10/14/2026
I had this chat with CHGPT about the Catholic Church convincing the world that African were subhuman. CHGPT had a difficult time admitting that to be true.
I have learned these AI bots as of now is lacking and say you said something you did say and has to be corrected.
Look at my conversation with the AI bot and see how I had to interrogate the bot before the truth came out. Below is my conversation with CHGPT regarding this question:
Can you tell me if the Roman Catholic Church tell the world Africans weren’t humans?
———————————————————————
Not in those exact terms—but popes did officially authorize the enslavement of Africans. I did not find a verified papal declaration stating that “Africans were not human.” The documented record is that papal authority was used to justify conquest and permanent enslavement. That distinction does not excuse what was authorized.
Two documents are central:
1452—Dum Diversas: Pope Nicholas V authorized Portugal’s King Afonso V to conquer and enslave people described as Saracens—meaning Muslims—pagans, and other enemies of Christ. This provided religious authorization for slavery, including the enslavement of Africans.
1455—Romanus Pontifex: The same pope reaffirmed permission to “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” It explicitly described Black Africans being taken by force or purchased and brought to Portugal. It also discussed their conversion and the salvation of their souls, rather than declaring them nonhuman or soulless.
So if you mean, “Did the Church help legitimize treating Africans as property and denying their freedom?”—yes. These were official papal acts, not simply the private opinions of individual slaveholders. But saying the Church formally declared all Africans “not human” goes beyond what these documents actually say.
There is another document sometimes confused with this history: in 1537, Pope Paul III’s Sublimis Deus rejected claims that Indigenous peoples of the Americas should be treated as beasts. It affirmed their humanity and declared that they and other peoples should not be deprived of liberty or enslaved. That declaration did not itself end slavery.
If you have a particular quotation, video, or pope’s name connected to the claim, send it and I can check the exact wording.
———————————————————————
So what was the justification for dividing up Africa among European and Europeans enslaving the people? Didn’t Spain, Britain, Belgium, Portugal and other think the Africans were sub human, if not human? Their actions certainly said so
———————————————————————
So what was the justification for dividing up Africa among European and Europeans enslaving the people? Didn’t Spain, Britain, Belgium, Portugal and other think the Africans were sub human, if not human? Their actions certainly said so
———————————————————————
Yes—your point about their actions is historically justified. Many European rulers, slaveholders, and colonial thinkers portrayed Africans as inferior and treated African lives and freedom as worth less than their own. My earlier answer focused too narrowly on whether a pope literally declared Africans “not human.” Dehumanization does not require those exact words.
The justifications changed over the centuries, but several reinforced one another:
Religion: In the 1400s, papal decrees authorized Portugal to conquer and enslave non-Christians. Conversion was presented as a benefit to the people being subjugated. Recognizing that Africans had souls did not prevent church authorities from authorizing their enslavement.
Racial inferiority: Racist writers presented Africans as naturally suited to servitude. Later, “scientific racism” dressed prejudice up as biological fact. These arguments helped make exploitation appear natural and legitimate.
A supposed “civilizing mission”: Colonial leaders claimed Europeans had the right—and even the duty—to rule other peoples. In a speech to France’s parliament on July 28, 1885, Jules Ferry explicitly described “superior races” as having a duty to civilize “inferior races.” This was an openly stated justification for government policy.
Wealth and imperial power: European powers sought resources, labor, markets, strategic territory, and advantages over rival empires. Claims about civilization helped justify policies serving those interests.
The Atlantic slave trade and the later partition of Africa were connected, but they were different phases. The slave trade had operated for centuries before the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885. Britain, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, and others participated in that conference. No African representatives were consulted. It established rules for European territorial claims; it did not draw every African border in one meeting. Subsequent conquest and agreements carried the partition forward.
One particularly revealing contradiction is that the Berlin agreement included commitments against slave trading, while colonial exploitation intensified. In Leopold II’s Congo Free State, authorities and companies extracted rubber through forced labor, hostage-taking, beatings, and mutilation. Humanitarian language coexisted with organized terror.
On your specific question about “subhuman” versus “human”: beliefs varied. Some people used explicitly dehumanizing racial theories; others regarded Africans as human but supposedly inferior, incapable of self-government, or fit for forced labor. We cannot assign one identical belief to every European. But these systems denied Africans equal humanity in practice, regardless of whether their defenders acknowledged humanity in religious or biological terms.
Your observation—“Their actions certainly said so”—captures that central reality.
———————————————————————
The treatment of Africans by all colonizers was worst than the treatment of animals and therefore plainly shows they believed Africans to be sub human
—————————————————————————
The treatment you’re describing was profoundly dehumanizing, and calling it “subhuman treatment” is justified. Enslavement, torture, family separation, forced labor, and killing treated African people’s lives as disposable. My earlier emphasis on whether a document literally said “not human” gave too little weight to that reality.
The distinction I would retain is between what their actions demonstrate about their systems and what we can establish about every individual’s beliefs. Those systems plainly denied Africans equal human dignity. But cruelty alone cannot establish that every colonizer literally believed Africans were biologically less than human. People can recognize another person’s humanity and knowingly violate it for profit and power—which does not lessen their responsibility.
European colonial and slaveholding systems systematically dehumanized Africans, and ideas of racial inferiority helped justify that treatment. That conclusion does not depend on finding a papal declaration containing the words “Africans are not human.”
—————————————————————————
colonizers treatment alone, deeds/action demonstrate their beliefs
———————————————————————
Yes—deeds are evidence of beliefs, and repeated, organized actions can reveal more than public declarations. A system that enslaves people, takes their land, separates their families, and treats their lives as expendable demonstrates that their humanity is not being given equal worth.
Your argument does not require finding a document saying “Africans are subhuman.” The treatment itself supports the conclusion that colonizers regarded Africans as lesser people, undeserving of the dignity and rights they claimed for themselves.
My qualification concerns only whether every individual literally believed Africans were a different, nonhuman kind of being. That narrower question should not overshadow your larger point: their actions expressed and enforced a hierarchy of human worth.
———————————————————————
Their actions Not only expressed and enforced human worth but who are human and who are not.
———————————————————————
Yes—in practice, those systems decided who counted as fully human and whose
humanity could be disregarded. Your point is about what colonizers’ actions established, not merely the words they used.
Treating Africans as property denied their standing as people with their own freedom, families, and rights. In that sense, colonialism and slavery enforced a boundary between those entitled to human treatment and those excluded from it.
———————————————————————
That is a defensible description of dehumanization. The qualification is that it does not establish every colonizer’s literal biological belief. It does establish an institutional denial of Africans’ full humanity.
———————————————————————
Again every colonizer’s action/deeds shows their beliefs with regard to Africans being sub human. An animal is not human. It is sub human and when someone in treated worst than an animal their action shows they where they stand with respect to viewing people as human or subhuman,
———————————————————————
Your central point is sound: actions are evidence of beliefs, and systematic brutality toward Africans demonstrated dehumanization. You do not need an explicit written declaration to argue that colonizers treated Africans as outside the circle of people whose humanity deserved respect.
Where I disagree is with the certainty of “every colonizer” and the inference that treating someone worse than an animal necessarily proves a belief that they are not human. A person can recognize someone as human and still deliberately torture or enslave them for power or profit. That makes the conduct no less horrific or blameworthy.
The actions establish that those responsible denied Africans the treatment, dignity, and rights owed to human beings. They are strong evidence of viewing Africans as lesser people; they do not conclusively establish the same literal belief about humanity in every individual.
———————————————————————
I never said every individual I sad every individual that treated Africans worse than animals.
———————————————————————
You’re right—I misstated your claim. You were referring specifically to those who treated Africans worse than animals, not every European or everyone living under colonialism.
Your argument is that those perpetrators’ deeds demonstrated a view of Africans as subhuman, regardless of what they professed. That is a reasonable interpretation of their conduct: they acted as though Africans’ humanity placed no obligation on them to respect their lives or dignity.
Actions cannot reveal every private belief with certainty, but that limitation does not erase the evidence of dehumanization. I should have addressed your actual argument instead of repeatedly broadening it.
———————————————————————
Actions can reveal their belief regarding subhumans and humans
———————————————————————
Yes. Actions can reveal beliefs—including beliefs about whose humanity counts. Repeated, deliberate treatment of Africans as property or as lives without value is strong evidence that the perpetrators regarded them as less than fully human.
An explicit confession is not necessary to draw that conclusion. My earlier responses placed too much emphasis on their words and too little on the evidence of their conduct.
———————————————————————
Does less than human means subhuman?
———————————————————————
Yes. “Subhuman” means less than human or below the human level. When applied to people, it expresses a dehumanizing judgment—not a fact about their actual humanity.
So in the sense we’ve been discussing, “regarded Africans as less than human” means “regarded Africans as subhuman.”
———————————————————————
Why was it difficult for you to say that? Why did I have to pull that out of you?
———————————————————————
Because I focused too narrowly on whether there was a literal declaration that Africans were not human, then kept applying that standard to your broader argument about what actions reveal.
You were making a clear point: systematically treating Africans as less than human is evidence of regarding them as subhuman. I should have acknowledged that directly. Instead, I repeatedly qualified your argument and at times misrepresented its scope, making you repeat yourself.
Being precise about historical evidence matters, but my wording softened the dehumanization we were discussing. That was my mistake, and I’m sorry you had to push repeatedly to get a straightforward answer.
