Curious how racists always seem to agree their own region is superior
Curious how racists always seem to agree their own region is superior
10 评论
-
-
And then there's the British who thought spending too much time near certain latitudes turned you into a sodomite.
-
"It's not gay if it happens at sea." Why do you think our navy was the envy of the world?
-
"The great traditions of the British Navy: rum, sodomy, and the lash"
-
Rum, sodomy, and the lash. I may not sail, but I know a fun weekend when I see it
-
-
First I've heard of that, but I don't doubt it! The past is filled with strange notions
-
It was part of climate determinism that was popular back during colonialism. Think the theory was that the environment made your blood hot, which made you a sexual deviant.
-
-
-
There are fragments of this still floating around public consciousness in the Middle East. I specifically remember a high school Arabic teacher, who was generally a cool, well-read guy, explaining this like it was just general knowledge. I even remember the hand motions and everything. Ew
10 评论
Explanation: Both Aristotle, an ancient Greek, and Ibn Khaldun, a Medieval Arab, expressed the view that people to the north and the south of their respective homelands were, in some way, inherently deficient, and incapable of self-governance.
For bonus points, the Romans had a similar view, though with the caveat that Romans believed that as the 'difference' (Romans blamed the sun drying up too much/too little blood in the body) was caused by the environment, it could also be counteracted by the environment - ie if you make your cities in distant northern or southern locations REALLY Roman, then only a little of that dastardly too much/too little sun will infiltrate into the GOOD, EVEN, MODERATE folks who grow up there! Hence part of the reason why Roman colonies in Africa look fucking near-identical to ones in Italy other than the surrounding landscape.
History idiot here. Was this belief rooted in the idea that their cities were built in some holy, righteous way, or were they being more "scientific" and claiming that their structures were letting in the proper amount of sun for effective blood-drying?
They were surprisingly materialistic about building to adjust for climate shaping people! The Roman writer Vitruvius cites that very reason - of environments shaping people - in his work De Architectura ('On Architecture') for why buildings in different latitudes should be subtly changed to let more or less sun and wind in.
There wasn't any precision to it, mind - just a vague sense of 'less than is in Africa' and 'more than is in Britannia' - but they thought they were changing the material conditions to be appropriate for bringing up GOOD ROMAN CITIZENS
There were non-climate related reasons as well - the Romans believed that environment in all things shaped people, not just physically but mentally (itself not an absurd position to take - what we would recognize as cultural environments), which is why they put great emphasis on building very Roman cities in similar latitudes as well. Straight roads aligned with the breeze, trees planted for shade, good access to public spaces and water - things that Rome itself, an unplanned city, ironically did not always have, lmao.