How would Racism develop if Christianity spread far beyond Europe and it's colonies?

[TerranGames]

Basically, as I understand it, the conception that "race" is defined by inherent biological characteristics, and the *White Europeans are superior to all other races is a very modern conception, the product of the last few hundred years. As I understand, this wasn't the case in the ancient world, and while they did know about skin color, and differing physical characteristics, cultural factors were more important to them than biological factors when talking about any hypothetical "racism." While I know there were multiple factors that went into this (Colonization, the Slave Trade, the discovery of Indo-Europeans, Scientific Racism, etc), the one I want to talk about the most is the spread of Christianity.

As I understand it, Christianity effectively defined the "Civilized World" for the Europeans, and when the Arab Conquests came, they effectively sliced that world in half, spreading through North Africa and the Sahel, and into Persia, Central Asia, and reaching as far as India and Indonesia. While Christianity didn't spread all that much outside of Europe with the main exception of colonization (and Ethiopia).

And while not all Europeans are light-skinned, enough of them were pale enough that this idea that "White Europeans" constitute a race came into being with scientific racism, and so things like White Supremacy, biological racism, and "The White Man's Burden" came into being (influenced by colonialism, of course).

What I'm wondering is what would happen if Christianity had spread well beyond Europe before the era of colonialism? Like if there were no Arab Conquests, for a start (or at least a non-Muslim one), and it was Christianity instead which spread through much of Africa and Asia, reaching places like Mali, Kongo, or the Majapahits (or something similar, since butterflies, I know), and missionaries converting places like China and Japan (and maybe the Inca, or the successors to the Aztecs, considering the distant POD, and Cortez's and Pizzaro's enormous luck and good timing). All of these things, bringing peoples of many different skin colors and physical appearances and empires into the "civilized world," into contact and trade with the Europeans, and assuming that this world still progresses towards some version of a scientific and industrial revolution.

*Yes I know how flexible the idea of "Whiteness" is, and how it is considered the absence of race. I'm wondering how it would be affected by this scenario.

TLDR: How would Racism develop if Christianity spread far beyond Europe and it's colonies?

 

[Falecius]

Well... Christians had absolutely no problem in thinking of other Christians as inferior or uncivilised, especially if they happened to be the wrong type of Christians... In some sense, this is what Muslims were thought to be by some.

 

[Raferty]

I think its pretty difficult to see racism of the kind you are alluding to here as being separable from the processes behind outward projection of power by western European powers.

You see a somewhat similar dynamic developing between Arabs and Muwalladun in the case of later Umayyad and early Abbasid periods, for example, because you were dealing with a conquest society in which resources accrued to those who could differentiate themselves as being closer to power (such as, for example, presence on the army register of salary payments, or being able to trace lineage to the companions of the Prophet). The same can be seen in the imposition of rule by elites from the Yangtze Basin over the Southern regions of China in some of the earlier dynasties.

Now, it is true that eventually by the 19th century, the nature of this had changed from that of a conquest society to something new, and that scientific racism became the proxy through which this was filtered. That is the context in which you see a deviation of early modern period racism from its many, many previous iterations and the development of something new. But do I think that Christianity was responsible for this? Not really. The notion of finding Prester John had never really gone away, and its noticeable that even ostensibly Christian regions of Africa like Ethiopia were not spared attempts during the scramble to impose hegemony (they were fortunate that the power in question was the Italians). The fact that in some cases, the deployment of mission to civilize as a rhetorical force driving some aspect of colonialism, should not make us ignore that there were several more lucrative reasons for such actions that could be deployed just as easily. What is unusual is to the extent in which Mission to Civilize was actually taken somewhat seriously in many cases, and there was a surprising amount of public good allocation in colonial ventures where this was the case. But this is more marginal than central to the record.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Basically, as I understand it, the conception that "race" is defined by inherent biological characteristics, and the *White Europeans are superior to all other races is a very modern conception, the product of the last few hundred years. As I understand, this wasn't the case in the ancient world, and while they did know about skin color, and differing physical characteristics, cultural factors were more important to them than biological factors when talking about any hypothetical "racism." While I know there were multiple factors that went into this (Colonization, the Slave Trade, the discovery of Indo-Europeans, Scientific Racism, etc), the one I want to talk about the most is the spread of Christianity.

As I understand it, Christianity effectively defined the "Civilized World" for the Europeans, and when the Arab Conquests came, they effectively sliced that world in half, spreading through North Africa and the Sahel, and into Persia, Central Asia, and reaching as far as India and Indonesia. While Christianity didn't spread all that much outside of Europe with the main exception of colonization (and Ethiopia).

And while not all Europeans are light-skinned, enough of them were pale enough that this idea that "White Europeans" constitute a race came into being with scientific racism, and so things like White Supremacy, biological racism, and "The White Man's Burden" came into being (influenced by colonialism, of course).

What I'm wondering is what would happen if Christianity had spread well beyond Europe before the era of colonialism? Like if there were no Arab Conquests, for a start (or at least a non-Muslim one), and it was Christianity instead which spread through much of Africa and Asia, reaching places like Mali, Kongo, or the Majapahits (or something similar, since butterflies, I know), and missionaries converting places like China and Japan (and maybe the Inca, or the successors to the Aztecs, considering the distant POD, and Cortez's and Pizzaro's enormous luck and good timing). All of these things, bringing peoples of many different skin colors and physical appearances and empires into the "civilized world," into contact and trade with the Europeans, and assuming that this world still progresses towards some version of a scientific and industrial revolution.

*Yes I know how flexible the idea of "Whiteness" is, and how it is considered the absence of race. I'm wondering how it would be affected by this scenario.

TLDR: How would Racism develop if Christianity spread far beyond Europe and it's colonies?

This concept was made up to justify slavery, not the other way around. Also, Tewdoros II imprisioned British Christians in Ethiopia iirc, so sub-Saharan states converting to Christianity wouldn't change much.

 

[Nivek]

Nothing,if anything otl christians were the best racists

 

[Raferty]

This concept was made up to justify slavery, not the other way around. Also, Tewdoros II imprisioned British Christians in Ethiopia iirc, so sub-Saharan states converting to Christianity wouldn't change much.

The question to ask here is why would such a justification be seen as necessary?

The vast majority of premodern societies had slavery or some form of it, medieval Europe despite having feudalism never completely lost slavery and it always persisted in both more peripheral regions and the existing centers of wealth in Northern Italy. The Ottomans engaged in almost industrial scale enslavement and developed subsidiary institutions dedicated to its operation, as did the great MesoAmerican civilizations.

All of this goes to say that slavery was not an unusual concept to premodern Europeans, and that racism was unnecessary for that to exist .

Doctrines like humanism may have impacted a need for some to reconcile what they're doing in practice to what they're saying out loud, but there were several proto-humanist Islamic doctrines that also had little to say on the topic

 

[Silver01]

I had a conversation in planing for my timeline since since I have chosen and have no seen any one who reads here

I will copy what I argued assuming Europeans still go colonizing

Let's us remember, part of what sanctioned and renewed slavery in the early modern period was the Pope declaring it was straight up fine to enslave people *for not being Christian*

This would not be the case in scenario were Christianity expanded but this is built upon the idea that the taboo of enslaving other christians still evolves which it likely does it existed in late antiquity even though it didn't become widely adopted until way later in to the middle ages .

For the Sahel , potential syncretism or retention of tradition similar to some of Ibn Battuta's reservations about the way Islam was treated in Mali in otl or the Africans following a Heresy could be the basis for that rhetoric in universe to justify slavery

now assuming the Africans are not heretics point one still stands it would likely start a debate on the Catholic church about what are they to do, now America needs cheap labour and likely areas in South of the Sahel are not Christian so what maybe come of this ?

Discrimination maybe be based on emphasis on micro-analysing cultural differences on what Is truly christian and you can't really say blacks are inferior if there is a strong christian kingdoms or empires in the Sahel .

On the other hand racism could evolve just in a different form and informed by a different perspective. You might see, for example, coastal rulers of the Sahel or even Ethiopia trying to justify why those non chirstians of the interior are *totally* a different population to help justify their posturing on enslaving them, heck these African Christians Can claim they. Are the exception to enslave their neighbors

Also Europeans would say the pagans of these areas via slavery could become civlized like their chirstian counterparts.

 

[Silver01]

The question to ask here is why would such a justification be seen as necessary?

The vast majority of premodern societies had slavery or some form of it, medieval Europe despite having feudalism never completely lost slavery and it always persisted in both more peripheral regions and the existing centers of wealth in Northern Italy.

Because in the middle ages the concept that originated before became widespread that was it was highly taboo to enslave fellow chirstians if the Africans are fellow non heretics when the Europeans start colonization enslaving them would cause at minimum and unlike the native Americans which excuse was they never hear of chirstians some of the Africans would already be chirstian and done so for a long time

 

[Silver01]

Doctrines like humanism may have impacted a need for some to reconcile what they're doing in practice to what they're saying out loud

Humanism? The early excuse was always whether or not it fitted to christian theology as seen as the 15th and 16th century based on this the later development of modern race evolved in the 17th later some prominent enlightenment thinkers removing the god aspect emphasized the inferiority of races in the biological aspects in the 18th century

 

[Metempsychosis]

Nothing,if anything otl christians were the best racists

Hey now, if it were al-Andalus that conquered the Aztecs and Incas and enforced its existing caste system on them, would you say the same?

 

[Silver01]

Yes I know how flexible the idea of "Whiteness" is, and how it is considered the absence of race. I'm wondering how it would be affected by this scenario.

As mentioned you can evolve in many ways deepening on the butterflies the need for slave labor would need a justification but something you missed is that Islam didn't go from what I remember south of the Sahel I don't see why chirstianity will via the northern trade routes

 

[Jürgen]

As mentioned you can evolve in many ways deepening on the butterflies the need for slave labor would need a justification but something you missed is that Islam didn't go from what I remember south of the Sahel I don't see why chirstianity will via the northern trade routes

Islam had an interest in not spreading beyond the Sahel, because it would mean the loss of slave raiding territory for the Sahel states.

 

[Silver01]

Islam had an interest in not spreading beyond the Sahel, because it would mean the loss of slave raiding territory for the Sahel states.

Wouldn't this also apply to the chirstian states of the Sahel in this alt especially if there are non christian people to sell to the Europeans later on

 

[Jord839]

SNIP

You would do well to research the Kingdom of the Kongo in ethnic BaKongo lands in what is now Angola and the western DRC, since it both validates and refutes some of your points.

They were relatively quick to convert to Catholicism and were close allies of Portugal for centuries. They were also one of the beating hearts of slavery in Africa, as the kings and nobles of the Kongo used the slave trade the way modern-day petro-states use oil: a source of fantastic wealth to enrich themselves and bribe key sectors of society to keep power. Their entire economy basically revolved around the slave trade and raiding or warring against their neighbors in Africa. Syncretism was common, but mostly in linguistics and not significantly different from syncretism in the Americas when it came to the actual meat and potatoes of the faith.

However, even this was not enough to protect them from Portuguese buying citizens of the Kongo, which was a constant source of friction between the Kongolese and the Portuguese up until vassailization in the mid 1800s after slavery was officially outlawed. Sometimes Portuguese would buy prisoners and peasants from particular Kongo nobles, sometimes there would be "mistaken" captives in slave raids, etc. Being Christian Africans wasn't as much of a protection as Europeans of the time would otherwise claim.

You could argue that a more strongly integrated African Christian community with Europe might have prevented that, but again, the Kongo had close ties with Portugal before the Americas were even discovered and its leadership converted to Catholicism in 1491 and even as the Catholic faith was growing, by 1503 the Portuguese were already buying slaves at high rates and going around the official government to buy slaves from rebel groups, regardless of source or religion.

All of which is to say that any conquering power in this time would find excuses and justifications to explain their exploitation and abuses of a "lesser" people. It might not take the form of scientific racism that we know from OTL, but it would more than likely happen anyway.

 

[Silver01]

You would do well to research the Kingdom of the Kongo in ethnic BaKongo lands in what is now Angola and the western DRC, since it both validates and refutes some of your points.

They were relatively quick to convert to Catholicism and were close allies of Portugal for centuries. They were also one of the beating hearts of slavery in Africa, as the kings and nobles of the Kongo used the slave trade the way modern-day petro-states use oil: a source of fantastic wealth to enrich themselves and bribe key sectors of society to keep power. Their entire economy basically revolved around the slave trade and raiding or warring against their neighbors in Africa. Syncretism was common, but mostly in linguistics and not significantly different from syncretism in the Americas when it came to the actual meat and potatoes of the faith.

Yeah the difference with adopting vs already established it takes away one core element this also happens in the Americas were debates occurred whether of not they could enslave the natives since sure they were pagan but never hear about Jesus and even though the papacy defended them native slavery still continued but even since it had to be done by many illegal means the numbers never got as high African. Slavery
Even when you add the numbers of non catholic powers it still doesn't come of the African numbers at least according to the other slavery .

If taking the natives who might be christian was already a scandal to the papacy and the Spanish taking actual maybe depending on the area people who converted a long time ago would be a major one sure slavery would exist they need labor but being discrete like native slavery just adds cost hence why I said assuming the crowns don't want to enslave fellow christians the Africans just gathered the pagans ( or at least they say there selling pagans ) from the interior

However, even this was not enough to protect them from Portuguese buying citizens of the Kongo, which was a constant source of friction between the Kongolese and the Portuguese up until vassailization in the mid 1800s after slavery was officially outlawed. Sometimes Portuguese would buy prisoners and peasants from particular Kongo nobles, sometimes there would be "mistaken" captives in slave raids, etc. Being Christian Africans wasn't as much of a protection as Europeans of the time would otherwise claim..

The matter evolved from chirstianity to race over time especially by the 19th century

You could argue that a more strongly integrated African Christian community with Europe might have prevented that, but again, the Kongo had close ties with Portugal before the Americas were even discovered and its leadership converted to Catholicism in 1491 and even as the Catholic faith was growing, by 1503 the Portuguese were already buying slaves at high rates and going around the official government to buy slaves from rebel groups, regardless of source or religion.

Slavery didn't become big in Kongo until the Portuguese demand started to affect them in the early 16th century and as mentioned having a community there who existed for centuries is different from one kingdom who adopted it also as mentioned before Nicholas V essentially told Portugal it was fine to enslave Muslims and pagans

All of which is to say that any conquering power in this time would find excuses and justifications to explain their exploitation and abuses of a "lesser" people. It might not take the form of scientific racism that we know from OTL, but it would more than likely happen anyway.

I fully agree discrimination is not anything new but as mentioned our modern understanding of race and racism is unlikely to evolve like the otl you can't really argue that blacks are inferior if they are fellow orthodox chirstians who had been by centuries at this point , hence why i see rhetoric evolve in different ways

 

[Raferty]

Because in the middle ages the concept that originated before became widespread that was it was highly taboo to enslave fellow chirstians if the Africans are fellow non heretics when the Europeans start colonization enslaving them would cause at minimum and unlike the native Americans which excuse was they never hear of chirstians some of the Africans would already be chirstian and done so for a long time

The development of that taboo was mostly because of the context of slavery in the Eurasian world - it was directed at peripheral peoples, whether Balkan peasants for the Ottomans, Irish and French villagers for the Algerian Corsairs, Moorish town dwellers for the Iberian kingdoms, etc

The relative low levels of slavery in the core of Medieval Europe stemmed from the intense competition between politics and the development of manorial relationships between elites and commoners, which themselves stemmed from the experience of the latter half of the First Millennium AD

A world in which Christianity is pretty dominant across the OTL peripheries is one that looks a lot like the pre-Islamic period - one in which Christianity developed sophisticated doctrines and cosmologies for the relationship between slaveholders and slaves of the same religion. The decline in slavery in this period was not because the Church couldn't find ways to accommodate it, but rather because slavery was first and foremost a sign of the ability of society to alienate and specialize labor with a degree of social complexity, as a sign of wealth and inequality, not some state of nature circumstance, and the world of late Antiquity was struggling with maintaining that.

Christianity was radical in the sense that it diverged from the orthopraxic, polity specific religious underpinnings of the Classical Mediterranean world, as well as the nature worship of the Classical world of Northern Europe, because it interposed the role of individual salvation into how people interacted with religion. This was not necessarily solely a Christian thing (the Manicheans had aspects of this), but at scale, it was unusual. This did lead to a questioning of the basis behind slavery, and in some cases, as with the gladiatorial games and aspects of temple prostitution, some tenuous attempted amelioration of the scale of the excesses of the Classical Period. But it did not thoroughly shake it - for that, we have to look for more material historical contigencies

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Also worth noticing that given butterflies, Europe might not be in the position to colonize the world in the first place as it was a series of key factors and decisions(many of which involve Islam) that led to the rise of the continent, hell even something like the Crusades that was very important when it came to entrench Europe more into trade with the rest of the world as well as establishing some of the first notions of what we would call racism wouldn't happen

 

[Silver01]

The development of that taboo was mostly because of the context of slavery in the Eurasian world - it was directed at peripheral peoples, whether Balkan peasants for the Ottomans, Irish and French villagers for the Algerian Corsairs, Moorish town dwellers for the Iberian kingdoms, etc

This is not entirely true English french and even German slave raids were common despite the taboo evolving and being very present by the 12th century it took time for the taboo to become practiced and a great deal of effort from the church for it to become enforced .

The relative low levels of slavery in the core of Medieval Europe stemmed from the intense competition between politics and the development of manorial relationships between elites and commoners, which themselves stemmed from the experience of the latter half of the First Millennium AD

While massive slave markets like we see in the east were not as common I wouldn't call low levels slaves were a currency in Ireland and slavery continued to exist as mentioned well into the high middle ages .

A world in which Christianity is pretty dominant across the OTL peripheries is one that looks a lot like the pre-Islamic period - one in which Christianity developed sophisticated doctrines and cosmologies for the relationship between slaveholders and slaves of the same religion.

I will be frank yes such view that other chirstian should not be enslaved did not exist in late antiquity as mentioned by
Slaving Zones
Cultural Identities, Ideologies, and Institutions in the Evolution of Global Slavery
As mentioned there is already the precedent for is it as illegal for Jews to enslave other christians and there is many uncertain about whether individuals could claim a legally free identity.

Even then slavery for example in the byzantine empire was mostly house hold one hence it was the duty of the roman pater familias to save the soul of the slave

Still Justinian law code that slavery was an unnatural state of human existence and not a feature of natural law. While slaves were still seen as items they were not devoid of personality as seen as how killing a slave was seen as murder and the right of court
This continued as seen in the 726 law that permitted slaves to become free via baptism and the later evolution that slaves from objects to subjects

The decline in slavery in this period was not because the Church couldn't find ways to accommodate it, but rather because slavery was first and foremost a sign of the ability of society to alienate and specialize labor with a degree of social complexity, as a sign of wealth and inequality, not some state of nature circumstance, and the world of late Antiquity was struggling with maintaining that

Economics certainly played a role in western Europe

Still my point is I don't find it unlikely that the same taboo evolves I have seen some argue with out the Islamic conquest there is no impetus for change but the byzantines still benefited a lot from their trade and yet they still developed the views.

The west could develop it differently there are still many non chirstian eras and I think in anytime the idea of Norse vikings selling slaves to other christians or worse pagans would lead to similar criticisms

In my own timeline aside from vikings and khazars and heretics buying christian slaves one thing that got the ball rolling was the recent converted slavs revolted against byzantine rule which lead to the Romans crushing their revolt and enslaving thousands which the clergy heavily disapproved of the slaughter and enslavement from the slavs and the roman emperor even though this a specific case.

 

[Silver01]

hell even something like the Crusades that was very important when it came to entrench Europe more into trade with the rest of the world

The crusades are way over blown in this factor contact and trade existed prior to it on a large scale which had to with the relative stability of 11th century Europe, population boom and other factors that made the crusade even possible in the first place

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

The crusades are way over blown in this factor contact and trade existed prior to it on a large scale which had to with the relative stability of 11th century Europe, population boom and other factors that made the crusade even possible in the first place

Still unlikely to happen, especially if it's someone like the Byzantines or an otherwise powerful country controlling the Levant.