
Did the Greeks see themselves as white, black, or something else? - diodorus
https://aeon.co/essays/when-homer-envisioned-achilles-did-he-see-a-black-man
======
coldtea
Greeks didn't care for black or white -- they cared for cultural ties
(language, religion, customs, etc).

Their word to collectively describe foreigners is literally "those who speak
in an indecipherable language": "barbarians", where "bar-bar" was meant to be
a vocalization of a random foreign language (like we would say "blah blah").

That said, they were white in the sense that modern Greeks, southern italians,
and middle easterns (Egyptians, Lebanese and so on), eastern turks, and so on,
are white. And modern Greeks still are closely related to those ancients
according to studies [1][2], so you could look at George Stephanopoulos (both
parents Greek-American immigrants) for a quick example.

There weren't however "white" with a modern European and American conception
of "whiteness" which restricts it to anglosaxon populations.

In fact when they started immigrating to the US in the late 19th, early 20th
century, they were considered decidely "non-white" material, and were subject
to abuse and racist attacks (including being a major target for the KKK)
[3][4]. At the time, the same was true also for Italians, Bulgarians,
Albanians, Jews, and so on -- even Japanese and Chinese immigrants.

Generally, "white" then was whatever fitted the WASP look and worldview. So it
wasn't just about skin pigmentation.

[1] [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-
have...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-
mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals)

[2] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-
sheds...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-sheds-light-
mysterious-origins-ancient-greeks-180964314/)

[3] [https://ahepa.org/about-us.htm](https://ahepa.org/about-us.htm)

[4] [https://www.thenationalherald.com/171404/no-greeks-need-
appl...](https://www.thenationalherald.com/171404/no-greeks-need-apply/)

~~~
vostok
> There weren't however "white" with a modern European and American conception
> of "whiteness" which restricts it to anglosaxon populations.

I don't know what era is referred to as modern, but southern Europeans, some
Middle Easterners, and eastern Europeans are considered white in the US today.

~~~
coldtea
> _I don 't know what era is referred to as modern, but southern Europeans,
> some Middle Easterners, and eastern Europeans are considered white in the US
> today._

That wasn't the case for much of the 20th century -- and you'd be surprised
even for today if you speak to them about their experiences re: racism.

~~~
vostok
I agree with your comment about much of the 20th century, which is why I
prefaced my comment the way that I did.

I'm in one of those categories and I've experienced extremely minimal racism
in the US. I think the UK has more racism against my category.

I think that "some Middle Easterners" is the most controversial category in my
list. I have a hard time imagining that Bashar al-Assad would experience very
much racism if he were a normal private person.

~~~
bitwize
Arabs are considered white according to U.S. law, but a "visible minority"
according to Canadian law. So yes, they're out on the fringe of the radial
category of whiteness.

~~~
vostok
I should have linked to this in my original post, but here is a photograph of
Bashar al-Assad. I'm not familiar with Canadian or even US law, but I have a
hard time imagining him as a visible minority in the colloquial sense.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bashar_a...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bashar_al-
Assad_in_Russia_%282015-10-21%29_08.jpg)

I have no doubt that Mohammad bin Salman would experience racism in the US if
he were a normal private person.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman#/media/Fil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman#/media/File:Crown_Prince_Mohammad_bin_Salman_Al_Saud_-_2017.jpg)

This is also why I said some Middle Easterners rather than all.

------
colordrops
It seems to me that the modern concept of race is one of the most ingrained
illusions in our culture. Discussions of whether some person or some group is
"white" or "black" or whatever have no more rigor than asking whether someone
is a "jock" or a "nerd". First, there is no clear definition of "white" and
"black" or anything else, and even if we take the most common conception of
it, most people don't fit neatly into either category. For instance, by US
census standards, both a Norwegian and a Yemeni are "white". What about the
racial gradient in the region of the Isthmus of Suez? Where do people stop
being white and start being black?

Furthermore, most racial conceptions obsess with superficial features that may
not correlate with large differences in DNA. There may be two people that look
more similar but have wider differences in their DNA than two people that look
different.

~~~
s4vi0r
The funniest thing about this whole ethnostate crap you see being pushed by
the alt right is that a lot of these people don't even realize Europeans don't
see themselves as one big ethnic group of "white people" \- and they literally
never have. Hell, they even spend some time in grade school teaching kids
about the discrimination early Irish and Italian immigrants faced in America
where they weren't considered white or white enough by WASPs.

------
tboyd47
A fascinating look at race and color among the Ancient Greeks, and well-
contextualized.

It's as if the author is trying to exonerate the ancient Greeks from the
pervasive ideological racism (I really wish there was a more specific word for
this phenomenon than "racism" as ot is a complex result of many things) of
modern European history by demonstrating that "white" and "black" races did
not exist with them, or at least not in any form we would recognize.

But white + black != racism. Even if the categories came later, Aristotle did
introduce the _idea_ of the "natural slave," or the claim that certain races
of people are only fit to be subjugated in forced labor to others. That's
pretty much the essence of racism. The priests Christianized it, while the
merchants learned the _practice_ of transoceanic slaving from the North
Africans. It's more like a pasta salad of evil with ingredients from all over
the world.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's as if the author is trying to exonerate the ancient Greeks from the
> pervasive ideological racism_

Well, they didn't have "pervasive ideological racism". Even making someone a
slave (which they did practice) wasn't about considering them inferior -- just
considering it just spoils for them having lost a war.

And they could care less if those were black or white or whatever. They could
(and did) make slaves of people in the nearby city-states as well.

Aristotle's idea of a "natural slave" wasn't really widespread as a cultural
norm them. That would happen much later, especially with later Christianism,
and would find it's ideological justification with colonialism and writers
like Gobineau.

------
SCAQTony
The author just posed questions, arguments and opinions but nothing
substantive. The subject of race has always been fluid. For instance, in the
US Census Arabs, Turks and Italians are considered white yet neither resemble
a Russian, Finn, or Swede.

If one looks to Egypt, Italy, Greece and Turkey circa 3,000 years ago, or all
those countries within the Mediterranean basin, there is substantial evidence
that the average "racial genotype" is much like it is today. (a mixed race
hybrid between shades of beige and vey dark brown.)

Visual evidence can be seen when Comparing "Miss Egypt 2006"...
[http://www.santabanta.com/photos/miss-
universe-2006/619218.h...](http://www.santabanta.com/photos/miss-
universe-2006/619218.htm)

...To the Egyptian wall paintings of King Tutankhamun's tomb:
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/secret-tut-chamber-egypt-
calls...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/secret-tut-chamber-egypt-calls-in-
experts-to-examine-tantalizing-clues/)

Both representations above have straight hair, medium brown skin and awesome
physiques.

~~~
ng12
> US Census Arabs, Turks and Italians are considered white yet neither
> resemble a Russian, Finn, or Swede.

It goes to show how silly these questions are. Would a Greek Byzantine frame
himself as the same race as an invading Ottoman? Assuredly not. Race being
purely a matter of skin color is a modern idea.

------
hugh4life
"We might add that modern geneticists too find classification by skin colour
unhelpful, and indeed avoid the term ‘race’ (a meaningless category in
biological terms)."

But it's good enough for government work...

"There is relatively little genetic difference between the human populations
of different continents"

There is relatively little genetic difference between dog populations on
different continents...

"and levels of skin pigmentation are a very poor proxy for general genetic
relatedness. The distinction between ‘black’ African and ‘white’ European
peoples, then, is not just unGreek: it’s also unbiological."

Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white
Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It
is absolutely insane to think otherwise.

~~~
zawerf
> Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white
> Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It
> is absolutely insane to think otherwise.

Skin color is not a good proxy for genetic relatedness because it's only one
of the many different traits that make up a human.

You would surely agree that two humans with different skin colors but all else
equal are more closely related than two with the same skin color but nothing
else in common.

And it turns out that is exactly the case. Africa has the most genetic
variation since it's the origin of humans so a black African can very well be
much more related to a white European than to another black African.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation)

In computer science terms it would be trying to do a dimension reduction by
only naively comparing the first coordinate. That would work only if skin
color is the principal component of genetic diversity but it's pretty unlikely
and insane to declare that a priori.

~~~
said
Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.

~~~
jonathanyc
What? I just read the link and one thing it says is that

> In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within
> local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same
> continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on
> different continents (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a). The recent African
> origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great
> deal more diversity than elsewhere and that diversity should decrease the
> further from Africa a population is sampled.

Which is literally what the GP said.

You should put up or not make drive-by comments.

~~~
zawerf
Same quote stated more directly (emphasis mine):

> It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This
> translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall
> human population is found within individuals of the same population, and
> about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply
> that _any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to
> be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group_

~~~
said
Please see my post here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327)

In your paragraph “similarity” refers to looking at _just one_ genetic locus
(essentially one gene) at a time.

------
coliveira
Most racial stereotypes we have now are a modern construct. In the ancient
world, it was well known that empires/races were powerful or advanced
independent of the color of the skin. Many nations of Africa were feared and
admired, while many nations of north Europe were simply considered barbaric.

------
badrabbit
The idea of multiple races of humans existing is post-darwinian (correct me if
I am wrong please). I would imagine most humans that lived in the time of the
ancient greeks saw different tribes and ethnicities. Even when they see
someone from asia or africa, wouldn't they simply see a strange looking human
from a strange land and tribe?

The modern view of race that categorizes other ethnicities as almost an
entirely different species requires ideological flexibility which to the best
of my knowledge isn't compatible with the world view and beliefs of most
ancient people.

I am no history buff though, I would be interested in hearing a contradictory
point of view.

~~~
pm90
I don’t think Darwinism has anything to do with racism, except tangentially.
Modern racism and the idea of some races being superior was the direct result
of colonialism, and evolution was perhaps only one of the tools used to
justify white supremacy ( another was Christianity).

It is fascinating to see the dynamism of race in India. The early British (pre
1800s) didn’t seem to hold racist views of the natives, in fact many of them
had Indian wives and children, and adopted Indian clothes and culture. Some
even converted to Islam, many were fluent in Persian, the language of elites
at the time. But that begins to change markedly when British supremacy is
assured in secured in the 1800s after many successful wars.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
I mean, this isn't exactly a new idea. If you go back to the Roman occupation
of the British isles and the slaughter of it's peoples and the enslavement of
the Judaic peoples and the Christian cults, based on Judaism. Hitler named his
movement the third reich, meaning empire, modeling it after the Roman empire
because he was a delusional nutbag but, again, unoriginal. But subjugation or
slaughter of different races/tribes/peoples is certainly not a modern white
person invention. The Romani have been singled out, more recently, I guess, if
you want (they used to be more commonly known as Gypsies, but this is an
Eastern European slur, so I've been told).

The whole "colonialism is to blame" is a new argument, to me, though. I do
hear a lot more of these, "the past was a utopia, and modernity has screwed
things up" statements of late and I can't figure out how..... maybe that
wasn't your intention and I totally misread your statement. I apologize if
that's the case.

~~~
bhaak
You're mixing different things. "Subjugation or slaughter of different
races/tribes/peoples is certainly not a modern white person invention". No, it
isn't. But at least in the case of the Romans, there was no racism component
in it (I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if other cases were racism related
and therefore if it was or wasn't a 'white person invention').

The Romans were quite liberal, once you have let yourself be conquered by
them. As long as you recognized the state and paid your taxes, you were free
to do what you wanted.

There are very few recorded persecutions of religion cults in non-christian
Roman times because of this. Christians, Jews, druids and the followers of
Bacchus, they all were considered a threat to the state and that's the reason
they were persecuted, not because of some form of racism.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
Fine, but Romans aside, no one mentions Japanese, Chinese or Nepalese history.
Central African history is whisked away (you ask them if they're the same
race, and see what answer you get). The whole conversation is clouded is a
horribly eurocentric manner, and put towards a narrative.

~~~
pm90
I sincerely don't believe you have researched your history well enough; and
I'm trying to sound as nice as possible when pointing out this fact.

You don't just throw in entire civilizations as having racist views (at least
in the terms that we think of today, according to skin color). AFAIK the
Chinese did consider anyone living outside Mainland China as "barbarians" but
to a great extent, it was true (Turkic, Mongols living on the border etc.).
They considered Ancient Indians in high regard (specifically I believe due to
the Buddha being born in India) and the many Chinese travelers through India
have left a well documented account of their travels which are one of the most
important sources for historic event during this time.

Japan has mostly been a self-contained country, occasionally fighting with
Chinese until the Meiji Restoration and the Rise of the Japanese Armed Forces,
which was late 19th century. One could credibly argue the racist views they
picked up were as a direct result of aping the Western Powers that held
similar views during this time period.

I'm not familiar enough with Nepalese history to even know what you are
talking about.

Modern Racism is certainly a European invention, specifically brought about by
European colonial interests.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_China](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_China)

------
pjc50
> Greeks simply didn’t think of the world as starkly divided along racial
> lines into black and white: that’s a strange aberration of the modern,
> Western world, a product of many different historical forces, but in
> particular the transatlantic slave trade and the cruder aspects of 19th-
> century racial theory.

Exactly. The theory was developed to justify the prejudice and subordination,
not the other way round. The idea of viewing Europe as a single ethnicity
labelled "white" is extremely modern-American too.

------
ianai
The black/white thing is an artifact of US slavery. Everyone else has
historically allied by religion or national ID.

~~~
dagw
I'm not sure that's true. It was after all the French and Spanish that had
separate names for the 'races' all the way down to at least 1/32nd black with
the Mulato, Quadroon etc. distinctions. If you're differentiating between
people 5/8 black and 3/4 black it shows you care quite a lot.

~~~
krapp
Then perhaps it's an artifact of European slavery, spread in modernity through
American and British cultural influence.

------
Jemaclus
I don't have anything interesting to say about this, except I loved reading
it. I tend to follow a lot of tech stuff, so I don't get outside my tech
bubble as far as reading different things goes.

I just really liked it.

------
gonmf
What a silly article. They saw themselves as greek, or macedonian, or
athenian, or citizens versus slaves. Everywhere in the world people saw
themselves and other as where they were from, their culture, etc. Travel was
very difficult and most people didn't read, so chances are you'd never see
someone from somwhere else with different color or fashion sense.

The first mentions I know of people based on their race in when talking about
"the negroe", but it is still implied as being people from Sub Sahaaran
Africa, but by virtue of ignorance about individual tribes/regions, a common
name was used. I remember a famous criticism to the constitution created after
the French revolution that talked about "the rights of men"; instead of the
rights of the French, the Englishman, the Turk; which were seen as completely
different groups of people given the time and difficulty of travel.

Plus, I dislike the confusion between slavery and racism. People used to take
what they wanted by force, and when allowed, they'd take human beings. I doubt
it was because they hated other people, instead it was because they were
allowed to subjugate other people; motivated by financial/power motives.
Enslavement was a common practise until the ideals of humanism won over the
super powers of the time; humanism won over human greed.

~~~
yosito
> I doubt it was because they hated other people, instead it was because they
> were allowed to subjugate other people

This describes modern racism too.

------
John_KZ
Since we're at linguistics of colour you might want to know that in modern
Greek, the word for "tanning" is "blackening". I don't disagree with the
article but I just want to make sure we all know ancient Greeks weren't
actually black. You can argue that they weren't "white", at least with the
modern American definitions, but there has never been any indication of them
being black, you know, like Africans. It's not like their only difference with
Caucasians is skin colour, you'd expect the morphological characteristics to
show on sculptures too. The idea that Greeks were somehow black is purely the
result of revisionist tendencies of modern African-American movements.

~~~
astura
I'm not sure what you're criticizing but it's not the article since the
article didn't say ancient Greeks were black.

------
ng12
What a silly article. How could they possibly see themselves as white given
such limited contact with other peoples? Their entire world was the
Mediterranean. You can't shoehorn ancient Greeks into today's ideologies.

~~~
GavinMcG
Could you please substantiate those claims?

One obvious counterexample is that Alexander the Great's empire reached
northwest India. The idea that Greek society would be so isolated from the
world – not coming into contact with travelers or traders or captives from
beyond the Mediterranean – seems ridiculous to me.

~~~
ng12
But the overwhelming majority of Greeks would have never seen a Indian or
Ethiopian person in their lifetime. Why would they define themselves based on
the differences between them, especially superficial ones?

~~~
GavinMcG
Again: can you please substantiate that?

Speculation isn't worth much. Your intuition is clearly that someone _wouldn
't_ define themselves along those lines, but intuitions are often wrong. And
it's not obviously and unequivocally true that the overwhelming majority of
Greeks would never see someone distinctly foreign looking.

~~~
ng12
How does one substantiate something that didn't happen? The Greeks made very
little discussion of their own skin color and we have no archaeological or
literary evidence of Ethiopian or Indian people actually living in Greece.
Look at the stretches the author had to make when discussing skin color.

------
BuckRogers
The author is pulling people's legs. Or very young and truly ignorant to make
these suggestions.

Referring to blackness had nothing to do with race, they're talking about
people that went outside and worked. That's why the women were "white". Think
antebellum south, holding an umbrella.

Even in my own family when someone would come in from working outside in a
garden with a tan, my grandma would say their skin was black. It just means
tan or darker.

The younger generations born in the last 25 years didn't even experience this
world when people commonly left the laptop or phone and still went outside and
worked. It's not surprising as a result that we're seeing such gross
misinterpretations pop up.

