Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: There are some things the Catholics have always been right about, never wavered, bringing prosperity
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours ago#134,597
Like being smart enough to know never to have nigger pope LOL
There may be twice as many Africants as Europeans, but one blacky would fuck up the whole thing. Think about it, did you ever meet a nigguh who knew how to read properly? The idiot wouldn't know what scripture was even saying!
TheDarkChad triple-posted this 3 hours ago, 11 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,670
The modern concept of race didn’t really exist in Roman times. They had slavery, but it wasn’t based on race. They mostly enslaved prisoners of war. Except, they had a system where a slave would work for a number of years before becoming a citizen of Rome, and it wasn’t that uncommon for former slaves to own slaves. So in Ancient Rome it wouldn’t be unheard of for someone from Africa to end up in a position of relative status (like being the pope for example). Prejudice against Africans is a relatively recent invention in history, in the past 500 years or so.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,676
@1,432,670 (TheDarkChad) > The modern concept of race didn’t really exist in Roman times.
Megacope. They could tell light and darkskins apart, and not once in the entire history of the Catholic church did they have a dark skinned pope.
For example, pope Gelasius I, the depiction of him on Wikipedia is from 1760, but he died in 496, so that was painted 1,264 years after his death. The person who painted that never saw him.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,681
@1,432,679 (TheDarkChad)
There have been 266 popes, and not a single one was dark skinned.
You are grasping at straws. "Uhh, his painting was white, but maybe he was black because it took them a long time to make it".
You are in a religion that has only ever been led by white people, for the same reason you are in a country that is known for white supremacy. You are terrified of existing in any culture that is controlled by niggers or gooks. You have the option to change cultures, but you would never, ever do it.
TheDarkChad replied with this 2 hours ago, 14 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,684
Actually the irony of this whole thing is that you don’t think that North Africans are black, except most of the Christians in Africa live in sub Saharan Africa. North Africa today is mostly Muslim and sub Saharan Africa today is mostly Christian.
TheDarkChad double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,685
@1,432,683 (A)
Yeah, that’s my point. Pope Gelasius I was born in what’s now modern day Tunisia. But you’re saying he was white because you looked at a picture painted by Europeans over a thousand years after he died, it doesn’t make sense.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 20 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,687
@1,432,684 (TheDarkChad)
There are black in North Africa, but the Catholic church never picked one of them to lead the Church. Understanding the culture of the time (490s), this should be immediately obvious to you.
There's a reason not a single Church historian has even floated the idea, because only a complete idiot could think that guy was black.
TheDarkChad double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,690
@1,432,688 (A)
I’ve been friends with Arabs before and never in my life have I heard an Arab identify as white. They identify with Islam and with the Arabic language.
TheDarkChad replied with this 2 hours ago, 44 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,693
@1,432,691 (A)
Because the vast majority of black people have always lived south of the Sahara desert. The Romans didn’t have a racial ideology about blacks being inferior, they just interacted with blacks less than they interacted with other cultures due to geography, and due to the fact the Romans didn’t have sophisticated sailing ships that came in later centuries.
TheDarkChad double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,694
@1,432,692 (A)
They had African popes. Black is a broad category created by Europeans based on how people look that doesn’t have much to do with the actual cultural diversity of Africa.
TheDarkChad triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,695
There’s evidence that the Romans did have expositions to sub Saharan Africa, but they were relatively rare. The Roman Empire didn’t have the technological capability to exert influence south of the Sahara the way they could in North Africa, which is why there were North African popes and not black popes.
TheDarkChad quadruple-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,696
It’s sort of roughly the equivalent of their relationship with China. They could send a few people to China, they knew China existed. There were no Chinese popes, but this doesn’t have anything to do with judgement of their culture or their race, it’s just the fact that they were geographically isolated from each other. The Romans knew sub Saharan Africa existed, but it’s not a place any random Roman could just get up and go to whenever they felt like, it’s not a place where they could send the Roman army to conquer. It was just a far away place maybe some curious Romans might have been to a few times for the sake of exploring or whatever.
TheDarkChad quintuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,697
And you have to use your brain here. The western Roman Empire lasted 500 years. Slavery in Ancient Rome wasn’t race based. They had Germanic slaves because they considered Germanic people to be barbarians. They had all sorts of different ethnicities of slaves and slaves could work to earn their freedom. Rome wasn’t founded on a racial ideology. The United States was founded on an ideology of race based slavery. Black slaves in the United States could never earn their freedom, and their children were also slaves. However, the US is only 250 years old, and in that time the US went from having chattel slavery to electing a black man president twice. If Rome wasn’t founded on chattel slavery, and it lasted longer than the United States, the reason why there weren’t black people in positions of power in Rome probably has more to do with the fact that there would have been fewer black people living in Europe during the Roman Empire than were living in the United States during slavery.
TheDarkChad sextuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,699
It’s also a fallacy to assume that being in positions of power inherently means you’re not discriminated against. For example, there’s never been an Asian American president. Asian Americans earn more than black Americans. That doesn’t mean white people aren’t racist against Asians, they are, but it’s not as intense, so Asians can perform better in the United States than black Americans. But there are more black Americans in political positions of power than Asian Americans because there are just twice as many black people so it doesn’t matter.
TheDarkChad septuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,432,700
Which if you google how many blacks vs Asians there are in congress, this logic holds. There are roughly 3x as many blacks in congress as Asians despite the fact that Asians earn more on average than black Americans and therefore are less oppressed.
Anonymous B nonuple-posted this 1 hour ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,432,703
Actually the more I look into it online, the Romans didn't document the skin color of the popes that were from Africa because it wasn’t considered to be important so they’re actually not 100% sure what they’re ethnicity was.
This is from a BBC article:
Prof Bellitto says there is no way of knowing with any degree of accuracy what the three popes looked like.
"We have to remember that the Roman Empire, and indeed the Middle Ages, didn't think of race as we think of it nowadays. It had nothing to do with skin colour," he told the BBC.
"People in the Roman Empire didn't deal with race, they dealt with ethnicity."
Prof Philomena Mwaura, an academic at Kenya's Kenyatta University, told the BBC that Roman Africa was very multicultural, with local Berber and Punic groups, freed slaves and people who had come from Rome found there.
"The North African community was quite mixed, and it was a trade route also for many people who were involved in trade in the earlier antiquity," she explained.