Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

Race is categorized so differently in the present day and age in different countries.

In ancient times, one had Airs, Waters and Places, a short and laughable book by Hippocrates, which sought to find a scientific reason for physical differences between races: a fore-runner of things to come.

No, no, no, no .... no.

You don't have to go back 2,500 years for a "laughable" description of foreign people!

"It was not only Africans who were deemed to be inferior. For example, a school text published as late as 1925 claimed that the natives of India were a 'half-civilised, thieving…primitive race', who were given a measure of 'civilisation' by the 'tall well-built race of Aryans… akin to the best European types' (CB Thurston, An Economic Geography of the British Empire, London 1925, p.153). Such racist descriptions of Africans and Indians appeared in text books until about 40 years ago."

http://revealinghistories.org.uk/legaci ... today.html

~

it was however a forerunner of the scientific racism that developed in the 18th C, with the writings of e.g. Voltaire (here, kitty kitty) or Kant, or Hegel, to name but a few.

You don't have to stop at German philosophers either.

"It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?"."

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/201 ... s-disabled

http://sss.sagepub.com/content/6/3-4/499.extract#

~

...nor was it confined to the British Empire.

Yes it became rife and spread like wildfire during the British Empire:

"Quote from Churchill: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (To the Peel Commission 1937)

http://www.nazi.org.uk/winston-churchil ... genics.htm

~

Significantly most of the earlier scientific racists were American or Continental European, and in its modern form it was not a British invention,

Significantly, the applied science of racism, in its "modern form" was indeed a British invention:

"In 1883 a British biologist named Francis Galton combined the roots of the Greek words for "good" and "origin" to create the term "eugenics" for an applied science based on genetics and breeding. The "science" of eugenics proposed that human perfection could be developed through selective breeding. In the late nineteenth century researchers developed the idea, a blend of genetic research and social theory. Eugenics soon crossed the Atlantic and by the 1920s and 1930s was adopted by mainstream scientists, doctors and the general public."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopl ... enics.html

~

And yes, some of the master-racists of the British elite only died a few decades ago:

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsl ... genics.htm

I have not forgotten you "g"IG but I am doing some interesting reading of ancient sources eg Aristotle and Plato which suggests the main thrust of this thread, the alleged recent origin of racism, etc, is wide of the mark as it seems much of what you mention , including Eugenics, can be traced back to Ancient Greece and entered modern European thought through Classical education.

I am not contesting that there was no racism in the British Empire, indeed there was, but the origins possibly go back some 2300 years. Maybe they should be featured in the Hellenic inventions thread.

[Oceanside50]

At a supranational banquet in 324 B.C. at Opis, in ancient Babylon, near present-day
Baghdad, attended by 9,000 notables of many nations and tribes, Alexander attempted
to join East and West by taking an oath under the one “God, Father of all humanity,”
following his vision that behind all the local gods was a great omnipotent God who moves
the Universe. He said:

“Now that the wars are coming to an end,
I wish you to prosper in peace. May all
the mortals from now on live like one
people, in concord and for mutual
advancement. Consider the world your
country, with laws common to all and
where the best will govern, irrespective
of tribe. I do not distinguish among men,
as the narrow-minded do, both among Greeks
and barbarians. I am not interested in the
descent of the citizens, nor their racial origins.
I classify them using only one criterion: virtue.
For me every virtuous foreigner is a Greek,
and every evil Greek worse than a barbarian.
If differences ever develop among you,
never have recourse to arms, but solve them
peacefully. If necessary, I shall be your
arbitrator. You must not consider God like an
autocratic despot, but as a common Father of all,
so that your behavior may resemble the life
siblings have in a family. On my part, I shall
consider you all equal, whites or blacks, and I
wish you would be not only subjects of the
commonwealth, but participants and partners.
As much as this depends on me, I shall try to
bring about what I promised. The oath we
make over tonight’s libations, hold onto as
a Contract of Love.


.....

[supporttheunderdog]

Ah, “g”IG,,,,,

Race is categorized so differently in the present day and age in different countries.
In ancient times, one had “Airs, Waters and Places”, a short and laughable book by Hippocrates, which sought to find a scientific reason for physical differences between races: a fore-runner of things to come.

No, no, no, no, no.....
You don't have to go back 2,500 years for a "laughable" description of foreign people!

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES
It is obvious that the nature of the debate is far too subtle for you, since you have missed the point that the debate is NOT about whether or not there was racism in the British Empire (and I openly agree that there was) but whether or not it was later creation of e.g. the Western Europeans and their 16th century AD onwards empires, or an earlier invention of e.g. Classical Greek times. Kimon is contending that it was recent but I contend it was older.

The debate on race has become fixated by Skin Colour but that is restrictive.
Here is one definition: an attitude towards individuals and groups of peoples which posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities. It therefore attributes to those individuals and groups of peoples collective traits, physical, mental and moral, which are constant and unalterable by human will, because they are caused by hereditary factors or external influences, such as climate or geography. The essence of racism is that it regards individuals as superior or inferior because they are believed to share imagined physical, mental and moral attributes with the group to which they are deemed to belong, and it is assumed that they cannot change these traits individually. This is held to be impossible, because these traits are determined by their physical make-up.
This relatively broad definition allows us to recognize forms of racism that are not steered exclusively or restrictively by biological determinism and it will for example, cover the “white on White” racism so prevalent in Europe or the “black on black” racism that occurred in say Rwanda.
Within that definition, you have already showed yourself up to be racist by suggesting that e.g. fascism is a heritable Germanic characteristic.
As to the Ancientness of racism, see sections 12 onwards of the book “On Airs”

For these reasons the Phasians have shapes different from those of all other men; for they are large in stature, and of a very gross habit of body, so that not a joint nor vein is visible; in color they are sallow, as if affected with jaundice. Of all men they have the roughest voices, from their breathing an atmosphere which is not clear, but misty and humid; they are naturally rather languid in supporting bodily fatigue.

Note however the reference to here to colouration.

However perhaps one of the reasons that Colour was not a great consideration for the Greeks was because the Greek empires ever had regions with (majority) dark skinned people in their boundaries, and the few black people there were, as slaves were rarities with prestige value.
It was however a consideration and one Aristotle (or an imitator, Psuedo-Aristotle) mentioned, stating

Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians

For 300 BC That has all the hall marks of modern racism, linking skin colour to a perceived inferiority.

"It was not only Africans who were deemed to be inferior. For example, a school text published as late as 1925 claimed that the natives of India were a 'half-civilised, thieving…primitive race', who were given a measure of 'civilisation' by the 'tall well-built race of Aryans… akin to the best European types' (CB Thurston, An Economic Geography of the British Empire, London 1925, p.153). Such racist descriptions of Africans and Indians appeared in text books until about 40 years ago."
http://revealinghistories.org.uk/legaci ... today.html

Yes what nasty rubbish it was, though I don’t recall seeing any of it in the text books I saw at School, at that time.
You may care to mull the words of Enoch Powell about Indian peoples when he said

I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans.

I have already pointed out the generalisations of Hippocrates about Europeans and Asians where he discussed bodily shape, hair and skin colour, moral attitude, etc, and who describes Asiatic as natural slaves, based on the "scientific" theory that their character was moulded by the weather.
See section 24

Such as inhabit a country which is mountainous, rugged, elevated, and well watered, and where the changes of the seasons are very great, are likely to have great variety of shapes among them, and to be naturally of an enterprising and warlike disposition; and such persons are apt to have no little of the savage and ferocious in their nature; but such as dwell in places which are low-lying, abounding in meadows and ill ventilated, and who have a larger proportion of hot than of cold winds, and who make use of warm waters — these are not likely to be of large stature nor well proportioned, but are of a broad make, fleshy, and have black hair; and they are rather of a dark than of a light complexion, and are less likely to be phlegmatic than bilious; courage and laborious enterprise are not naturally in them, but may be engendered in them by means of their institutions. And if there be rivers in the country which carry off the stagnant and rain water from it, these may be wholesome and clear; but if there be no rivers, but the inhabitants drink the waters of fountains, and such as are stagnant and marshy, they must necessarily have prominent bellies and enlarged spleens. But such as inhabit a high country, and one that is level, windy, and well-watered, will be large of stature, and like to one another; but their minds will be rather unmanly and gentle. Those who live on thin, ill-watered, and bare soils, and not well attempered in the changes of the seasons, in such a country they are likely to be in their persons rather hard and well braced, rather of a blond than a dark complexion, and in disposition and passions haughty and self-willed.

These are all disparaging remarks on Europeans and their character based on scientific reasoning, which is in fact similar to the earliest writings of 19th Century Europe, where many of those promoting such views had what is known as a classical education i.e. on Greek thought so there is probably a direct connection between the pseudo scientific observations of e.g, Hippocrates and Ari and Aristotle and later racist thinking.
(it was Greek so no doubt you think it must be right!)

it was however a forerunner of the scientific racism that developed in the 18th C, with the writings of e.g. Voltaire (here, kitty kitty) or Kant, or Hegel, to name but a few.

You don't have to stop at German philosophers either.
"It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?"."
[urlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled{/url]
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/6/3-4/499.extract#

Galton did not construct the word Eugenics: Indeed as I can prove by direct reference to classical Greek Philosophy the concept of Eugenics if not the word itself can be directly traced back to Ancient Athens.
It was in fact a Greek called Plato, (heard of him?), who first expounded the principals of Eugenics.
On the name, Galton almost certainly took an existing term and Anglicised it. The Greek phrase for Nobel birth was Eugenia, which had been used as a name before Galton adopted it: one had for example Empress Eugenie of France.
As outlined above the phrase itself can probably be traced back to ancient Athens, which had a primitive Eugenics policy set out in the laws of Pericles of only permitting marriage between Athenian Citizens on the basis that any child with a non-citizen parent was in some way inferior, i.e. They were promoting the alleged superiority of the Athenian bloodline by keeping it pure through the process of Eugenia.

...nor was it confined to the British Empire.

Yes it became rife and spread like wildfire during the British Empire:
"Quote from Churchill: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (To the Peel Commission 1937)
http://www.nazi.org.uk/winston-churchill-race-eugenics.htm

I agree it is a racist comment. Churchill almost certainly had a classical education, where he may well have been exposed to the philosophy of Hippocrates or Aristotle and where this statement appears to be very much in line with Aristotle was saying in his Work “Politics”, that the strong have the right to rule

But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;

That is an early expression of Imperialism.

Significantly most of the earlier scientific racists were American or Continental European, and in its modern form it was not a British invention.

Significantly, the applied science of racism, in its "modern form" was indeed a British invention:
"In 1883 a British biologist named Francis Galton combined the roots of the Greek words for "good" and "origin" to create the term "eugenics" for an applied science based on genetics and breeding. The "science" of eugenics proposed that human perfection could be developed through selective breeding. In the late nineteenth century researchers developed the idea, a blend of genetic research and social theory. Eugenics soon crossed the Atlantic and by the 1920s and 1930s was adopted by mainstream scientists, doctors and the general public."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopl ... enics.html
And yes, some of the master-racists of the British elite only died a few decades ago:
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0306/university_of_cambridge_eugenics.htm

As pointed out above Eugenics was an ancient Greek Invention.
State Control of marriage for essentially Eugenics purposes was in fact something commended by Plato in “the Republic”, which went further than simply promoting the purity of the bloodline by marriage between citizens(and that is quite a Nazi policy in its own right) but wanted to improve the stock.

.... holy marriage festivals will be instituted, and their holiness will be in proportion to their usefulness. And here, Glaucon, I should like to ask (as I know that you are a breeder of birds and animals), Do you not take the greatest care in the mating? ’Certainly.’ And there is no reason to suppose that less care is required in the marriage of human beings. But then our rulers must be skilful physicians of the State, for they will often need a strong dose of falsehood in order to bring about desirable unions between their subjects. The good must be paired with the good, and the bad with the bad, and the offspring of the one must be reared, and of the other destroyed; in this way the flock will be preserved in prime condition. Hymeneal festivals will be celebrated at times fixed with an eye to population, and the brides and bridegrooms will meet at them;and by an ingenious system of lots the rulers will contrive that the brave and the fair come together, and that those of inferior breed are paired with inferiors– the latter will ascribe to chance what is really the invention of the rulers. And when children are born, the offspring of the brave and fair will be carried to an enclosure in a certain part of the city, and there attended by suitable nurses; the rest will be hurried away to places unknown

If that is not an ancient Greek exposition of Eugenics I do not know what is: it corresponds to what initially motivated Galton’s thinking i.e. Animal stock breeding applied to Humanity.

Then one had the exposure of infants in Sparta and permitted infanticide in Rome.

Eugenics are in fact still applied to day, with e.g. the Selective abortion of babies who might have congenital conditions, including in Cyprus for the control of Thalassemia, with the result that the number of affected babies born has fallen from 0.63% to almost zero.

Kimon, I think your premise that racism is a recent (British) invention is toast!

[Paphitis]

You dedicated the thread to racists and since I am very racist and a bad boy and a fanatical Cypriot Nationalist.......

To be a nationalist requires nobility and pride. You have neither. So its impossible for you to be or ever become a nationalist.

The true Cypriot Nationalists were/are those who fought and those who opposed the colonial racists and they also fought for Enosis i.e., for the union of the Greek Cypriots with the rest of the Ethnos. I am sure they spit on you and on the likes of you and certainly they resent the fact that you dare call yourself a "Cypriot Nationalist". My, my.
Paphitis next to Afxendiou, Matsis, Lenas, Karaolis, Markos Drakos, Tassos Papadopoulos etc, etc, etc. ΥΒΡΙΣ.

Go back to your kangaroo shooting you racist blasphemer. Or is it aborigines you hunt this period?

Like I told you earlier, I was bought up and moulded into a Nationalism that not many people can understand or appreciate, and not from my parents. It is one in, all in, mateship and sacrifice in the ANZAC spirit which is no different to EOKA as both laid solid foundations for a country and had written their own history for the building of a sovereign Nation through sheer blood sweat and tears and a bravery among ordinary men unheard of against superior numbers.

Let me tell you this Kimon. Paphitis is next to all those you mention and is even closely related to one of them you do not mention. The Paphitis family made solid sacrifices, unlike yourself probably, and even works to this day to restore the legacy and history of this person in close cooperation with the RoC Government and funded by the RoC Government so that young Cypriots can learn and appreciate this important part of their history. We have donated land and property to be preserved for all future generations.

You do not understand the values I talk about. To you they are just slogans but I have lived them in war zones and operationally through years of service.

Certainly, the values I talk about do not exist in Greece, with the only exception being (I say this because I know as I have seen for myself), The Hellenic Armed Forces.

As for myself, I do not prostitute my self to Cowards. I exclude once again the Hellenic Armed Forces which have people of honour and uphold the values I know and you talk about on a silly forum.

[Paphitis]

Ah, “g”IG,,,,,

Race is categorized so differently in the present day and age in different countries.
In ancient times, one had “Airs, Waters and Places”, a short and laughable book by Hippocrates, which sought to find a scientific reason for physical differences between races: a fore-runner of things to come.

No, no, no, no, no.....
You don't have to go back 2,500 years for a "laughable" description of foreign people!

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES
It is obvious that the nature of the debate is far too subtle for you, since you have missed the point that the debate is NOT about whether or not there was racism in the British Empire (and I openly agree that there was) but whether or not it was later creation of e.g. the Western Europeans and their 16th century AD onwards empires, or an earlier invention of e.g. Classical Greek times. Kimon is contending that it was recent but I contend it was older.

The debate on race has become fixated by Skin Colour but that is restrictive.
Here is one definition: an attitude towards individuals and groups of peoples which posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities. It therefore attributes to those individuals and groups of peoples collective traits, physical, mental and moral, which are constant and unalterable by human will, because they are caused by hereditary factors or external influences, such as climate or geography. The essence of racism is that it regards individuals as superior or inferior because they are believed to share imagined physical, mental and moral attributes with the group to which they are deemed to belong, and it is assumed that they cannot change these traits individually. This is held to be impossible, because these traits are determined by their physical make-up.
This relatively broad definition allows us to recognize forms of racism that are not steered exclusively or restrictively by biological determinism and it will for example, cover the “white on White” racism so prevalent in Europe or the “black on black” racism that occurred in say Rwanda.
Within that definition, you have already showed yourself up to be racist by suggesting that e.g. fascism is a heritable Germanic characteristic.
As to the Ancientness of racism, see sections 12 onwards of the book “On Airs”

For these reasons the Phasians have shapes different from those of all other men; for they are large in stature, and of a very gross habit of body, so that not a joint nor vein is visible; in color they are sallow, as if affected with jaundice. Of all men they have the roughest voices, from their breathing an atmosphere which is not clear, but misty and humid; they are naturally rather languid in supporting bodily fatigue.

Note however the reference to here to colouration.

However perhaps one of the reasons that Colour was not a great consideration for the Greeks was because the Greek empires ever had regions with (majority) dark skinned people in their boundaries, and the few black people there were, as slaves were rarities with prestige value.
It was however a consideration and one Aristotle (or an imitator, Psuedo-Aristotle) mentioned, stating

Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians

For 300 BC That has all the hall marks of modern racism, linking skin colour to a perceived inferiority.

"It was not only Africans who were deemed to be inferior. For example, a school text published as late as 1925 claimed that the natives of India were a 'half-civilised, thieving…primitive race', who were given a measure of 'civilisation' by the 'tall well-built race of Aryans… akin to the best European types' (CB Thurston, An Economic Geography of the British Empire, London 1925, p.153). Such racist descriptions of Africans and Indians appeared in text books until about 40 years ago."
http://revealinghistories.org.uk/legaci ... today.html

Yes what nasty rubbish it was, though I don’t recall seeing any of it in the text books I saw at School, at that time.
You may care to mull the words of Enoch Powell about Indian peoples when he said

I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans.

I have already pointed out the generalisations of Hippocrates about Europeans and Asians where he discussed bodily shape, hair and skin colour, moral attitude, etc, and who describes Asiatic as natural slaves, based on the "scientific" theory that their character was moulded by the weather.
See section 24

Such as inhabit a country which is mountainous, rugged, elevated, and well watered, and where the changes of the seasons are very great, are likely to have great variety of shapes among them, and to be naturally of an enterprising and warlike disposition; and such persons are apt to have no little of the savage and ferocious in their nature; but such as dwell in places which are low-lying, abounding in meadows and ill ventilated, and who have a larger proportion of hot than of cold winds, and who make use of warm waters — these are not likely to be of large stature nor well proportioned, but are of a broad make, fleshy, and have black hair; and they are rather of a dark than of a light complexion, and are less likely to be phlegmatic than bilious; courage and laborious enterprise are not naturally in them, but may be engendered in them by means of their institutions. And if there be rivers in the country which carry off the stagnant and rain water from it, these may be wholesome and clear; but if there be no rivers, but the inhabitants drink the waters of fountains, and such as are stagnant and marshy, they must necessarily have prominent bellies and enlarged spleens. But such as inhabit a high country, and one that is level, windy, and well-watered, will be large of stature, and like to one another; but their minds will be rather unmanly and gentle. Those who live on thin, ill-watered, and bare soils, and not well attempered in the changes of the seasons, in such a country they are likely to be in their persons rather hard and well braced, rather of a blond than a dark complexion, and in disposition and passions haughty and self-willed.

These are all disparaging remarks on Europeans and their character based on scientific reasoning, which is in fact similar to the earliest writings of 19th Century Europe, where many of those promoting such views had what is known as a classical education i.e. on Greek thought so there is probably a direct connection between the pseudo scientific observations of e.g, Hippocrates and Ari and Aristotle and later racist thinking.
(it was Greek so no doubt you think it must be right!)

it was however a forerunner of the scientific racism that developed in the 18th C, with the writings of e.g. Voltaire (here, kitty kitty) or Kant, or Hegel, to name but a few.

You don't have to stop at German philosophers either.
"It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?"."
[urlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled{/url]
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/6/3-4/499.extract#

Galton did not construct the word Eugenics: Indeed as I can prove by direct reference to classical Greek Philosophy the concept of Eugenics if not the word itself can be directly traced back to Ancient Athens.
It was in fact a Greek called Plato, (heard of him?), who first expounded the principals of Eugenics.
On the name, Galton almost certainly took an existing term and Anglicised it. The Greek phrase for Nobel birth was Eugenia, which had been used as a name before Galton adopted it: one had for example Empress Eugenie of France.
As outlined above the phrase itself can probably be traced back to ancient Athens, which had a primitive Eugenics policy set out in the laws of Pericles of only permitting marriage between Athenian Citizens on the basis that any child with a non-citizen parent was in some way inferior, i.e. They were promoting the alleged superiority of the Athenian bloodline by keeping it pure through the process of Eugenia.

...nor was it confined to the British Empire.

Yes it became rife and spread like wildfire during the British Empire:
"Quote from Churchill: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (To the Peel Commission 1937)
http://www.nazi.org.uk/winston-churchill-race-eugenics.htm

I agree it is a racist comment. Churchill almost certainly had a classical education, where he may well have been exposed to the philosophy of Hippocrates or Aristotle and where this statement appears to be very much in line with Aristotle was saying in his Work “Politics”, that the strong have the right to rule

But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;

That is an early expression of Imperialism.

Significantly most of the earlier scientific racists were American or Continental European, and in its modern form it was not a British invention.

Significantly, the applied science of racism, in its "modern form" was indeed a British invention:
"In 1883 a British biologist named Francis Galton combined the roots of the Greek words for "good" and "origin" to create the term "eugenics" for an applied science based on genetics and breeding. The "science" of eugenics proposed that human perfection could be developed through selective breeding. In the late nineteenth century researchers developed the idea, a blend of genetic research and social theory. Eugenics soon crossed the Atlantic and by the 1920s and 1930s was adopted by mainstream scientists, doctors and the general public."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopl ... enics.html
And yes, some of the master-racists of the British elite only died a few decades ago:
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0306/university_of_cambridge_eugenics.htm

As pointed out above Eugenics was an ancient Greek Invention.
State Control of marriage for essentially Eugenics purposes was in fact something commended by Plato in “the Republic”, which went further than simply promoting the purity of the bloodline by marriage between citizens(and that is quite a Nazi policy in its own right) but wanted to improve the stock.

.... holy marriage festivals will be instituted, and their holiness will be in proportion to their usefulness. And here, Glaucon, I should like to ask (as I know that you are a breeder of birds and animals), Do you not take the greatest care in the mating? ’Certainly.’ And there is no reason to suppose that less care is required in the marriage of human beings. But then our rulers must be skilful physicians of the State, for they will often need a strong dose of falsehood in order to bring about desirable unions between their subjects. The good must be paired with the good, and the bad with the bad, and the offspring of the one must be reared, and of the other destroyed; in this way the flock will be preserved in prime condition. Hymeneal festivals will be celebrated at times fixed with an eye to population, and the brides and bridegrooms will meet at them;and by an ingenious system of lots the rulers will contrive that the brave and the fair come together, and that those of inferior breed are paired with inferiors– the latter will ascribe to chance what is really the invention of the rulers. And when children are born, the offspring of the brave and fair will be carried to an enclosure in a certain part of the city, and there attended by suitable nurses; the rest will be hurried away to places unknown

If that is not an ancient Greek exposition of Eugenics I do not know what is: it corresponds to what initially motivated Galton’s thinking i.e. Animal stock breeding applied to Humanity.

Then one had the exposure of infants in Sparta and permitted infanticide in Rome.

Eugenics are in fact still applied to day, with e.g. the Selective abortion of babies who might have congenital conditions, including in Cyprus for the control of Thalassemia, with the result that the number of affected babies born has fallen from 0.63% to almost zero.

Kimon, I think your premise that racism is a recent (British) invention is toast!

The Ancient States of what is now present day Greece use to refer to outsiders as Barbarians, and Alexander the Great's (as much as I admire this figure) vast empire spanning all the way to present day India, was a brutal one of conquest to conquer foreign lands.

I can only presume Kimon has not been sleeping well trying to chase things that are manufactured, non factual and coming up with unfounded and unsubstantiated conclusions which are laughable to say the least.

If only he could be entertaining, funny and intelligent like "g"IG.

[Oceanside50]

The Ancient States of what is now present day Greece use to refer to outsiders as Barbarians, and Alexander the Great's (as much as I admire this figure) vast empire spanning all the way to present day India, was a brutal one of conquest to conquer foreign lands.

not necessarily true:

part of Alexanders speech at Opis in 324BC

I am not interested in the
descent of the citizens, nor their racial origins.
I classify them using only one criterion: virtue.

Not only did Alexander recognize that racism existed but also gave the remedy for it. The Ancient Greeks duty was gaining knowledge it would make sense that they recognized the destructiveness of racism and tried to eliminate it through logic..

[Paphitis]

You dedicated the thread to racists and since I am very racist and a bad boy and a fanatical Cypriot Nationalist.......

To be a nationalist requires nobility and pride. You have neither. So its impossible for you to be or ever become a nationalist.

The true Cypriot Nationalists were/are those who fought and those who opposed the colonial racists and they also fought for Enosis i.e., for the union of the Greek Cypriots with the rest of the Ethnos. I am sure they spit on you and on the likes of you and certainly they resent the fact that you dare call yourself a "Cypriot Nationalist". My, my.
Paphitis next to Afxendiou, Matsis, Lenas, Karaolis, Markos Drakos, Tassos Papadopoulos etc, etc, etc. ΥΒΡΙΣ.

Go back to your kangaroo shooting you racist blasphemer. Or is it aborigines you hunt this period?

What is YBRIZ is people like you soiling their names because I guarantee you for a fact that none of them, if alive today, will ever spout the filth you write here.

Yes they were noble men of honour, and you better start displaying some nobility of your own in 2013 because you fall very short and you do not uphold true and noble values by respecting their sacrifices with humility as well as respecting the enemy they fought as a final act of military chivalry. Obviously this love, respect and honour is missing from your mindset, but I am prepared to teach them to you so that you may gain from your involvement here. I am always willing to teach people these values.

There is no doubt I belong to a different era, but you can not use their names in a political forum tit for tat or spout the nonsense you write about "Colonialists", Aborigine hunting which never occurred, or other racist slurs against Britain or Australia, which actually fought for Greece on several occasions and alongside the Hellenic Armed Forces, or associate the above named with your small minded drivel. That is the blasphemy you do not understand.

You should desist immediately. If you were a soldier and I was your CO, then I would kick your butt from here to tim buk tu!

You would be begging for your mummy but by that time you would be eating your Greek Dolmades with a straw!

Let me tell you about Australian and yes Turkish Chivalry as displayed in the trenches of Gallipoli under the gaze of ANZAC Officers and Mustafa Kemal.

At regular intervals, the Australians and Turks would declare a ceasefire, and the Australian and Turkish soldiers would come out of the trenches and greet each other. They would share cigarettes and biscuits, and even kick a Soccer Ball around between themselves. The Turkish soldiers were even introduced to Aussie Rules Football and even Rugby which I am sure they would have found amusing.

A Young Australian Lieutenant Simpson would come out with his Donkey (gifted to him in Greece), and attend to all the Australian and Turkish wounded with the assistance of Turkish medics. They helped each other. The Turks would assist Australians and the Aussies would assist the Turks and even return the wounded to their trench just 40m away.

You could learn from this Kimon and be a better person. Dare I say, you can learn from these Turks as well, because during these sane periods, there were incredible displays of love, respect and humility between the soldiers which I doubt has ever been seen since in modern warfare.

You can learn from these Australians and Turks old boy and ask yourself would they disrespect EOKA like you and STUD did?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gallip ... 68574.html

If you need anymore help then I am only to happy to assist you becoming a better person by holding these values which seem lost to you.

I ask you if these soldiers were Hellenic, like the kind seen during Ancient periods and during Alexander the Great's reign.

And how far have you departed from these values?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Race is categorized so differently in the present day and age in different countries.

In ancient times, one had Airs, Waters and Places, a short and laughable book by Hippocrates, which sought to find a scientific reason for physical differences between races: a fore-runner of things to come.

No, no, no, no .... no.

You don't have to go back 2,500 years for a "laughable" description of foreign people!

"It was not only Africans who were deemed to be inferior. For example, a school text published as late as 1925 claimed that the natives of India were a 'half-civilised, thieving…primitive race', who were given a measure of 'civilisation' by the 'tall well-built race of Aryans… akin to the best European types' (CB Thurston, An Economic Geography of the British Empire, London 1925, p.153). Such racist descriptions of Africans and Indians appeared in text books until about 40 years ago."

http://revealinghistories.org.uk/legaci ... today.html

~

it was however a forerunner of the scientific racism that developed in the 18th C, with the writings of e.g. Voltaire (here, kitty kitty) or Kant, or Hegel, to name but a few.

You don't have to stop at German philosophers either.

"It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?"."

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/201 ... s-disabled

http://sss.sagepub.com/content/6/3-4/499.extract#

~

...nor was it confined to the British Empire.

Yes it became rife and spread like wildfire during the British Empire:

"Quote from Churchill: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (To the Peel Commission 1937)

http://www.nazi.org.uk/winston-churchil ... genics.htm

~

Significantly most of the earlier scientific racists were American or Continental European, and in its modern form it was not a British invention,

Significantly, the applied science of racism, in its "modern form" was indeed a British invention:

"In 1883 a British biologist named Francis Galton combined the roots of the Greek words for "good" and "origin" to create the term "eugenics" for an applied science based on genetics and breeding. The "science" of eugenics proposed that human perfection could be developed through selective breeding. In the late nineteenth century researchers developed the idea, a blend of genetic research and social theory. Eugenics soon crossed the Atlantic and by the 1920s and 1930s was adopted by mainstream scientists, doctors and the general public."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopl ... enics.html

~

And yes, some of the master-racists of the British elite only died a few decades ago:

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsl ... genics.htm

I have not forgotten you "g"IG but I am doing some interesting reading of ancient sources eg Aristotle and Plato which suggests the main thrust of this thread, the alleged recent origin of racism, etc, is wide of the mark as it seems much of what you mention , including Eugenics, can be traced back to Ancient Greece and entered modern European thought through Classical education.

I am not contesting that there was no racism in the British Empire, indeed there was, but the origins possibly go back some 2300 years. Maybe they should be featured in the Hellenic inventions thread.

Yes, carry on Googling now your lies and hypocrisies have been exposed. But never forget the golden rule of research; the Greeks wrote about many things, (Kalamarades as they are!) but only the evil-doers take ideas and musings to such extremes and practice - in modern times - discarded, unethical ideas of the distant past.

eugenics (n.)
1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (see genus).
The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. [Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883]

The word might be Greek, but the Englishman Galton (instead of resorting to Germanic) devoted his life and research to the spread of such MODERN ideas.

You seem to justify invading and enslaving and enforcing sterilizations, in modern times, simply because some 3000 years ago philosophers debated the moral and ethical issues of certain worldwide (and then moderate) practices of barbarians.

You can google all you like, but it will not change how unable you are to reason ...

[GreekIslandGirl]

The Ancient States of what is now present day Greece use to refer to outsiders as Barbarians, and Alexander the Great's (as much as I admire this figure) vast empire spanning all the way to present day India, was a brutal one of conquest to conquer foreign lands.

not necessarily true:

part of Alexanders speech at Opis in 324BC

I am not interested in the
descent of the citizens, nor their racial origins.
I classify them using only one criterion: virtue.

Not only did Alexander recognize that racism existed but also gave the remedy for it. The Ancient Greeks duty was gaining knowledge it would make sense that they recognized the destructiveness of racism and tried to eliminate it through logic..

Bravo.

Isn't it funny how these modern day imperialists deny ALL the great achievements of Classical Greece and yet seek some early ideas, which were discussed and discarded in the process of civilisation and continued seeking of knowledge, and APPLY them in modern times with the "justification" that they must be acceptable because the Greeks wrote about these things or colonised countries to spread culture, art and learning.

They simply forget, Alexander the Great did not one day decide to invade the known world without provocation, but extended Greeks' borders to DEFEND the Greeks from centuries of ATTACKS from Persians etc!

[Paphitis]

The Ancient States of what is now present day Greece use to refer to outsiders as Barbarians, and Alexander the Great's (as much as I admire this figure) vast empire spanning all the way to present day India, was a brutal one of conquest to conquer foreign lands.

not necessarily true:

part of Alexanders speech at Opis in 324BC

I am not interested in the
descent of the citizens, nor their racial origins.
I classify them using only one criterion: virtue.

Not only did Alexander recognize that racism existed but also gave the remedy for it. The Ancient Greeks duty was gaining knowledge it would make sense that they recognized the destructiveness of racism and tried to eliminate it through logic..

There can never be a remedy for racism.

What you are saying is that the Brits are EXACTLY the same as Alexander the Great because in their eyes they bought civilization to the primitives!

There you go!