece.
Herodotus traveled extensively, but his accounts often reflect a deeply biased perspective, particularly toward Persians.
For example, he described the Persian king Xerxes as excessively arrogant and tyrannical, portraying him as someone who thought he could whip the sea into submission during his campaign against Greece. Additionally, Herodotus exaggerated the Persian practice of "proskynesis" (bowing to superiors) to frame them as servile and despotic, contrasting them unfavorably with the supposedly "free" Greeks. A third example is his depiction of Persian women, whom he claimed were overly indulgent and morally corrupt, reinforcing stereotypes of decadence and excess in Persian society.
He demonized Persians as much as he could without completely losing credibility in his own time. Even so, when we read his works now, his narratives often feel detached from reality.
In essence, it is undeniable that Hellenistic Greek culture had deeply ingrained prejudices, making it impossible to ignore the presence of racism in their worldview.
Oh this comment better get all the likes, it's actually informed
And what highlights why this discussion is needed is that Herodotus was called a philbarbaros of all things by later Greco-Roman historians for being "too nice" in writing of the Persians. Initial prejudices may be based on communal instinct, but internalized xenophobia and racism is socialized over time and is harder to argue against
His 2nd book disagrees with you.
@@thedeviousgreek1540
To say that Herodotus was "nice" or even "Fair" to Persians in his second book (Euterpe) is, frankly, a misunderstanding of both the text and the man himself. While Herodotus provides valuable historical accounts, his biases as a Greek historian writing in a time of Persian-Greek conflict are evident throughout The Histories, including Book 2. Let's look at three specific examples from his second book that demonstrate his consistent prejudice against the Persians:
1. Cambyses’ Disrespect for Egyptian Customs:
Herodotus portrays Cambyses II, the Persian king, as a barbaric conqueror who desecrated sacred Egyptian practices, such as killing the Apis bull-a holy symbol of fertility and prosperity. However, modern historical findings challenge this depiction. Evidence, including the Apis bull stele, shows Cambyses honored Egyptian religious traditions, aligning more with the administrative policies of Cyrus the Great. Herodotus’ account likely stems from Egyptian propaganda or his own cultural bias, making his version both unfair and inaccurate.
2. Cambyses’ Madness Narrative:
Herodotus labels Cambyses as a tyrant who allegedly descended into madness, killing family members and showing no respect for his own court. This story is unverifiable and suspiciously echoes Greek stereotypes of "barbarian despotism." Modern historians argue that Cambyses' rule was far more calculated and administrative, as evidenced by records from Babylon and Egypt. Herodotus' narrative seems designed to discredit Persian leaders and bolster Greek self-perceptions of cultural superiority.
3. Unjust Depiction of Persian Rule:
Herodotus describes Persian taxation and labor policies in Egypt as oppressive and exploitative, portraying the Persians as cruel rulers. Yet this ignores the fact that heavy taxation and labor systems were standard across ancient empires, including Greek city-states. Archaeological evidence suggests Persian rule in Egypt incorporated local governance and respected Egyptian traditions far more than Herodotus implies.
Herodotus' bias is not surprising given the context-he wrote during an era of fierce Greek-Persian rivalry, and his work was aimed at a Greek audience. His tendency to romanticize Greek culture while vilifying non-Greek peoples, especially the Persians, is well-documented.
Modern scholarship, supported by archaeological evidence and comparative historical analysis, paints a more balanced picture of Persian rulers like Cambyses. Far from the irrational and destructive figure Herodotus describes, Cambyses was pragmatic, maintaining order in his empire and respecting local customs. These findings expose Herodotus’ narratives as partial at best and deliberately hostile at worst.
In short, Herodotus in Euterpe remains the same "Father of Lies" many have critiqued for centuries. His second book continues his pattern of unfair treatment of the Persians, using exaggeration, propaganda, and cultural prejudice to undermine their legacy. Any claim that he was "nice" to Persians in this context is a misreading of both the text and modern historical evidence.
@@Payamjafarian Cambyses had many issues with the egyptian temples by cutting their tax income and also the egyptian citizens who were considered second class. There was also a rebellion against him by Psamtik the 3rd and many consequent rebellions against Persian rule. To try and portray him as a peaceful conqueror is surely a modern idea born out of the critique against Herodotus. The persian yoke in Egypt was never really accepted by the egyptians no matter how ''respectable'' you think the Persian rule was. The manner of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander just adds to it.
To pretend as if palace drama and assasinations are just propaganda is a bold idea considering how common they were. Cambyses consolidated his power to a great degree which quite often results in friction.
Taxation enforced by an emperor has nothing in common with the taxation of the greek city states. Barbarian despotism isnt a greek idea, its a historical fact for non barbarians too.
There is nothing wrong with portraying an empire of a thousand nations under one king as servile and despotic compared to the self governed free Greeks. Being a vassal is not the same as being sovereign.
Nobody ever argued that Herodotus was not biased. The modern idea of revisionism on Herodotus can only get you so far but trying to claim that everything is a lie or just propaganda is as foolish as believing everything Herodotus wrote is true.
@@thedeviousgreek1540
"Your attempt to portray Persian rule as universally despotic reeks of selective bias and falls apart under historical scrutiny. Let’s dissect your claims systematically:
1. Cambyses and Egypt: Yes, Cambyses had issues in Egypt, but your fixation on rebellion and 'second-class citizens' ignores the larger context. Rebellions were common in every ancient empire, including your so-called 'free Greeks.' The Delian League, for instance, was nothing more than an Athenian empire masquerading as a coalition. Did the Persians enforce tributes? Yes, but so did the Greeks-except Athens used force to suppress its allies, as documented by Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War). So spare us the sanctimony.
2. Persian Respect for Egyptian Culture: Cambyses may have had friction, but Darius I not only stabilized Egypt but embraced its culture, declaring himself Pharaoh and respecting its traditions. Egyptian inscriptions like the trilingual Rosetta Stone confirm this. If Persians were so 'despotic,' why did they invest in infrastructure and religious preservation?
3. Alexander and Conquest: Using Alexander’s conquest of Egypt as a justification for your argument is laughable. Alexander didn’t 'liberate' Egypt; he replaced one imperial rule with another. Worse, the Ptolemies that followed were infamous for their heavy-handed Greek-centric rule, which alienated native Egyptians far more than the Persians ever did.
4. Barbarian Despotism: You seem enamored with this idea of 'barbarian despotism,' but guess what? The term 'barbarian' was a Greek invention used to demean non-Greeks, regardless of their accomplishments. The Persians ruled a multi-ethnic empire of unparalleled tolerance for the era, allowing local customs and religions to thrive. Compare this to the Athenians, who burned rival cities like Melos and enslaved its population. Which sounds more 'despotic' to you?
5. Herodotus and Bias: You cling to Herodotus like a lifeboat, but even he acknowledges the administrative brilliance and cultural tolerance of the Persians (Herodotus, Histories, 1.136). Revisionism? No. Critical thinking? Yes. Herodotus’s accounts reflect Greek anxieties about a superior civilization, not objective truth.
6. Self-Governed Greeks: This romanticized notion of 'self-governed free Greeks' ignores the brutal class hierarchies, rampant slavery, and oligarchic rule in most city-states. Sparta’s helots lived under constant terror, while Athens’ so-called democracy excluded women, slaves, and non-citizens. At least the Persian system allowed different regions autonomy under satrapies, a model more progressive than anything in Greece.
In conclusion, your arguments are cherry-picked, historically shallow, and steeped in outdated Greek propaganda. The Persians were far from perfect, but their empire was an unprecedented experiment in multicultural governance that your beloved 'free Greeks' could never match."
Yes. Everyone in that period was. Next question.
No. Not everyone. That's dismissive & trying to justify today's racism, saying everyone does it.
"After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man's ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland”
“The historian Appian claims that the military commander Brutus, before the battle of Philippi in 42BC, met an ‘Ethiopian’ outside the gates of his camp: his soldiers instantly hacked the man to pieces, taking his appearance for a bad omen - to the superstitious Roman, black was the colour of death.”
The fact that they called everyone who wasn't them "barbarians" already answers that question
Nothing to do with racism, barbarian meant something different.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 μας δουλεύεις ρε φίλε;
In our eyes every non Greek is still considered barbarian to this day.
@@Dimitris_Half Google is your friend. The term barbarian in Greek times was about language and it was then expanded into something different in the roman times.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 ναι ρε, δεν είναι καθόλου ρατσιστικό να κοροϊδεύεις τις γλώσσες άλλων λαών
Τι άλλο θα ακούσουμε ρε φίλε 🤦♂️
This is a fascinating question that challenges modern perspectives on ancient societies. The Greeks often distinguished people more by culture and language than skin color, labeling non-Greeks as "barbarians," not necessarily out of racism in the modern sense but due to cultural chauvinism. This video does a great job unpacking those nuances.
Yo they have a greek version of Noah’s arc that’s awesome! The fact that so many different cultures have a giant flood myth has to mean that at least sometime in history there was a big flood.
The Ancient Greeks had I believe 5 flood myths but the truth is that they are related to local phenomena. For example we had a flood in the region of Thessaly more than a year ago, that killed many and made a whole region into a lake for many many months. This phenomenon has a periodicity, I believe of a few decades of years as it has happens in the past, but now scientists are saying that it will be happening every few years due to climate change. Other regions of the world have floods too, like recently we've seen in Spain. Thus flood myths are not connected to a single phenomenon but they have the same root for existing and in most cases it is because of actual floods that happen in areas that people settle, near big rivers that are used for irrigation near fertile lands.
There is no physical evidence of any large flood, except for one in Mesopotamia I believe after the Tigris flooded or something, this may be the origin but it definitely is nothing close to a global flood
@ thank you for this new information. It makes sense that it being a myth it would be extremely exaggerated, but it’s still interesting. Seeing that even some of humanities most fantastic tales have a tiny smidge of truth in there somewhere.
@@jankodrakic786 Legends and myths possess more truth than empirical facts. Don"t listen to the other guy. Try to think outside the boundaries of modern logic.
@@noobzie8963 I’m sorry what are you talking about? I am thinking about it critically. May you please explain your position? I really don’t know how it’s relevant in this situation. If you are willing to explain yourself, I will always lend an ear.
Please make a video on Kingdom of Mewar and the Rajput Dynasties of Mewar. As usual Awesome video.
We will never get an accurate assessment on this issue while looking to the past through a modern political or ideological lens.
Αιθίοψ (=Ethiopian) in Ancient Greek meant the burned face.
Another word that passed by Greeks to nowadays is the Barbarian (Βάρβαρος) which is not comes from Berberic tribes but by mimitising the alien sound of near East non Greek languages (bar bar , in a way when non Asians try to pretend that they speak Chinese today).
Finally, Alexander married foreign woman who was not even a Persian but an Afghani !
Basically, yes. It is a natural impulse if you live in a wolf pack
But... We don't live in a wolf pack
@@KingsandGenerals exactly, but people back then were just stupid
Wolves eat their own feces
Well this is awkward for this channel
Why
Seriously?? Ugh
Are you trying to hint Greeks and Italians aren't superior?
All these emotional people in here talking and not listening lol forget what you know about modern racism, which yes, is rooted in systems and policies long before us, and take in Ancient prejudices... they didn't give af about skin color, moreso your culture and way of life.
Get your own racial biases outta your head when learning, it will help.
@@mauricelevonte I fairness, skin colour IS a thing that’s always visible, and a clear identifier. I doubt there wasn’t a guy that got beaten up for being the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time, but you are right in that older prejudice was more… in depth, I guess?
Your skin was more just another rock to throw at you for being an outsider, as opposed to the later scientific racism, where your skin was THE deciding factor. Now, if you spoke the wrong language, or (Mars forbid) the “right language” with an ACCENT, THEN you’re a real dirty barbarian.
Oh they were racist. Just not in the modern understanding (e.g the idea of a monolithic 'black' and 'white' race)
Did the ancient Greeks possess pattern recognition?
Are they actually blaming capitalism for racism? That's nonsense. Racism existed long before capitalism.
Try to actually listen to what was said
Can you make a video about the relationships between the Greeks and Jews????
We have one on the Maccabean revolt and Great Jewish Revolt, both are good introductions
@KingsandGenerals ok. Then, how about a video about the Origins of the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews????
down the line
@KingsandGenerals ok, i'll be patiente
My social studies professor once said that if you could transport anyone who lived before the 20th century into the present with a time machine, such a person would think that the present era is weird for how easily various people get along.
Here in Greece, we were taught the phrase “Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος” ("Whoever is not Greek is a barbarian"). Unfortunately, some people have taken this idea to heart.
Cool video! Im looking forward to this series; the way different peoples concieve of or explain differenecs is really interesting
It is totally stupid to use modern terminology for describing people 2500 years ago. For putting into a perspective, your literally neighbor could end up being your slave after a war between polis.
Interesting topic! Thank you Kings and Generals for another thought provoking video!
They were ancient gamers afterall 😂
Amazing video as always.
Can you guys make one on the impact of greek culture/writings/philosophy, etc on the medieval islamicate society.
@5:30 . Its interesting that Aristotle argued that slaves deserved to be slaves because they were inherently servile during the golden era of Ancient Greece when he lived. The implication is that Greeks were not servile, by nature, and were a level above. Yet, not too soon after the time he was alive, a large amount of Greeks would go on to be enslaved by Romans. I wonder if Aristotle lived during this time, he would argue that the Greek race suddenly developed servile genes somehow. I think this shows his viewpoint may have been flawed here.
Plenty of Greeks were enslaved during Aristotle's time, he definitely knew Greeks could be enslaved. That would have been a non-point had the argument been that you literally can't enslave Greeks.
But what he was saying was that you can enslave Plato i(ndeed Plato was enslaved for a while) but he's not a slave by nature, he doesn't have a servile nature. So you have enslaved someone who is not fit to be a slave. Similarly, you might place a "slave by nature" into a ruling class position, a King. You could but again, he would be unfit to be a King due to his nature.
@2:06 there is nothing wrong with being racist based on this last explanation. Cultural traits are real, and they can be objectively bad. Its important to note these distinctions and act upon them
Well i do not know about ancient Greece, but i can tell you now we are, a lot!
Should I not visit?
greeks are far from being white though. if you look at the average greek, they look like arabs.
@@Valkyraw Where are you looking at lol
@@thedeviousgreek1540 yeah you dont like to hear the truth but it is the truth. some greeks got lucky that some slavs shared their genetics with him when the slavs migrated into the balkans. pure greeks are brown.
@@Valkyraw Awww, a barbarian calling us non white. 😆
Incoming comments justifying racism in 3.2.1. 👇🏿
All people are beautiful in some ways.
@@Th3BigBoy Agreed. But they should stay in their lands.
@@DrewbattleTheGreat So far I’ve found 3 replies going “WOKE CHANNEL! WOKE CHANNEL! REALITY IS RACIST!”
It’s absurd how eager some people seem to be to try to normalise their beliefs by distorting history, ‘cause yeah, tribalism and xenophobia isn’t new whatsoever, but that’s not all that racism is, either. It’s almost like reality is complicated or something.
Like, yeah Jake, your irrational fear and distrust towards outside groups IS natural, but so is getting polio and dying at 17 and I don’t see people going on about accepting that as “the natural order”.
This take that "Modern racism is built on capitalism and colonialism"... I just can't. All I can think of is thinking about Berber slavers enslaving specifically Christian sailors, how prevalent slavery in general was in Islam in the middle ages, how the United Emirates have a long history of black slavery long since colonialism and industrial capitalism was a thing and the brutal racism between several Asian countries all doing the "are we a joke to you?" meme. Just look at Chinese, Japanese and Korean people up to this day, not only towards themselves but also towards foreigners, white but *especially* black people. And here the Americans in their ignorance are all like "we invented racism and slavery, let us explain it to you!", if that's not the peak of centrism and arrogance I don't know what is.
It is almost like the word "modern" has a meaning.
@KingsandGenerals Well, but that's what I'm getting at though: Look at the racism prevalent in many Asian country towards foreigners. How many Japanese people e.g. view foreigners as dirty and would literally disown their kids for marrying a black person or at least shun them. Their behavior is exaxtly the same as your stereotypical redneck doing the same thing to their child. So how can you blame "capitalism" and "colonialism" when Japan never was part of the African slave trade? When their stereotypes against e.g. black people are clearly not based on those of the West because many (broad strokes here, I know) view outsiders in general as inferior?
That's what's bugging me: This widely seen phenomenon of racism that's been human nature for thousands of years, but then this one big example being seen as "more special" and the centre and cause of all racism in today's society.
It's like your great-grandfather hatching chicken eggs himself and then you claiming that all other "modern" chickens in the world a hundred years later must be their offspring. No. They're just chickens. Slightly different from others, tailored to your environment maybe, but still chickens.
And in nowaday's connected society, racism like everything else mixes. No, I'm not saying institutionalized racism in the US today doesn't exist, the evidence is clear on that when you e.g. look at redlining. But you can't just claim everything is a nail because the only tool you have is a hammer!
Nothing is special. It is just another topic like hundreds of others.
By modern racism the video obv means the general perception of ravism in recent times, and recent cases of racism. The koreans had the longest line of slavery but in a discussion about modern slavery you wouldnt expect for it to be discussed or would you?
@eshaal1239 You seem to mix up racism and slavery, but while we're at it: American slavery was abolished 1865, Korea only abolished it in 1894. There's still slavery in several parts of Africa to this day. So yes, if American slavery is "Modern slavery", those two more recent examples should be too I'd argue.
"Cultural fluidity" are easier to achieve when said Greeks ruled by Hellenic rulers and Egyptian and Persian are forced to contend with Hellenic ruler, assuming they don't simply revolt
I have a suggestion, can you guys make a video on the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Their culture, language, religion, societal and political structure, etc.
And especially: were they racist?
There are petroglyphs of ancient music. The lyrics are 🎵don’t be a Rama Rama, don’t sniff petrol from a can🎵
it's crap
As an Australian, there isn’t much to talk about, honestly. It’s a compulsory subject in some of our schools and we learn the basics and then it’s just a flog class. for being “the oldest continuous civilisation” they’re the least advanced.
@@Bayard1503 well, they tought that the kanguroos are inferior but in modern days deny this outdated believes ~!
I love the complexity and nuance presented in this video!
It helps us understand the ancients as real people, instead of black and white caricatures.
How could you have not mentioned that the roots and origin of antisemitism were in Hellenic Egypt, propagated by people such as Manetho, and that the first pogrom took place in Alexandria, in a video discussing racism in the Hellenic world?
For no reason whatsoever don't forget about that
Based alexandria
Most jews and eastern people at that time converted to hellenism(religiously,linguisticly and culturally) due to its superiority. That made priests of other religions angry and often spewd hatred that resulted in violence. Authorities in the seleucid kingdom , egypt and later Rome had to take action in order to quell the violence. I have no problem with modern israelites and support their right to exist peacefully , just stating the historical facts.
I read somewhere, I think in Philo of Alexandria about something similar. It was a long ago though.
Anti semitism is a new and very flawed concept, the Phoenicians were the semites that the Greeks had relations with. Manetho tried to combat the jewish fables against egypt with some stories of his own. The video mentions the alexandrian pogrom in 38 CE, in which time it was roman teritorry.
Short answer: Yes, they were.
Depends on how you define racism in comparison to xenophobia. I know it's hard for your 21st Century brain to wrap around this idea, but those are different concepts.
@@mekingtiger9095 In both cases you hate foreigners so does that really matter?
Not really. Xenophobic isn't the same as racism..
Τhere is an interesting theory that I have read in a book of Valerio Massimo Manfredi a known historian and writer. Women very rarely travel by ships during the greek colonism era,colonists being mostly young and strong men.This meant that after the founding of a colony they must have been some kind of interaction with local societies providing them female partners.
The logical conclusion is that from the shores of Iberia to those of Egypt and Crimaea the Greeks of the colonies were a mixed breed.This is a plausible explanation about the success of these colonies and the usually friendly relations with the neighbouring nations.
And I thought the video about the Early Palestinians was controversial enough...
How is this controversial?
Xenophobia and racism are two different things
The real question is, who wasn’t racist? Can you really blame them? A multicultural empire literally tried to evade them multiple times and failed.
That is false. Empires are multicultural by definition. Rome survived for centuries after becoming multicultural.
"Multicultural" is an extremely different and modern thing.
Evade them?
I don't think he meant to say what your answer addressed. @@KingsandGenerals
@@KingsandGeneralshe's celebrating a supposed monocultural people's fight to abstain from being engulfed into a larger multicultural political unit.
That there is a shaky supposition because there's always been questions as to the greekness of the Macedonians, because their Greek origin has been questioned even in antiquity.
Another story that I was thinking about when I was reading the book "kathodos" from Xenophon: When Xenophon describes their encounter with a tribe that had completely different behaviour than they (e.g. they were doing private things in public without considering this to be weird or immoral), he used the phrase: "their customs are alien to us" (for the greek word xenos=ξένος). He did not use words like immoral or evil. My understanding from this was that they did not necessary view other people or customs as bad but as something that they would not do or approve. That being said, if the other people tried to do the same things in Xenophon's city, they would face consequences and I do not believe they would be tolerated.
Were they based?! 😅
lol ok this is a funny topic for a video. Projecting modern things onto the past always gives me a chuckle. You cannot hold people of the past to the same standards of today. Looking back and trying to categorize them in such ways is ridiculous.
The most annoying thing is that people leaving negative comments are not even trying to watch and understand the video. No one does any of what you have in your comment. It is just very basic summary of primary sources on the racial attitudes of the era.
@@KingsandGenerals There are too many simple mindsets in society today. You guys did an excellent job in the video explaining how things were done in the past.
Short answear, yes.
Long answear, it would differ from individual to individual and from state to state, Macedonians were exclusive even towards other Greeks and the Athenians and Spartans definetly had a form of racism due to their institutions (of the later) and to to races place in their identity, for example Athenians believed that they grew directly from the land and were descended from Pelasgians and shot out to preserve their "purity". However other states like the city states of the western mediterrainian were more inclusive due to being melting pots of Greeks and other peoples, often intermixing with each other without shame and probably accepting foreigners if they were hellenised completely like the late Hellenistic kingdoms.
(please keep in mind that views on racism would change depending on the political situation and that there would never be uninamity of opinion just as today)
I am a dark-skinned Mexican of indigenous descent and I always wondered how the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans would have reacted when they saw me. 😅
The Ancient Greeks were of African descent. And they were proud of their African origins.
And you are a Bulgarian and you hate that you are a bulgar
Racism is absolutely a human impulse, hence the globally ubiquitous nature of it. Racism in East Asia is alive and well and entirely home grown, just as it is in India and even Africa.
ethnocentrism is normal and a survival mechanism.
In those days there wouldn't have been enough examples for stereotypes. They would have just had true stereotypes of groups they came into contact with.