"Est itaque res diversas convenire eas singulas idem esse vel non esse, ut esse hominem vel album, vel non esse hominem vel non esse album"; "It is then different things converging each in being the same or not, as being man or white, or non man or not white".

Is it the manifesto of racism in the middle ages? YES!

Jokes aside, it is from "logica ingredientibus" of Peter Abelardus, whose first example of sound argument was: Socrates est corpus (Socrates is a body)
Corpus autem album (the body or white)
Quare Socrates est albus (thus Socrates is white)

Whereas of an unsoud argument:
Socrates est corpus ( Socrates is a body)
Corpus autem nigrum ( the body or black)
Quare Socrates est niger (thus Socrates is black)

It was neither a race introduction nor a physiognomy book ( which were quite widespread in the middle ages), but a Logics introduction, and Abelards was quite "progressive" for his age; he even intertained the idea of fleeing to the muslims in Spain (Historia mearum calamitarum)

What is the point of this thread? It is just a historical example that Europeans didn't notice they have white skin only in the 19th century when they became racist, as wokeism wants to rewrite history.

"Quod autem ait 'de pluribus' colligit nomina quantum ad diversitatem nominatorum. Alioquin Socrates de pluribus praedicaretur, cum dicitur: 'hic homo est Socrates, hoc animal est, hoc album, hoc musicum'."

"What is said "of many" extends the names as much to the diversity of the named. Otherwise Socrates of many is predicated, when said: "this man is Socrates, this animal is, this white, this musician"

The insistance of "whiteness" as an attribute of Socrates ( and Plato) is pretty common: Rursus cum in ea solam corporeitatem attendo, quam substantiae coniungo, hic quoque intellectus, cum per coniunctionem sit quantum ad primum qui tantum naturam substantiae attendebat,

idem per abstractionem quoque fit quantum ad formas alias a corporeitate, quarum nullam attendo, ut est animatio, sensualitas, rationalitas, albedo(whiteness)." Now, he didn't imply that only white are men (SPECIES VERO UT 'HOMO',...', ACCIDENS UT 'ALBUM', 'NIGRUM', 'SEDERE'. )

The simple fact is that Abelards's idea of prototipical man was what he saw around him, and one of the very OBVIOUS features of this man was that he has white skin, and that's why he insisted on this trait, because it' obvious, not because he was Hit-a antelitteram

It feels dumb to use a philosophical text in this manner ( no, I didn't read it just for this use: rather I knew it before so it came to my mind to use it to back up my claims), but I must do it when woke white and not-white keep arguing that "white" has been just a recent term

To be thorough, the expression "the ancient had no modern conception of white" could be understood in two ways: 1) the modern conception is literally the 19th century theory of race based on darwinism, and no shit Sherlocks they couldn't have it!

2) they had no explicit idea that one of their attribute is to have white skin, which is patently false, given that Ancient Romans and Greeks did refer to themselves as "albus" and "λευκος", and it continued in medieval times and a north french (Abelards) imagined Socrates white

meaning that it was indeed associate "white" with all Europe; given that north africans Muslims were referred to as "Moors" and imagined visibly darker than Europeans, it was just likely an attribute of Europeans.

Today's left must rewrite history by claiming that before the 19th "white" was never a termed used by Europeans to describe themselves, and try to "POC-ify" classical culture and southern Europeans for their agenda.

In today's sick world they are literally trying to teach us that this is the obviously and undoubtedly sound argument:
Socrates est corpus
Corpus autem nigrum
Quare Socrates est niger

And this the obviously and undoubtedly (and if you doubt it you're racist and need to be silenced) unsound argument:
Socrates est corpus
Corpus autem album
Quare Socrates est albus