Aristotles wrote a Book simply titled "politics" 2300 years ago. He explains that in democracies women are given too much power, the fertility rate plummets and thereafter they replenish the population with foreigners until the country collapses.>"Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands...">"Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him"
When you separate people from law and justice - they give in to lust and gluttony.
Aristoteles asks the Questions if some people are slaves by nature.
>>84247077no wonder they stopped teaching about ancient greeks and romans in most schools
The rule of the inferior is always hurtful according to Aristotles, and he claims that men are by nature superior and by nature women inferior.He further claims that the superior ruling is better for the ones they rule over, too - for then they are preserved.
>>84247077aristotle also thought that women had less teeth than men all his life and nigga never bothered to see inside a woman's mouth even once before saying this shitonly good thing that bum has done in his life is to tell my goat alexander to read the illiad and to model himself after achilles
>>84247122After 1800 school teachers became increasingly female. (btw. it roughly coincides with circumcision becoming more popular). - i bet those women really hated what the ancients wrote about women.And yet it's incredibly applicable to today. It's very much describing our current situation.And if this was common knowledge their claims that all of this is due to wealth, luxury and technology would quickly fall apart.
>>84247139I've only read his book about politics and it's a perfect description of today's politics, genetics, private vs public property etc.This guy was smart.
"so from good men a good man springs. But this is what nature, though she may intend it cannot always accomplish"He talks about genetic inheritance of traits, and how it's a dice roll.
>>84247077>>84247090aristotle you penis, and he wasn't talking about immigrants but foreign visitors you illiterate subhuman. if they immigrate, then they are enemies to his power
According to Aristotles, if the relationship between master and slave is natural and they have mutual interests, they are friends.Whereas if it's forced by law and there are no mutual interests, they are enemies.
He claims that acquiring wealth through retail trade isn't quite natural - for people don't stop acquiring wealth even if all their needs are met.
>>84247164Later i will post some Notes were he talks about Sparta. In there he writes that Sparta gave their women too much power - and because women are half the city the city became unruly and stopped having children. Sparta then imported foreigners and made them official citizen. And eventually Sparta was no more.
People have a tendency to turn everything into making a profit - even though that isn't supposed to be their primary goal.For example: The purpose of doctors is to heal - not to make a profit.It's very interesting that they had these debates since 350 BC. >(Note: Aristotles later explains that it's natural that people wish to be compensated for their work)
He explains that Usury is hated - for it makes money out of money - which he deems the most unnatural.
A philosopher was accused of being unable to make money - and only because of that criticizing chasing profits.This philosopher then went on to create a monopoly out of spite. And to prove that they can indeed make money if they so please.
Can slaves and women have virtuos and talents? And if so - what makes them different from freemen?Slaves according to Aristotles have no deliberate faculty. That of women lacks authority. And children are naturally immature. Creating a hierarchy based on intellect.And he explains it would absurd to assume that they don't possess virtues.
Children and women must be educated, according to Aristotles.For they make up half the free people within a state. According to Aristotles, a state which doesn't educate it's women isn't as virtuous.
"For besides other considerations, every body is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill"He weights self-sufficiency against community. He considers self-sufficiency more desirable than unity. But he also notes that a family is more self-sufficient than an individual. And a city is more self-sufficient than a family.>(Very reasonable thoughts for 350 BC. And something which people still debate to this very day!)
While more people can achieve more things, they also have a tendency to neglect things which are collectively owned.This becomes most disastrous when it comes to children. A father takes great care of his own children, but if a child isn't his or if he's uncertain about whether a child is his - the children tend to be neglected.The idea that a village raises a child therefore leads to widespread neglect.
Earlier Aristotles criticized capitalism - now he critiques the opposite.Common property always leads to issues, and people get mad if some work much harder than others, yet their rewards are split up.
Because people neglect stuff which they do not own, it's best if property is private. Yet he recommends it should be available to the community. (And a good legislator manages to achieve this)He also explains that the state providing everything means that people cannot be kind and generous - for you can't be generous with things which you do not own.He also criticizes people who claim that "by some wonderful manner" everybody will become everybody else's friend.
"But the whole cannot be happy unless most, or all, or some of its parts enjoy happiness"
"and poverty is the parent of revolution and crime"(He later explains that eliminating poverty will not get rid of all crime, for some people will commit crime even if affluent or when all their needs are met - but it does lead to crime.)
"Men do not become tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold;"Aristotles disagrees with the notion that getting rid of poverty would eliminate crime - His argument is that Tyrants own much wealth, yet they are the biggest criminals.He goes a step further: There's more honor in killing a tyrant, than in killing a thief.
Aristotles explains that it's bad to frequently change the law. That it's better to tolerate some small errors or inefficiency.For respect for the law relies on habit - which relies on time.
>>84247164"and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws"Aristotles explains it's bad if the state enforced it's law and traditions strongly on men while neglecting women. For they make up half the state and eventually your entire state becomes unruly.And according to him this has happened to other states.>(Does anyone see some parallels to today?)
You can't fix a falling fertility rate by giving people benefits - and a small number of people owning everything makes a falling fertility rate worse.Aristotles considers the equalization of property evil - yet once the fertility rate becomes too low, he considers it a lesser evil.And again: he explains that you can't fix a falling fertility rate by giving people small benefits. Note that Sparta tried to fix it's falling fertility rate with high number of immigration - it did not work out. It just postponed their downfall.>(350 BC - same issues as today)
"the worthiest should be appointed, whether he chooses or not"
Babylon, they say, had been taken for three days before some part of the inhabitants became aware of the fact"I just think that's a funny anecdote: that once Babylon - a particular big city - had been conquered, some citizens only learned about this 3 days later.
>>84247077So does Aristotle actually give solutions to falling birthrates?
>>84247463To discipline women - and to have restrictions on voting. (even small restrictions like owning or having an income can go a long way according to Aristotles)
You can post the entire book page by page, it doesn't matter. Everyone knows this, everyone understands this, it's a force of nature and we can't deal with it and we never will.
>>84247144>The father of modern logic and one of the most important philosophers of all time was smartCareful Anon the CIA will be looking to recruit you for this
>>84247472>to have restrictions on votingEverywhere has the lowest voter participation in history and it hasn't resulted in higher birthrates. All women can vote, but most don't vote. I don't think holding Athenian Democracy to the same standard as the train wrecks we have today is an ideal comparison.
>>84247505Yeah, i bet.
Aristotles compares generational change to changes in a river. It sounds very similar to the proverb "you can't step in the same river twice".
"for the virtue of a ruler differs from that of a citizen"
>>84247508Ask an Ai if more women vote than men.By the way: according to Aristotles the legislators of the past thought something eerily similar. They said over time our requirements for being eligible to vote became so ridiculously low, we might as do away with them and be less bureaucratic.But according to Aristotles this made a drastic change for the worse. Even small requirements make a huge difference for whatever reason. (even if everyone assumes they do not)
"It has been well said that 'he who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander.' The two are not the same, but the good citizen ought to be capable of both; he should know how to govern like a freeman, and how to obey like a freeman - these are the virtues of a citizen"
Aristotles defines various forms of governments - and these definitions very much hold true till today.In democracies the people are supreme - and in oligarchies the few. Oligarchies are tyrannical forms of Aristocracies.
What differentiates Aristocracy from Oligarchy, Monarchy from Tyranny and good Democracies from failed democracies is whether or not they adhere to justice and the common interest.
Whether you're ruled by one, few or many - each version can be good or corrupt. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. At some parts of the book Aristotles calls the better version of democracy "constitutional government" - but this differentiation is not applied rigorously.>Later in the book he explains you can have a mix. For example: Strict requirements to enter Law enforcement are aristocratic, and this can be part of a democracy. Meaning a democracy can have Aristocratic institutions. And an Aristocracy can have democratic or oligarchic institutions etc.
He talks about the poor - because of their numbers - demanding that the property of the rich will be divided among them. And he explains that this is rather evil and eventually ruin the state.But he also explains that collectively, a large number of people can be more virtuos than a few number of people.
"When a number of flute players are equal in their art, there is no reason why those of them who are better born should have better flutes given to them; for they will not play any better on the flute, and the superior instrument should be reserved for him who is the superior artist"
I love having another genuinely literate anon on this board. I've been reading Foucault lately and am moving on hopefully to niche Queer Theory. No, not because I'm a leftist, just because I want to understand more of the discursive situation in academia. I have some interesting insights, but it is probably too obscure for any posts on /r9k/.Plato's views are extremely good too, for example:>When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.>Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?He discusses more how liberty causes all people to be in an unnatural state of equality, until finally:>The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.Which contradicts the popular view that Plato was strictly a feminist (The Laws, of course, repudiates this along with his supposed positivity towards homosexuality). A lot of the students I know IRL are floored when I bring up Laws VII etc.Awesome work anyway OP, I love you.
>>84247706To add to this, Plato is a deeply fascist and authoritarian thinker, and Karl Popper does a good job of explaining this even if you disagree with a lot of Popper's cringe political views. This isn't too controversial in academia, but redditards easily assume Plato was this great gay feminist queer egalitarian Communist (none are true).
>>84247706>Awesome work anyway OP, I love you.Thanks. I haven't read Plato yet. The most insightful thing i can say is that i believe this weird creature he describes is about a war of the sexes and that things once used to be equal in a different sense.Because plenty of religions (dating back all the way to Mesopotamia) describe something similar which to me sounds like a war of the sexes happening in religion.My personal theory is that circumcision is evidence that Religion behind the curtains became dominated by women. And that women have a very peculiar view of what "equality" means. For example women are very aware that they will be less attractive later in life whereas men will be more attractive.And as punishment they coerce men to delay their adulthood (such that they have a shitty youth yet will be more desirable in older age) - because in their twisted mind this is equality.
"and good birth is always valued in a man's own home and country. Another reason is, that those who are sprung from better ancestors are likely to be better men, for nobility is excellence of race"
>>84247144Women have had voting power for just a century, society has been shit for more than two millenia. He wasn't right at all
>>84247781Leo Strauss describes Plato as an esotericist, and the Symposium is an extremely esoteric text. For example, every speaker in the Symposium was an enemy, and in some cases, accuser (those who reported him for execution) of Socrates. Every speaker except the somewhat neutral Pausanias and Socrates only affirm homosexuality, and Socrates is the only one to strictly affirm heterosexuality as divine, and explicitly reject homosexuality as something that could be physical, ending with his rejection of bedding with Alcibiades.Tacitus as well has a lot of interesting statements, like this:>Upon the Suiones, border the people Sitones; and, agreeing with them in all other things, differ from them in one, that here the sovereignty is exercised by a woman. So notoriously do they degenerate not only from a state of liberty, but even below a state of bondage.And on the Gothones, a similar, nearby people:>Neither here, as amongst other nations of Germany, are arms used indifferently by all, but shut up and warded under the care of a particular keeper, who in truth too is always a slave: ... The truth is, it suits not the interest of an arbitrary Prince, to trust the care and power of arms either with a nobleman or with a freeman, or indeed with any man above the condition of a slave.>>84247807Voting is not only not the sole representation of power, it is not even a good one. For instance, billionaires still have only one vote; how is it that they influence politics? Through influencing the many relations of power between politicians (paying them), between individuals (propaganda), etc. Women in the past have had recognized and tremendous power, typically in the form of emotional or psychological control of husbands or sons. You can especially see this in the increasingly desperate attempts of the Chinese monarchy to limit women's power by killing any woman that took care of an emperor.
>>84247807It was shit but at least there was no mass migration.
>>84247807>>84247838In fact, I would say that the vote is a very interesting but useless bauble. The majority on both the left and right, and even most moderates, are skeptical of the utility of voting, and with good reason. Legal enfranchisement is not really anything other than a structural codification of power relations which already existed prior, and when those power relations change, the vote loses its quality as an expression of power and becomes merely symbolic. In your day to day life, who exercises power over you? Inevitably, your friends, family, your wife, husband, the people on the street, the thug who steals, your boss, the H.R. worker; rarely is power ever exercised in a top-down manner from the "government" or "the billionaires" onto you.
>>84247077He's right despite being a greekan fag
Aristotles talks about how superior people often times experience ostracism - and that this is perceived as political justice.
>>84247901absolutely based op
According to Aristotles, small cities were Kingdoms because most likely there had been very few men with excessive virtue.As they grew larger, you got more citizens who were virtuos - which then lead to Aristocracy.Aristotles also writes (i think on another page) that as cities become even larger democracy might be inevitable.
According to Aristotles, the best government type depends on the situation (even the environment) but it also depends on how virtue is distributed within a population.The people ruling should excel others in virtue. The more equal they are, the more democratic a government should be.
He explains that instead of striving for perfection, you must do with your given circumstances.He also explains that it's just as difficult to unlearn as to learn.
He states once again that there are 3 forms of government, which can be both good and bad.Good : BadKingdom : TyrannyAristocracy : OligarchyConstitutional Government : Democracy(But his differentiation between constitutional government and democracy isn't consistent throughout the book)
According to Aristotles, democracy can have multiple degrees.They can be based on equality - poor and rich are equal in front of the law.There can also be some very lash restrictions on voting rights - for example having to own a small amount of property....In another Chapter he explained that in one government, the requirements to vote became so low, they thought they could just do away with all requirement. But this lead to drastically changed results and a downfall. (The modern equivalent i assume would be like voter I
Tyrants love flatterers. Corrupt democracies love demagogues.In a good democracy, the constitution holds supreme
He describes a democracy where the children of the rich and poor grow up together and are educated together.
"Again those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority"An interesting statement.He explains that the middle class is the most obedient to the law. Both the very rich or otherwise gifted and the poor have a tendency to disobey authority.
so do you think slavery should be legal
It already is, it's just a different form of slavery now.
"And democracies are safer and more permanent than oligarchies, because they have a middle class which is more numerous and has a greater share in the government; for when there is no middle class, and the poor greatly exceed in number, troubles arise"What keeps democracies stable is a large middle class. Once the middle class breaks down, it turns into an oligarchy and becomes unstable.
>>84248259You didn't answer the question. Do you think people should legally be able to own others as property?
>>84248262No. But they already do. In Germany for example the constitution guarantees bodily integrity - yet you can circumcize boys.
Once unstable, the very rich and the very poor fight fight over which form of corrupt government will be established.Either "democracy" (I think communism would be a more appropriate term nowadays) or Oligarchy.
>>84248295Circumcision should be completely illegal without explicit consent
>>84248262Also worth mentioning: Aristotles describes slaves having no deliberate faculty (brain). And he writes these people ended up working in households.I think what he describes nowadays would be people for example who have down syndrome. (i think he had contempt for dumber people in general and foreigners too - but i think he was talking about people who are too stupid to live).He wrote somewhere that it's morally wrong or at least debatable if someone ends up as a slave after conquest yet is intelligent.
>>84248324With that mind the question can be asked: should people with for example down syndrome be fully independent, vote and be indistinguishable from other citizens?I think some of them can live mostly independent but clearly not all can. Nowadays we also have excess wealth to take care of them (and fairly soon likely near full automation).But in the ancients they just said: he'll be someone's slave, because he's an idiot.
Aristotles heavily emphasizes that a stable government needs a strong and numerous middle class.He also explains that despite different interests the very rich and the very poor have a tendency to unite against the middle class - to actively fight and destroy the middle class.(Yes, even though the very rich and the very poor are enemies to one another)>Does anyone see some parallels to today?He also explains that in the pursuit of creating an aristocracy one may accidentally create an oligarchy.
"in aristocracies, for example, they are chosen from the educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the free"
He explains that neither wives of the very poor or of the very rich can be controlled. The poor because you cannot punish them financially. The wives of the very rich consider themselves too fine.
"Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel (for they alone can with reason be deemed absolutely unequal), but then they are of all men the least inclined to do so">I find this to be an interesting statement or observation. The best people have the most reason to rebel against forced equality - yet are the least likely to do so due to their own nature. (If they eventually do, you probably really fucked up)
People inherently dislike inequality. But inequality is worst among otherwise equal people - when there's no difference in virtue or talents.
People revolt when they perceive to be ruled by people who aren't superior. (This may or may not be just)
"the honor or dishonor when undeserved is unjust; and just when awarded according to merit"
"Revolutions also break out when opposite parties, e.g., the rich and the people, are equally balanced, and there is little or no middle class"A numerous middle class stabilizes your government and society.>(A reminder that this was written 350 BC - >2300 years ago)
Small transgressions of laws which are tolerated eventually create disobedience towards the law.Short tenures of offices prevents corruption / offices falling into the hand of families."They should never wrong the ambitious in a matter of honor, or the common people in a matter of money; and they should treat one another and their fellow citizen in a spirit of equality"
He explains that democracies are better off not dividing the wealth of the rich. And that Oligarchies are better off taking care of the poor and giving them offices.(Keep in mind - Democracies and Oligarchies are the corrupt forms of government.)
Aristotles explains that in democracies, people deem freedom to be more important than anything else.Yet he explains that the constitution is more important, and that people shouldn't delude themselves into thinking that adhering to the constitution is slavery.
Revolutions can arise out of insults rather than ambition.
Sometimes the best friends of tyrants will attack the tyrant if he trusts them too much.(Note that Tyrants are different from Monarchs).Perhaps the reason Tyrannies tend to be so paranoid.
>>84247077Nice thread op but liberals would still not read it
>>84249119Thanks. That's very Possible. Still worth pushing this info out there.
"The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader"Tyrants would rather start a war than to risk losing political power.
"for the weaker are always asking for equality and justice, but the stronger care for none of these things"
"for where absolute freedom is allowed, there is nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in every man"
"Those who live in a cold climate and in Europe are full of spirit but wanting in intelligence and skill; and therefore they retain comparative freedom, but have no political organization"Just interesting how Aristotles thought of Europeans back then.
Different people have different needs and this leads to different forms of governments - even if you strive for the best possible government.
"and happiness, as has been already said, cannot exist without virtue"It's interesting that people used to think that. I wonder if they used to be happier when they thought like that.>Btw. did you know that Gen Z Girls have the highest suicide rates - moreso than any previous generation? Do these girls believe that you cannot be happy without being virtuous?
Aristotles explains that slaves should preferably be of a foreign race, and not too spirited...(it was a different time - but that's also interesting)
Being good and virtuos is a mix of Nature (genetics), habit and rational thought.This was written 350 BC.Even back then they had a nature vs nurture debate - and according to Aristotles it's a mix.He explains that healthy habits can be established, and that rational thought can override our nature. But that to some extend we are governed by our nature.It's so interesting that someone 350 BC could have such a nuanced take on this topic.
>>84248254>le brainlet enters the discussionGo away midwit, the literate are talking.
>>84247139>aristotle also thought that women had less teeth than men all his life and nigga never bothered to see inside a woman's mouth even once before saying this shitwhat is your obsession with saying this point in every thread?
>>84247807>der neoliberal
>>84249442Gen z women are enabled to not be virtuous and because they are not virtuous ie rationalizing killing their unborn children for an orgasm they think not being responsible is freedom and happiness but they realize they may be free but are ultimately unhappy because of their skeletons in their closet, no matter the virtue signalling they know they are rotten spoiled soulless non virtuous heathens who will never be happy. Its like the reversed stairway to heaven lyric of >I will never be saved because I live with satanhttps://youtu.be/FNE75XznfIE?si=8RzIIkdVWYiCXWJP&t=133
finally a good thread, thank youcant believe its on r9k of all places
>>84248627He talks about virtue of character. Not merit. Even though the two are related, it's very clear what he means by virtue if you read his book on Ethics (I only partially did). This makes it interesting because virtue is hard to judge anyway.
>>84247077Good thread OP.>>84249605I assume his point is that Aristotle, in this case, forms his opinion before doing the research leading to Confirmation Bias, Motivated Reasoning and Preconception (or Prejudice). I personally laugh at the notion of doing research into them because it's a waste of time. Whenever I read philosophy written by women they seem to still be debating to be a slut or not.>>84249442>Gen Z Girls have the highest suicide rates - moreso than any previous generationAmong women, yes. Also acknowledge the self-harm. Imagine what mental state it would take to cut your own flesh.>>84249620The strangest thing to me is that they refuse any help. They would much rather keep on destroying themselves, further poisoning the generations after them. Being reborn through religion is no longer respected either. How will this continue?
yeah fine thread and everything and that guy was smart but YOU sound like a fuckin retard for saying "Aristotles" the whole time
Oh look, another psued. >look at me! I can read some old fuck's texts and misapply them to modern life! >I can make up new really long words that make zero sense whatever to make myself look smarter!>my metaphysics is superior to actual proven physics!>my metacognition is proven better than actual cognition that has been shown in brain scans!"Philosophers" are insufferable. They deserve all the mockery they get.
>>84251527Oh, I forgot:>I can write 100 pages to say something when it can be said in two paragraphs!!!
>>84247077does anyone else feel their brain tingling when reading philosophy? its as its trying its hardest to recover from constant internet brainrot
>>84247077Nice threadI really enjoyed reading the highlights and your commentary.Surprising the thread hasn't been archived yet. I read it yesterday to sleep and today a bit.I see that you prepared and put effort into making this thread so here I am, someone who very rarely. Comments, going out of my way to say thank you
Based Aristotle poaster
"Neither is a city to be deemed happy or a legislator to be praised because he trains his citizens to conquer and obtain dominion over their neighbors, for there is great evil in this""and in the third place they should seek to be masters only over those who deserve to be slaves""For most of these military states are safe only while they are at war, but fall when they have acquired their empire; like unused iron they lose their temper in time of peace. And for this the legislator is to blame, he never having taught them how to lead the life of peace"...A state can lead successful wars, yet fall apart during a time of peace. I find this interesting. And he deems conquering your neighbors evil.
"Therefore a city must be temperate and brave, and able to endure: for truly, as the proverb says, 'There is no leisure for slaves,' and those who cannot face danger like men are the slaves of any invader"You need to know how to defend yourself.
Aristotles explains that women should stop having children past age 50, men past age 70.Women shouldn't marry ere age 18. (That's such a modern take for 350 BC - I would've never expected that 350 BC an ancient greek philosopher would recommend age of consent of 18!!!)And he recommends that men should marry at age 37.>(That's the only thing i personally strongly disagree with. For comparison - the Samurai in Japan married at 20, they had arranged Marriages since childhood. In Europe they used to marry younger than that too.)
>>84247077Kind of an oldhead here, but I remember when Vaush said that the romans were heckin' anti-racists who didn't care about race.
>>84254132Reading a book that's even slightly political yourself is always a different experience than listening to people describe that book.Isn't that weird? I guess Vaush wasn't talking about that particular book but ere i read Aristotles myself i listened to people talk about Aristotles and none mentioned some of the stuff he writes about.
Aristotles recommends abortions of deformed children.He questions at which age conscience begins.In a way, that's surprisingly modern - but also surprisingly eugenic for something written 350 BC.
>>84254132Because race is more of a modern culture.Racism is a strawman position. They don't care about skin color, they care about culture.And Romans did shit on Barbarians. Not because of their skin color but their lack of a written language
>>84254395>Because race is more of a modern culture.>Racism is a strawman position. They don't care about skin color, they care about culture.>And Romans did shit on Barbarians. Not because of their skin color but their lack of a written languageReally nigga
are you that feminist literature anon from a week ago?Aristotle also wrote Poetics which feels surprisingly modern, he basically complains about special effects over storytelling.that said, George Lucas proved him wrong with the Star Wars prequels. equal parts drama, comedy, and Satyr play. yet they're PRIMARILY spectacle: Aristotle status = owned and buttravaged.
>>84254444He seems to have more of a problem with their savage spirit, their actions being that of a wild beast. Not their black skin, flat noses and woolly hair
>>84254469>He seems to have more of a problem with their savage spirit, their actions being that of a wild beast. Not their black skin, flat noses and woolly hairThis is so autistic. Imagine Donald Trump saying this. Leftists raise and lower the bar on what racism means when need be.
>>84254490I'm just saying, you are projecting contemporary expectations onto the ancient past.In Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, being a slave was not a heritable trait. Nobody was born a slave.You were enslaved because you were taken prisoner in war, you were caught in a siege, or your tribe was conquered.The idea of racial slavery was a Confederate invention. They generated racial inferiority to justify not giving black people rights, and to ensure plantation owners could own the next generation of cotton pickers
>>84254132When you control the known world is hard to care about race.
Aristotles praises Barbarians for making their children have an ice cold bath - he believes it makes them healthier.He's also against laws to restrain children from being loud. Children are supposed to be loud.
