On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 16:50 -0500, sha...@shanew.net wrote: > That last bit is plain wrong. Jamestown had Africans as slaves as > early as 1619, > Fair enough - I was ignoring the Spanish because it seems to me, possibly wrongly, that what they did in that sphere had little influence on the English-speaking world. > As for the influence of religion at this time, surely you're aware of > Biblical defenses of racism and slavery, whether in the form of the > "curse of Ham" or the suggestion that slavery was a necessary evil > because it would control the sinful, less humane, black race. > Sure, but we're discussing the root of the Xtian association of black with an evil soul, not with biblically sanctioned skin colour-neutral slavery.
> > Out of pure curiosity, when was the current racist use of 'black' > > first coined and where did that happen? > The quick version is that various "natural philosophers" in the late > 1600s tried to describe and account for the different "races" that > they encountered in the world. One famous account is from François > Bernier, entitled "New Division of the Earth by the Different Species > or 'Races' of Man that Inhabit It." > That just makes my point: that the term 'black list', first documented to be used by Charles II in 1640 about assuredly used by English persons with probably some Scandinavian ancestry (William of 1066 fame was of mixed Norse-French ancestry) was referring to 'black sin' rather than black skins before said 'natural philosophers', Linnaeus, etc. chose to apply it to black-skinned people with a racial meaning. Thanks for that confirmation. Martin
