Here are my slides for the pre-midterm review class... These are the things I want to have handy today, both to talk about the format and the types of questions that will be on the exam and also to...
On racialization, wasn't travel technology a huge factor, too? The ability to move quickly to new places with very large aggregations of internally similar yet comparatively weird-looking humans? Didn't that experience fairly invite the "obvious" naive conclusion that is "race"?
But you could always do that in the Mediterranean and the Near East, and yet the view was somehow "a slave is a slave". I mean, Aristotle wrote that Hellenes were dope and that many barbarians were "slaves by nature", but that cut no ice whatsoever in the actual slave market...
> Michael Dawson: Market Totalitarianism: 'On [the post-1500] racialization [of the human social practice of slavery], wasn't travel technology a huge factor, too? The ability to move quickly to new places with very large aggregations of internally similar yet comparatively weird-looking humans? Didn't that experience fairly invite the "obvious" naive conclusion that is "race"?
I guess I was positing that the post-Columbia increase in scale made the slavers/eventual racializers change their benchmarks, not least for themselves.
On racialization, wasn't travel technology a huge factor, too? The ability to move quickly to new places with very large aggregations of internally similar yet comparatively weird-looking humans? Didn't that experience fairly invite the "obvious" naive conclusion that is "race"?
But you could always do that in the Mediterranean and the Near East, and yet the view was somehow "a slave is a slave". I mean, Aristotle wrote that Hellenes were dope and that many barbarians were "slaves by nature", but that cut no ice whatsoever in the actual slave market...
> Michael Dawson: Market Totalitarianism: 'On [the post-1500] racialization [of the human social practice of slavery], wasn't travel technology a huge factor, too? The ability to move quickly to new places with very large aggregations of internally similar yet comparatively weird-looking humans? Didn't that experience fairly invite the "obvious" naive conclusion that is "race"?
I guess I was positing that the post-Columbia increase in scale made the slavers/eventual racializers change their benchmarks, not least for themselves.