Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
There's a certain type of person, usually white and Western, who is so full of guilt and sycophantic desire to seem like "one of the good ones" that they'll steamroll right over actual non-white people, often to the point of declaring that something is racist, even if it's only white people saying it. (Case in point: Hello Kitty.) These are the same people who act like watching a film from a foreign country is automatically a "diverse" film. These are the same people who use the term "BIPOC," the stupidest faux-woke term since "folx." Now, by no means am I arguing that Dr. Isaac is one of these people, but many of the arguments expressed in this book reminded me of ones I've heard from those people.
It must needs be said that I don't like to identify myself with a racial identity, because, unlike some people, I don't have the luxury of knowing precisely where my family is from. How I am perceived by x demographic won't be the same as how I am perceived by y demographic, and context changes a lot (I am assumed to be one ethnicity when with my family, another with my partner, still another with my friends, etc.). I also think the concept of "race" is incredibly stupid and has no more scientific basis for division of human beings than something as inconsequential as eye colour or hair length. There is no meaningful distinction between humans of "different races" on any level except the phenotypical. But I digress.
Dr. Isaac's argument in this book is that racism as a societal category of prejudice is and ought to be treated as a form of bigotry distinct from others (misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.), on a different level entirely from other types of prejudice and/or stereotyping. Drawing on philosophical thought in classical Graeco-Roman antiquity, Dr. Isaac argues that the concept of environmental determinism (en bref, innate superiority and/or inferiority of different peoples) can be traced back to classical antiquity, specifically around the 5th century BCE in Greece, which then gave rise to Roman imperialism of smaller native peoples such as Germanic tribes etc., which in turn gave rise to everything from eugenics to modern fascism.
Environmental determinism, broadly speaking, claims that external factors such as culture, geography, climate, etc. all impose definite congenital qualities both physical and mental on populations, such as the belief that x group is more mystical or y group is more cowardly. Discrimination against (to borrow from real life) Irish immigrants to America due to a perceived "poor quality" of character during the late 19th century is one example, as is the distressingly recent opinion that Mexican immigrants to America bring drug-related crime by dint of nothing more than their nationality. Believing that all Muslims will become or at the very least support terrorist groups is an example, as is believing that African men are better lovers or Spanish girls are more fiesty. Perhaps the most famous example is the belief that women are inherently weaker or more emotional as a result of their sex. Predating social Darwinism (a bullshit concept which distorts Darwin's actual theories), environmental determinism rationalised group prejudice, imperial conquest, enslavement, and oppression. The concept has roots back farther than classical antiquity, and indeed the idea that certain peoples or groups of peoples are more inherently x than others has existed since the beginning of human prehistory.
I do not disagree with Dr. Isaac's treatment of environmental determinism or the socio-cultural systems it produced. What I do disagree with, however, is his belief that racism is in any way more important than other forms of discrimination, or that there is even a meaningful distinction that can be drawn between discrimination on the basis of race vs. discrimination on the basis of sex vs. discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or nationality and so forth. One thing that I've noted sadly frequently in modern-day activism spaces is the tiptoeing around the question of race and racism as though it were inherently more difficult to address than any other topic. This is nonsense. By treating racism as something more powerful and dangerous than other forms of oppression, we not only belittle other victims but also lend power to the idea of racism. By clinically deconstructing and studying a societal prejudice, its power is removed. Although Dr. Isaac did not go so far, I've seen people in activist spaces genuinely arguing that racial discrimination is the worst kind, and those who have not experienced it are all equally privileged oppressors. Apart from being a rather Western-centric viewpoint (as is practically everything in activism that isn't exclusive to people from a non-Western background!), this notion oversimplifies the societal strata of oppression for... what? To feel better about yourself, because all white people are created equal? It's just lazy.
The title, and indeed summary, of this book are mostly clickbait. Dr. Isaacs is not an idiot; he does not appear to genuinely believe that racism existed before the concept of race was invented, and in fact he refers to the environmental determinism school of discrimination as "proto-racism" throughout most of the book. But "racism" is a catchier word, a hot-button topic, and simplifying prejudice and discrimination in the ancient world is easier than acknowledging its complexity.
///
Related recs:
Greeks and Barbarians by Kostas Vlassopoulos, Konstantinos Vlassopoulos
Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity by Sarah B. Pomeroy
The Captive Woman's Lament in Greek Tragedy by Casey Dué
Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy by Edith Hall
Women in Ancient Greece by Sue Blundell
Roman Imperialism and Local Identities by Louise Revell
Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire by David J. Mattingly
Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul by Greg Woolf
Reading Roman Women by Suzanne D. Dixon
Polybius and Roman Imperialism by Donald Walter Baranowski
It must needs be said that I don't like to identify myself with a racial identity, because, unlike some people, I don't have the luxury of knowing precisely where my family is from. How I am perceived by x demographic won't be the same as how I am perceived by y demographic, and context changes a lot (I am assumed to be one ethnicity when with my family, another with my partner, still another with my friends, etc.). I also think the concept of "race" is incredibly stupid and has no more scientific basis for division of human beings than something as inconsequential as eye colour or hair length. There is no meaningful distinction between humans of "different races" on any level except the phenotypical. But I digress.
Dr. Isaac's argument in this book is that racism as a societal category of prejudice is and ought to be treated as a form of bigotry distinct from others (misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.), on a different level entirely from other types of prejudice and/or stereotyping. Drawing on philosophical thought in classical Graeco-Roman antiquity, Dr. Isaac argues that the concept of environmental determinism (en bref, innate superiority and/or inferiority of different peoples) can be traced back to classical antiquity, specifically around the 5th century BCE in Greece, which then gave rise to Roman imperialism of smaller native peoples such as Germanic tribes etc., which in turn gave rise to everything from eugenics to modern fascism.
Environmental determinism, broadly speaking, claims that external factors such as culture, geography, climate, etc. all impose definite congenital qualities both physical and mental on populations, such as the belief that x group is more mystical or y group is more cowardly. Discrimination against (to borrow from real life) Irish immigrants to America due to a perceived "poor quality" of character during the late 19th century is one example, as is the distressingly recent opinion that Mexican immigrants to America bring drug-related crime by dint of nothing more than their nationality. Believing that all Muslims will become or at the very least support terrorist groups is an example, as is believing that African men are better lovers or Spanish girls are more fiesty. Perhaps the most famous example is the belief that women are inherently weaker or more emotional as a result of their sex. Predating social Darwinism (a bullshit concept which distorts Darwin's actual theories), environmental determinism rationalised group prejudice, imperial conquest, enslavement, and oppression. The concept has roots back farther than classical antiquity, and indeed the idea that certain peoples or groups of peoples are more inherently x than others has existed since the beginning of human prehistory.
I do not disagree with Dr. Isaac's treatment of environmental determinism or the socio-cultural systems it produced. What I do disagree with, however, is his belief that racism is in any way more important than other forms of discrimination, or that there is even a meaningful distinction that can be drawn between discrimination on the basis of race vs. discrimination on the basis of sex vs. discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or nationality and so forth. One thing that I've noted sadly frequently in modern-day activism spaces is the tiptoeing around the question of race and racism as though it were inherently more difficult to address than any other topic. This is nonsense. By treating racism as something more powerful and dangerous than other forms of oppression, we not only belittle other victims but also lend power to the idea of racism. By clinically deconstructing and studying a societal prejudice, its power is removed. Although Dr. Isaac did not go so far, I've seen people in activist spaces genuinely arguing that racial discrimination is the worst kind, and those who have not experienced it are all equally privileged oppressors. Apart from being a rather Western-centric viewpoint (as is practically everything in activism that isn't exclusive to people from a non-Western background!), this notion oversimplifies the societal strata of oppression for... what? To feel better about yourself, because all white people are created equal? It's just lazy.
The title, and indeed summary, of this book are mostly clickbait. Dr. Isaacs is not an idiot; he does not appear to genuinely believe that racism existed before the concept of race was invented, and in fact he refers to the environmental determinism school of discrimination as "proto-racism" throughout most of the book. But "racism" is a catchier word, a hot-button topic, and simplifying prejudice and discrimination in the ancient world is easier than acknowledging its complexity.
///
Related recs:
Greeks and Barbarians by Kostas Vlassopoulos, Konstantinos Vlassopoulos
Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity by Sarah B. Pomeroy
The Captive Woman's Lament in Greek Tragedy by Casey Dué
Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy by Edith Hall
Women in Ancient Greece by Sue Blundell
Roman Imperialism and Local Identities by Louise Revell
Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire by David J. Mattingly
Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul by Greg Woolf
Reading Roman Women by Suzanne D. Dixon
Polybius and Roman Imperialism by Donald Walter Baranowski