Negroes and Negro "Slavery:" the first an inferior race: the latter its normal condition.Van Evrie, John H.
History
Negroes and Negro "Slavery:" the first an inferior race: the latter its normal condition.
Van Evrie, John H.
African Americans; Slavery -- Justification; Slavery -- United States
The races, so-called, that figured most prominently during the period
beginning with authentic history and terminating in the dark ages, are
first, the Semitic, which included the Egyptians, Carthaginians,
Persians, Syrians, Hebrews or Jews, Saracens, Arabians, etc., indeed
under the term Semitic may be included all the Orientals, except the
Parthians, who were doubtless a mixed people, and those northern tribes,
historically known as Scythians, afterwards the conquerors of Egypt and
the progenitors of that extraordinary military autocracy known in modern
times by the name of Mamelukes. The second great branch was the
Pelasgian, which included the Macedonians, the Romans, the Hellenic
tribes, Dorians, Thracians, etc., and of which the Romans were for
nearly two thousand years the main representatives. Between these great
branches of the Caucasian—for they were both doubtless, typical
Caucasians, though Agassiz thinks that the Semitic constituted a
separate species—there was almost constant war, from the very beginning
of history to the capture of Constantinople. The Greek and Trojan war
was doubtless a collision of this kind—and so were the wars of the
Greeks and Persians—the conquests of Alexander, which, for a time,
almost annihilated the Persian empire—the terrible life-and-death
struggle of the Romans and Carthaginians, and finally the invasion and
conquest of Spain by the Arabians, with their ultimate defeat by the
Franks under Charles Martel. Indeed, coming down to more modern times,
we find the Crusades, when nearly all Europe, in a fit of uncontrollable
phrensy, precipitated itself on Asia; and in the collapse which
followed, Asiatic hordes, though not exactly Semitic, again seeking to
penetrate into Europe, and actually conquering the remains of the old
Roman empire, in the eastern capital of which they are now firmly
established. Historians are wont to magnify the results of these
contests, especially the defeat of Hannibal and the overthrow of the
Carthaginians by the Romans, and the defeat of the Arabians by the
Franks, as of vital importance to the world and the best interests of
mankind; but it is quite possible that they over-estimate these things,
especially the victory of the Romans over the Carthaginians. They were
both of the same species of men, both branches of the Caucasian, with
the same nature, the same tendencies, and, under the same circumstances,
the same beings. The Carthaginians were, for the time, highly civilized.
They were the heirs of the Egyptian and Asiatic civilizations, as Rome
was of that of the Greeks. They were a great commercial people, with
boundless wealth, science, arts, manufactures, everything but a warlike
spirit; while Rome, at the time without commerce, poor and torn by
factions, was a mere military aristocracy, and the capital itself little
more than a military encampment. Why, then, should the defeat of the
former have been beneficial to the progress of the race, or to the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account