Applications of the Concept of Racism and Racialization in the Ancient World

“The exclusion of communities of color from the ladder of economic opportunity holds back economic growth for the entire country. Pursuing racial equity is a vital opportunity to drive innovation and boost growth across the U.S. economy”, says Wally Adeyemo, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, in September 2021.^[1] The well-being of a society cannot be fostered unless all individuals are given the opportunity to benefit from societal resources. However, in 2019, the median white family had $184,000 in family wealth compared to just $23,000 and $38,000 for the median Black and Hispanic families, respectively.^[2] While the economy is an obvious factor to track, there are various other factors of inequality that affect the welfare of society. Has inequality between other races always existed? If not, when and where did the concept of racism originate from?

To answer these questions, we must first resolve the meaning of “racism” as a concept. First of all, because race is a social construct, the lack of biological justification indicates that the difference between races cannot be validated, thus race does not exist. Numerous attempts and arguments have been made to verify the biological differences between so-called races. However, “there is not enough of it [human biological diversity], and it is not structured in the right way, to justify racial classification.”^[3] The concept of racism refers to a socially cultivated cultural identity, based on geographic locations and physical features to make assumptions of the deemed unchangeable polarity of one’s nature and morality, with the purpose of distributing powers, hierarchy, and resources unequally among human groups. As a result, the discussion in this essay is focused on whether the ideology of racism and the act of racializing other groups fabricated by society can be applied to Ancient periods.

The concept of racism can be applied to Ancient times due to Ancient civilizations’ fabrication of certain differences and assignment of inferiority to specific human groups, in order to validate the exclusion and discrimination of others and certify the authority of the empowered group. The means of racialization have been executed in three main measures: environment, inheritance, and bloodline.

Environmental determinism is one of the most potent proofs of racialization in Ancient times. As early as 2,500 years ago, Hippocrates proposed the idea that different environments would result in differences among their products and that the more ideal the environment, the better its inhabitants. In the treatise On Airs, Waters, and Places, he attributes the difference between Asians and Europeans to the nature of the lands. Asians, living in milder conditions, possess more gentle and affectionate characteristics.^[4] Moreover, as a result of the intermediate climate where they suffer from neither heat nor cold, Asians “are well fed, most beautiful in shape, of large stature, and differ little from one another either as to figure or size.”^[5] The problem with the indifference of the seasons is that it diminishes the “manly courage, endurance of suffering, laborious enterprise, and high spirit…”^[6] of the inhabitants. According to Hippocrates, the inferiority of the Asian race derives from their feebleness which deprived their independence and freedom from the monarchy. On the other hand, the greatly and frequently changing climate in Europe conceived the more courageous and warlike Europeans. Corresponding to the strong heat, severe winter, and frequent rains, Europeans are more wild and passionate. However, the changeable climate still does not give prominence to Europeans as it is a “laborious exertion both of body and mind.”^[7] A similar argument about Europe and Asia was made in Aristotle’s Politics. Again, as a result of the environment, the Europeans “are full of spirit, but wanting in intelligence and skill” while Asians, as the complete opposite, “are intelligent and inventive, but they are wanting in spirit.”^[8] Interestingly, Aristotle oxymoronically negated both Europeans and Asians as inferior by saying that Europeans are free because they “attain no political development and show no capacity for governing others” while Asians were subjects and slaves to their capability of political development.^[9] Aristotle’s claim arrives in the praise of the Greeks, his own origin: the Greeks locate intermediately in geographical locations, they therefore “unite the qualities of both sets of peoples”, possessing “both spirit and intelligence.”^[10] Both Hippocrates’s and Aristotle’s assertions are extensions of environmental and geographical differences to generalize and assume negative moral characteristics and incompetent capabilities, later summed with the conclusion that the nation and population where they originate from is the most advanced, which corresponds to the concept of racialization.

The belief in inheriting acquired characteristics also indicates the presence of racism as a concept in the Ancient world. An example could again be found in On Airs, Waters, and Places. From the practices where the Macrocephali constrain a newborn’s head “to assume a lengthened shape by applying bandages and other suitable contrivances” with regard to the belief that the most noble has the longest heads, Hippocrates claims that this practice that originally resulted by force will eventually be performed by nature through the inheritance from parents.^[11] In the article Proto-Racism in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Benjamin Isaac uses an example from Aristotle to show how the idea of inheritance was embodied in Ancient times. “It is also well known that … deformed parents … may have children with … the same deformity, that some marks and moles and even scars reappear in the offspring, in some cases a birthmark on the arm reappearing in the fourth generation.”^[12] The theory proposes that a certain characteristic of one generation is guaranteed to appear in future generations, to which the traits are fixed. In other words, as these characteristics were passed down, the inheritance is cumulative, making the characteristics even firmer, and in time procuring “new species.”^[13] This inheritance not only exists in the inferior group but also the superior, only the descendent of elites can be elites. However, as Isaac points out in his article, it is crucial to recognize that the unchangeable was only applied to hinder improvements, not regress: “Strong people become feeble in a soft environment, but the reverse never occurs.”^[14] While the inferiority remains unalterable eternally, superiority can be diminished by changing factors, such as the environment. This further presents the ultimate purpose of racialization: highlighting one’s own superiority by depreciating others. The fewer people who are equally superior, the more superior one is.

The third mechanism reflecting the concept of racism in the Ancient world would be the idea of pure lineage. In the article The Race Problem of the Roman Empire, Martin P. Nilsson ascribed the fall of the Roman Empire to the mixing of outside groups. “Rome was populated not by its own citizens but by the scum of the world.”^[15] The word “scum” explicitly categorizes all foreigners as inferiors with a discriminative tone. An even more serious and detrimental problem with the crossing of races is that it leads to the loss of balance in personality as the possessed traits are no longer fixed and firm. As Nilsson explains, “Dispositions which were formerly concealed, lying latent in one or the other of the crossed races, will appear on the surface and make the product of the crossing yet more motley and incalculable.”^[16] Therefore, the crossing of races bastardized two races and especially deteriorated the superior race, which facilitated the fall of the Roman Empire. Having a similar belief, the Athenians were devoted to the dual myth that “they had lived in their own land from the beginnings of time without ever abandoning it, and that they were a people of unmixed lineage.”^[17] Expectedly, the Athenians attached great importance to this belief with regard to their own interests and benefits. Isaac listed two purposes this myth served: “it was used as an argument that they and only they held legitimate possession of their soil” and “they regarded themselves as a people uncontaminated by an admixture of foreign elements, and were therefore superior.”^[18] Once more, people in Ancient times attempted to add meaning to collective traits in order to delimit other groups and acquire power and resources for themselves. The ideology of devaluing provincials convinced natives to renounce reflecting on their own behavior, believe that all misfortune and failure come from otherness, and in turn marginalize and degrade non-native groups to a greater extent.

Based on all the evidence provided above, although there does not exist terminology and vocabulary for “race” and “racism”, the artificial ideology of racialization can be manifested through the usage of environmental determinism, faith in inheritance, and praise for pure lineage to marginalize others and centralize oneself, the concept of racism could be applied to Ancient times. Hence it is inappropriate to make the assumption that racism never existed in the Ancient world because of the absence of specific terms. This statement is crucial in the history field of modern society as the present social construct of race and racism is a result developed from the ideology in the past. Accordingly, modern concepts will also be constantly renewed and modified. The reason why we put efforts into studying antiquity, as stated by Thomas Hahn, is that the analysis of historical discourses and practices “help illuminate the function of race within modern and contemporary conditions.”^[19] Accepting the equal complexity of Ancient society would provide present learners with deeper insight into the evolution of society resulting in today’s world and thus prospect or even shape the future through significant means.