@sempaiscuba You did manage to locate one instance of the term "white" being used by a single individual where they speculate on "Noe", apparently referencing stories from the bible "Noe, who all thrée being white, and their wiues also, by course of nature, should haue begotten and brought forth white children". However, the Bible and speculation thereabout is historically worthless.

Later in the text we find an attempt to describe "For euē vnder ye Equinoctiall in Ame∣rica, & in ye East Indies, & in the Ilāds Moluccae, yt people are not blacke, but white, with lōg haire vncurled as we haue" That single reference, while an interesting counterpoint, still does not satisfy the term "white" being used in British Colonial law whatsoever prior to 1681.

@sempaiscuba 1. The term "race" does not appear in the actual laws of British Colonies in the 1660's. The term was not used in law until much later historically. You cannot insert the term "race" into the text of the laws of 1660's British Colonies.

2. There was no actual human being named Aristotle. Even if you believe there was. The literature attributed to Aristotle is the direct result of copying Ancient Egyptian literature which was confiscated by Ptolemy I and housed in the so-called "Great Library of Alexandria", which was no more than an impound for the literature which was taken from the Ancient Egyptians when the temple societies refused to accept Ptolemy I as a deity, later attributed to "Aristotle".

@guest271314 Sadly, once again, you are mistaken. The first use of the word "race" in English was by William Dunbar in 1508 where he used the term to refer to a line of kings. From about the 1560s it was used more widely to refer to a "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock"

3. We know that Ptolemy I confiscated the literature of the Ancient Egyptians for refusing to incorporate their image as a deity, then all of a sudden Aristotle supposed writes copious amounts of literature on every imaginable topic. We cannot come to a consensus on the topic of Aristotle actually composing the numerous works attributed to them, You can believe that story if you want to.

"The first use of the word "race" in English was by William Dunbar in 1508 where he used the term to refer to a line of kings." Are we still discussing the laws of the British Colonies in the 1660's?

Embarking on the topic of the complexion of royalty in Europe is an entirely different topic. Where there are far too many historically verifiable instances of Africans, Moors, Ethiopians, whatever you want to label them as, being kings, bankers, saints, scoundrels, etc. in Europe proper.

No. It is only you who is interested in the laws of the colonies. The question is about whether racism existed. As the question asks: "Was race really unimportant in the 1660's?"

@sempaiscuba Yes, it is. "race" is federally defined in the U.S.

@guest271314 No, it isn't. Not now and not then.

But not in the UK, nor was it in England prior to the acts of union, and we are talking of a time when those states were British colonies.

That is why we should strictly define what period of history we are discussing. Is the topic the British Colonies in the 1660's, or the entire fraud of "race"?

The federal United States didn't exist in 1660, but the concept of a race of people certainly did.

Can you cite the specific laws which used the term "race" in the 1660's?

Which part of "race is not defined by laws in the United Kingdom, and never has been in any of it's constituent parts" was confusing?

Am not sure what your last message means.

For the UK, and its historic constituent parts, the concept of race existed independently of any law.

We are not discussing a "concept of race". We are discussing precisely the laws of nations which created and still perpetuate the absolute fraud of "race". Whether that be a so-called "white" "race", "black" "race", or, in the U.S., the legal "some other race".

Though, even if we were to discuss "race" as a concept, we still need to define what "race" means.

"Race" has never been defined in law in England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. The legal definitions you keep going back to are an anachronism from a United States that was far in the future in the 1660s.

That is where you are mistaken. If only for how the U.S. defines "race" at the federal level, presently; and how persons whom discuss the topic tend to insert terms where they are not historically accurate. "race" in the U.S. is a direct result of the 1681 law.

And exactly how do you think the the federal United States legislature defined race in the 1660s?

No, that is not what said. The 1681 law created a class termed "white", which has nothing to do with biology or genetics. That law survives today in the form of "race". It is the refined mechanism of fraud, as the term "white" claims the whole of the fictional "North Africa" for persons whom self-identify as "white", while sending those whom self-identify as "black", or any "race" that is not "white", on a wild goose chase - to sew confusion.

Actually, that is exactly what you said. I stated that race is not defined in law. You replied ""race" is federally defined in the U.S.", and I pointed out that we are talking about British law, in British colonies, at a time before the US existed.

Study of the subject matter began here when reviewing the federal definition of "race" in the U.S., what was particularly startling was the definition of "black" being "one of the black racial groups of Africa", which is absolute nonsense, at the very minimum requires the question as to "how many 'black racial groups of Africa` are there"? For that matter, how many "white" "races" are there. That led directly to the 1681 law.

The fact that the concept of "race" existed meant that it was possible for people to be treated differently on the basis of that distinction. And that is the definition of "racism".

If you wish to ask (and, if you wish, answer) a new question on the subject of the history of federal definitions of race in the US, then please do so. You are clearly knowledgeable on that subject.

However, please don't "soapbox" on the subject on other people's questions and answers.

What are you talking about? If you are going to accuse this user of "soapbox", we could easily accuse your entire site of not only "soapbox" but outright censorship and some twisted view that moderators know what they are posting about. Again, there was no law in the 1660's British Colonies which defined "race", as you yourself pointed out. Am directly challenging the historical "concept of "race"", as obviously the topic causes confusion - as it is intended to do. Your accusation is meritless

Your deleted answers which made no attempt to answer the question are what I was referring to when I said please don't soapbox on the subject.

I also pointed out that the concept of "race" (as indeed almost any other concept) does not require a legal basis for it to exist.

Am challenging the idea that Aristotle existed as a human on this planet, and western academia in general, on any and all topics which the concept of "western academia" propagandize across this globe; from the fictional Bible, to the ongoing fraud of "race", to the notion of there being "white" persons; et al., to your cites' censorship activities. This answer does not answer the question. Delete it. This question "soapbox"s Aristotle, who is absolutely irrelevant to 1660's British Colonies

We seem to be going in circles. I've already answered this in the points I listed above

Who the hell do you think you are to state that this users' answers made no attempt to answer the question? The answers simply contested your view that your opinion is correct 100% of the time.

It is also possible that you simply do not understand the subject matter. Or, your view of the subject is lacking proper experience. That "soapbox" accusation is why you have so little credibility as moderators and as a site as a whole. Especially when you ignore the ridiculous inclusion of Aristotle at your moderator collegues' answer. Aristotle is not remotely related to 1600's British Colonies, but you are in league with your compatriot and ignore what you accuse.

If you do not like the answer, "downvote" it, don't delete it. You make yourself into an active censor, not a moderator, when you delete content whatsoever on a site purporting to deal with history. No content should be deleted which deals with and contributes to the subject matter history.

I've already answered your point about Aristotle above, together with your claims that the question was not about racism, and that the term "Moor" was not used to describe race.

"Moor" is a nationality, not a race

The records I cited above show that the people of late 15th century and 16 century England and Scotland would have disagreed with you.

You are not new to Stack Exchange, so you should be familiar with the rules. They are set out in the Help Centre if you need to refresh your memory.

That is western propaganda of the 15th century

Your "rules" are a fraud. You do as you please when you want to promote western academic propaganda

@guest271314 In the context of this question, and Semaphore's answer, what the Moors called themselves is irrelevant.

@guest271314 And, since it is a quarter to four in the morning here, what I want to do now is go to bed. So that is what I shall do. Good night.

"In the context of this question, and Semaphore's answer, what the Moors called themselves is irrelevant." What? That makes no sense. Moors were in the British Colonies in the 1660's. Shakespeare is also entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the question. Yet you still ignore those facts and yet have the audacity to make the accusation of "soapbox". That is why your site is a fraud.

Good night.