Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The unions wouldn't be religiously blessed, Ohrud Omel said that marriage is forbidden for slaves, though of course there would be civil partnerships going on in some capacity (whether completely informal and unofficial or more or less validated by the Holders. Allowing such would be necessary for slave control and we have seen family units existing among slaves in lore). It's said in Chained to the Sky that one of the things the 9th gen slaves would be needed to do on being freed is get their unions registered with the authorities.

The quote by Omel only implies, in my opinion, that a marriage between a free man or even holder and a slave was impossible. If what 'was whispered' in The Lottery is true, slaves are able to marry amongst slaves.

[Gaven Lok ri]

Gaven and I have discussed this before, and thought that it would probably be more common that slaves would be physically prevented from breeding "independently" and that they either would require permission from their Holders (in the case of higher class, freer slaves) or be forced to specific pairings (in the case of breeding colony slaves) in order to procreate. Population control, and all that.

Here's where I'll disagree: While forced contraception might be a thing in the toughest work environments and places where a pregnancy might actually be a reasonably health risk, in general it clashes heavily with the idea of slavery being a method to create a loyal, faithful underclass. In many cases, you would instead want to encourage them to try and behave like "civilized people" - including forming families of their own when in religiously blessed unions.

The issue with this is slaves in positions that do not allow for maternity/paternity leave and which are considered higher value by the holder than the prospect of slave children. I just cannot imagine Holders not wanting to have control of who produces kids with whom and when. And I certainly can't imagine that EVE lacks birth control. Hence, it makes sense to me that Holders would often as a matter of course mandate birth control use unless they want the female slave to become pregnant. Edit: I can certainly imagine that *some* holders would avoid doing this due to religious arguments, but many would care more about efficacious slaves than they would religious justifications.

I would also expect that this differs region to region in Amarr. One of the big points I would like to make is that the interpretation of the purpose of slavery is varied and changes from one region to another massively. I don't think *any* of our sources in the PF can be used to talk about *all* Amarrian slavery. Amarr is just too big for that. If there was a single interpretation of what slavery means in Amarr that would actually be totally unbelievable and unrealistic. So I would suggest that we localize each PF piece talking about it and use it to talk about regional interpretations rather than Amarrian interpretations.

[Jace]

I neither meant to nor do I see how I intimated that Angels in particular have "some kind of deviant obsession or objectives with their slaves". I agree though, that PF doesn't imply as much, as far as I can see. Yet, in distinction to the Amarr, I don't see anything in PF that suggests that there are any mechanism preventing it within the Angels.

True, there is nothing in the PF that implies they have a mechanism against such a thing. Since I don't want to derail the thread about Angels, I'll just leave it by saying that I think the focus of some Angel roleplayers of going down that road is unfortunate and against the general 'feel' the PF gives the Angels.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Agreed. The breeding colonies do represent a conflict with this, though. It's quite hypocritical to be opposed to sexual abuse of slaves by the Holder/custodians but it being a-okay to have them abused by other slaves for the sake of breeding.

I'm increasingly wondering if we as capsuleers run into these things for specifically this reason: If breeding facilities are heavily looked down on, then it makes sense that they would be hidden away at highly secret deadspace facilities, which are considerably harder to find than any planetside or station-based operation. When they are attacked, it also follows that the owner would want to contract defense out to a capsuleer who is not going to give a damn about the facility 99% of the time and not may not have any realistic means to recover the people within even when they do.

Or it could just be a conflicting mission legacy fluke, like the huge fleets casually violating empire sovereignty.

[Samira Kernher]

The scraps of Scripture as well as other PF suggests that the Amarr understood 'heritage' to be rather a cultural thing than a genetic one. This goes hand in hand with the idea of orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy being the thing that is placed more importance on in the Empire. Arguably, the opposition to Udorians and especially the Tash-Murkonites lies to a great degree in them obviously not having abandoned the mercantilistic ways of the Udorians.

I'd say 'in addition to' rather than, well, 'rather than'. There is enough PF, new and old, that indicates it. Genetics and not just culture is certainly something that comes up very often with Ardishapurites, at least. However, as we see with the news article about Derak Tanar, such beliefs are considered bad form in today's Amarr to the point that a person outwardly expressing it is considered scandalous by all but the most conservative groups.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/ardishapur-school-chancellor-appointee-draws-criticism-1/

This news article about Derak Tanar is usually pulled up to present the 'racial' view as 'conservative'. Yet, nothing in the article suggests that the 'racial' view is particularly traditional or something to be 'conserved'. While his lecture was "Scriptural Evidence Supporting the Continuing Servitude of Udorians, Ealurians, Khanid, Ni-Kunni, and Minmatar." it is clear from the article that it represents an interpretation that actually goes against tradition as the article points out that it advocated a stripping of title and privilege from all citizens of the Empire who were not of pure True Amarrian ancestry, as the Udorians and Khanids which, by tradition, hold those titles for a really long time.

Tanar himself might be a conservative, but his view about the "inferiority of those of non-pure Amarrian blood" doesn't need to be a conservative view. Rather it seems to me that it is a view adopted by those that want to push back the influence of non-True Amarr. They might do so because of a generally conservative agenda (like ensuring the purity of Amarrian heritage, which certainly is a traditional and conservative position), but that also doesn't make it a particularly conservative position either.

I was referring to the fact that backlash only happened among the non-TA nobility/wealthy commoners and liberal True Amarr only. The conservatives didn't object to his statements.

Additionally, most instances of support for racial purity in lore have come from conservative characters, and frequently from the Ardishapur bloc.

Also, whether or not it is actually traditional or not is hard to place. It is definitely a thing to keep in mind that what was once traditional is now liberal in many cases, due to the Moral Reforms. The Ardishapurites, afterall, cannot be counted as truly traditional when they in fact supported the Moral Reforms to regain their position of power, and thus at the time acted in establishing a new 'tradition'. It's quite possible that racial ideas are something that has only cropped up in recent centuries but are now touted as a 'conservative' belief today.

I do however believe that it is a conservative mindset in today's Amarr whether or not it was always one. There have been too many instances of conservatives in lore supporting the belief either directly (in the case of Tanar, Idonis, and Yonis, among others) or indirectly (the fact that conservatives are shown to have no issue with Tanar's claims, and that prior to recently Ardishapur territories were a place with many stigmas in place towards those of non-TA bloodlines and races, according to Ardishapur Family article). And Tanar was placed in power specifically because Yonis wants to put what he considers traditional values at the fore to challenge Jamyl's influence: The fact that Yonis claims it's "because of his performance and not his beliefs" is just Yonis's PR spin to avoid looking like he's directly supporting what is at least today an outlier belief, but he definitely is wanting Tanar's ideals at the fore.

In other words, I think the racial purity thing is a hardcore conservative trait. But that is, it is a trait seen among at least the highly conservative members of the conservative political bloc in today's Amarr. And what counts as conservative in a political bloc does not always mean actually traditional or conservative (see America's conservative party which has values that would not be considered conservative in other places. It's 'conservative' for a particular point in history that it wants to preserve in today's world, even though that point in history is still relatively recent). I do not think the view has always been in favor, however, and that it isn't truly traditional in terms of the religion and Scripture except in perhaps the oldest records or most obscure records (which were possibly explicitly edited in in later centuries, much like the increased power given to the emperor which is now also touted as a conservative belief even though most of it didn't exist until the Moral Reforms).

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Given what you write in your last response, Samira, I don't see where you then still say that the 'racial view' is conservative, save for it being held by 'conservatives'.

I'd define conservatism as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Conservative ideas proper are then to be understood as those traditional ideas that are seen to be so valuable that they should be retained.

Thus, I'd make a sharp distinction between 'conservative views' and 'views held by (so-called) conservatives'.

Of course 'traditional' is realtive. But there is a tradition that encompasses how things were handeled since the moral reforms. Arguably there is a tradition of a strong Emperor since that time (and arguably one that is connecting to the reign of Amash-Akura himself).

The idea of 'racial purity' doesn't have a history in Amarr, though, it seems to me, that reaches back any further than the conquest of the Matari, probably though even being a reaction to the Matari rebellion. I think people treading the 'racial line' are better characterised as 'reactionary' than 'conservative' (so, yes 'hardcore-conservatives'), even, as they clearly yearn for the ancient times when there were only Amarr back on Amarr island - though even then there was arguably no idea of 'racial purity' at the forefront, as the issue simply didn't arise. It's a trait of people overcompensating in trying to conserve what they think the Empire has already lost.

Also, I'm not quite sure where the notion arose that Ardishapurites have a tradition of 'trying to preserve racial purity':

When Yonis was for Championship trials 'as long as they remained racially pure' can't really be understood that he was supporting a cause alike to Tanar's racism. This can be easily seen as he wanted to exclude non-Amarr in the broad use of the term 'Amarr'. Also when building up the Ammatar mandate he didn't put them all under the thump of True Amarr, which he very well could have done. Rather he promoted on the one hand a more pure Amarrian culture, that was none the less upheld by Ammatar leadership. And the same goes for his very own domains as reforms pushed by Yonis have encouraged people of all races and bloodlines to seek religious enlightenment there. By the way the original Ardishapur power base on Athra was Ves-Udor! I'm quite sure that carried over to the population of the modern Ardishapurite domains.

So, I don't see where Yonis is placing Tanar where he is for any other reasons than the ones he stated, nor why he should do so. After all Jamyl is True Amarr. If purity would be dependant on race and genetics in addition to (instead of only on) righteous and faithful action, that would actually stregthen Jamyls position as she will be passing the race and genetics test with flying flags.

Also, I don't see where in the article (on the Evelopedia at least), you read that "Ardishapur territories were a place with many stigmas in place towards those of non-TA bloodlines and races". The only thing I read there is that "Many of the old stigmas still exist, however, making the area particularly uncomfortable for foreigners.". Foreigners, though, are arguably not identical with 'non-True Amarr', as many natives of the Ardishapur Domains will be in fact Udorians, as I argued above. In fact it is quite probable that 'foreigners' encompasses in this case True Amarr from other domains.

I don't think that in the history of Amarr the 'racial view' ever had a place in orthodoxy: The only place in history where we know that such ideas developed was with the Sani Sabik and they quite surely, I think, have been purged together with the heretics. There might be allusions to this from the Proto-Sabik era still in the corpus, but I'd guess that one would have to put some effort and will into them to come to conclude that it is race/genetics that make the Amarr superior.

That aside, it is really rediculous to argue for the 'continued servitude of the Khanid', when the vast majority of the Khanid never were in servitude to the Amarr, but rather allies. Tanar might not see that, but Yonis is (hopefully, you never know where CCP goes) too smart for not seeing that. After all he is described as preferring the 'caroot to the stick', practicing a kind of cultural mercantilism where he is against cultural import while at the same time sending out highly trained missionaries. I'm sure he sees that 'continued servitude to your True Amarr masters' doesn't make a particularly great carrot. If he'd see it like Tanar, he'd surely be more the 'stick' kind'a guy...

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I would also expect that this differs region to region in Amarr. One of the big points I would like to make is that the interpretation of the purpose of slavery is varied and changes from one region to another massively. I don't think *any* of our sources in the PF can be used to talk about *all* Amarrian slavery. Amarr is just too big for that. If there was a single interpretation of what slavery means in Amarr that would actually be totally unbelievable and unrealistic. So I would suggest that we localize each PF piece talking about it and use it to talk about regional interpretations rather than Amarrian interpretations.

I kind'a disagree. Exactly because Amarr is so big there needs to be set a certain range in which then, in turn, variation happens. Else the Amarr would disintegrate into distinct cultures. Scriptural Law has exactly that function. It states the purpose of slavery and defines certain basics (like outlawing slave abuse) - and they dam well will claim that those things apply all over the Empire. Little pockets where scriptural law is not practiced but opposed by practice better pray the MIO and the TC don't take notice. (Which ofc doesn't mean they don't exist, but again they'd be the exception.) Differences will be in what constitues e.g. slave abuse aor how the (educative) pupose of slavery is fulfilled.

If there'd be fundamental disunities allowed in defining things like this (slavery is intricately linked with the idea of relaiming and thus central to Amarr identity), Amarr wouldn't be able to maintain unity over such vast territories. Thus, if there is not some fundamental Empire wide interpretation/definition of what slavery means (on which details then regions can variate), that would be totally unbelievable and unrealistic - in my opinion.

[Gaven Lok ri]

I think Amarr *is* distinct cultures depending on area, class, region ect.

The way I see the Amarr controlling things is to create a list of unacceptable practice, IE Heresies, that is updated and maintained to keep people in line. So, if you say x heretical thing you get called out, but as long as you aren't crossing a forbidden territory line, I think there is massive room for variation. Basically, restrictive theology is more likely than prescriptive theology on most day to day points. Everyone has different views, but if a view is too far out of line it gets banned then everyone has to disavow it. This sort of approach is certainly how the creation of Orthodoxy in the Late Antique period worked, and that was a much smaller scale than Amarr.

I really cannot imagine a culturally homogeneous culture on the scale of CCP's Amarr.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Logically speaking, restrictive theology and prescriptive theology are essentially not that different. Whether you say 'treat your slaves right' or 'don't abuse your slaves' is basically just semantics. Similarly, you can state the educative purpose of slavery positively or negatively.

And in fact Christianity, as it started to get bigger and bigger, turned away from simply banning those that were too far out, but established an orthodoxy (on which then, in the details there ins variance).

That aside, that there are certain fundamentals on which all Amarr agree doesn't mean that the Amarr are culturally homogenous. It's like the modern day "western cultural sphere": There are hughe differences between, say, Germans and texans, but yet there are certain fundamentals they (generally) agree on (Like: Slavery is bad.). The HRE was most of the time not culturally homogenous, yet, there were certain standards that were enforced Empire wide, which kept it (sometimes barely) together. One needs elements that tie an otherwise heterogenous entity together, otherwise it desintegrates.

[Samira Kernher]

Thus, I'd make a sharp distinction between 'conservative views' and 'views held by (so-called) conservatives'.

I tend to see it as the party determining the views rather than vice versa. IE if conservatives hold a view, even if it's not conservative or traditional in any kind of 'real' way, it's still part of the conservative dogma because that's the view they hold. In other words I think what is classified as conservative is going to be based very little on Scripture or history (or rather, they'll be based on a few very specific eras or pieces of Scripture that can be twisted to suit political needs), and very much on what modern Amarrian conservatives profess and can convince others is conservative.

This is, of course, something that should and probably would be argued in Amarrian politics. "You say you hold conservative values, yet you claim X for Y reason!" This is especially the case in the Council of Apostles issue, where one can easily say that the CoA would be the traditional choice and yet modern conservatives are highly opposed to it.

I think people treading the 'racial line' are better characterised as 'reactionary' than 'conservative' (so, yes 'hardcore-conservatives'), even, as they clearly yearn for the ancient times when there were only Amarr back on Amarr island - though even then there was arguably no idea of 'racial purity' at the forefront, as the issue simply didn't arise. It's a trait of people overcompensating in trying to conserve what they think the Empire has already lost.

Yes, agreed very much with this. Reactionary is a good word. I went with hardcore conservativism for lieue of saying anything else, but I would consider at least the strongest forms of it (like Tanar) to be considered extremism and so yes, reactionary. And Tanar is doing like I said above, trying to take a small piece of Scripture and argue that it proves a certain value that should therefore be applied in modern society.

When Yonis was for Championship trials 'as long as they remained racially pure' can't really be understood that he was supporting a cause alike to Tanar's racism. This can be easily seen as he wanted to exclude non-Amarr in the broad use of the term 'Amarr'. Also when building up the Ammatar mandate he didn't put them all under the thump of True Amarr, which he very well could have done. Rather he promoted on the one hand a more pure Amarrian culture, that was none the less upheld by Ammatar leadership.

Explicitly because he was politically savvy. Jamyl and everyone else expected him to put them all under the thump of True Amarr and cause unrest amongst the Mandate and thus weaken himself. He acted out of character in his handling of the Mandate.

As for his stance, it is stated in Source that he is a 'True Amarr supremacist', which again is precisely why he was considered likely to fail in the Mandate and surprised everyone when he didn't. So as I see it any case we see of him demonstrating other values are the result of his public relations campaign and not a reflection of his real values. He's a politician.

Also, I don't see where in the article (on the Evelopedia at least), you read that "Ardishapur territories were a place with many stigmas in place towards those of non-TA bloodlines and races". The only thing I read there is that "Many of the old stigmas still exist, however, making the area particularly uncomfortable for foreigners.". Foreigners, though, are arguably not identical with 'non-True Amarr', as many natives of the Ardishapur Domains will be in fact Udorians, as I argued above. In fact it is quite probable that 'foreigners' encompasses in this case True Amarr from other domains.

I referred to that part for the fact that it says that prior to Yonis, Ardishapur territories were bad places for non-TA bloodlines. Them opening up is something recent.

"... reforms pushed by Yonis have encouraged people of all races and bloodlines to seek religious enlightenment."

Ergo, prior to Yonis's reforms people of non-TA races and bloodlines were not encouraged (if not discouraged). For reforms to be instituted requires there to have been something to be changed.

So, I don't see where Yonis is placing Tanar where he is for any other reasons than the ones he stated, nor why he should do so. After all Jamyl is True Amarr. If purity would be dependant on race and genetics in addition to (instead of only on) righteous and faithful action, that would actually stregthen Jamyls position as she will be passing the race and genetics test with flying flags.

I suppose so. For me, I see it as mostly the idea that Yonis wants someone who will go hardliner leading the education field, so that up-and-coming Amarrians will be educated on values closer to that. While yes, Jamyl is TA, she fails in many other areas that hardliners would oppose. I suppose in this case I am reading more from it and assuming that the extremist TA supremacy also indicates Tanar being extremist in other areas than Yonis is hoping will get passed on.

I don't think that in the history of Amarr the 'racial view' ever had a place in orthodoxy: The only place in history where we know that such ideas developed was with the Sani Sabik and they quite surely, I think, have been purged together with the heretics. There might be allusions to this from the Proto-Sabik era still in the corpus, but I'd guess that one would have to put some effort and will into them to come to conclude that it is race/genetics that make the Amarr superior.

This is something I still don't get. I really don't get where people read into the idea that Sani Sabik is where the idea of racial purity comes from. The Apocrypha is the only Scripture we have that -explicitly- says that everyone is equal in God's kingdom, and that's Sani Sabik Scripture. And many Sani Sabik sects promote a much less restrictive opportunity for ascension, excepting the ones that are closer to the Amarrian tradition.

"The nature of these savants varies from sect to sect, with some following closely to the Amarr tradition of the chosen being born that way. The Blood Raiders view the practice more liberally, considering anyone strong enough to embrace the Blood Raider lifestyle worthy of being called one of the chosen. Such a belief is found in many of the other sects scattered across New Eden and is especially appealing to Amarr commoners, who seek to rise above their restrictive stations." - Sani Sabik, EVElopedia

'Chosen being born that way' is described as being the Amarrian tradition, whereas other sects are more open and this makes them very appealing. So I don't get how Amarr is seen as the one with less emphasis on racial purity and Sani Sabik on more.

That aside, it is really rediculous to argue for the 'continued servitude of the Khanid', when the vast majority of the Khanid never were in servitude to the Amarr, but rather allies. Tanar might not see that, but Yonis is (hopefully, you never know where CCP goes) too smart for not seeing that. After all he is described as preferring the 'caroot to the stick', practicing a kind of cultural mercantilism where he is against cultural import while at the same time sending out highly trained missionaries. I'm sure he sees that 'continued servitude to your True Amarr masters' doesn't make a particularly great carrot. If he'd see it like Tanar, he'd surely be more the 'stick' kind'a guy...

Well, Yonis is a carrot first, stick later guy. If there is anything 'bigger' in Tanar's appointment, it is as an investment in a much longer plan. The carrot being the reforms and speaches on today's generation, the stick being Tanar's educational reforms instilling certain values on the next generations, generations Ardishapur may be wanting to be able to rise up if necessary.

That's getting into hypothesis though. I just really, really don't see Tanar being appointed "just" for his administrative skills and so I assume some grander plan behind it.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now,first there is no such thing as a 'conservative party' in Amarr. There is a more or less loose association of people which form a 'conservative bloc'. And they do so because of the views they hold. Actaully, even the conservative parites of our world weren't called 'conservative' simply because they choose so, but because they held views that were considered conservative prior to said parties existing. For people born later it seems that something is a 'conservative view' because the 'conservative party' holds it, but that is more due to sloppy use of language: Because people don't pay attention to such little details as 'the conservative's dogma' and 'conservative dogma'.

That said, conservatives don't aim to conserve anything and everything. Usually they aim to conserve institutions that they consider valuable. An Amarrian conservative can effortlessly argue that the valuable parts of the CoA have been salvaged and that the tradition of that institution lives on in the form of Privy and Theology Council. Actually he can even argue that prior to the moral reforms the CoA acquired more and more powers, continually weakening the position of Emperor and the Moral Reforms only restored a balance of power as intended by Amash Akura, where the Emperor rules and the Council(s) councel, insted of the Emperor being reduced to a figure head. The Moral Reforms were a restoration movement!

As for Yonis being politically savvy: Being politically savvy requires some measure of pragmatism in ones view. A racist like Tanar lacks such and so does his position. The fact that Yonis was politically savvy in that situation proves that he doesn't put 'True Amarrian race and blood' first. I don't see him acting out of character in the case of the Mandate; He acted like an educated monarch. That the other heirs juged him to act differently is rather a result of them not knowing him well, than him acting out of character: Otherwise he'd act out of character in his own domains again and generally act so much out of character, that in his actions he'd be a different man.

That is not at odds with him being described as 'True Amarr Supremacist' in Source, by the way. Nothing in the word 'Supremacists' necessitates that he is also a 'Racist'. Actually, his actions in the Mandate are very much aligned with this supremacist attitude, supplanting local customs with True Amarr ones, as can be seen in the swing away from the Ammatar church to the Amarrian Orthodoxy. This shows quite nicely that, apparently, the other heirs mistook his culture centered views on Amarr supremacy for simplistic racism.

I'll respond to the other parts of your response later, as I need to head out...tbc

[Samira Kernher]

Yeah, there really isn't a "party" in so much terms. I used the word mostly because it felt like it better conveyed the point I was trying to convey (language is hard): That is, that the people running the thing (I suppose the people who make up the bloc, in this case) are the ones that determine the principles. But on that, I see what you're saying. Perhaps I'm just disenfranchised by certain... well, don't want to bring up RL politics. <.<

The Moral Reforms were a restoration movement!

Hahah. I like that. And yeah, I wouldn't say they try to conserve everything. Which is what I was trying to say with the thing about focusing on very particular pieces of history or Scripture that they think advocate the ideals they hold.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Well, I have to admit that your point isn't that off either. After all how we use language changes and it is a matter of fact that we nowadays mostly use the term "conservative idea" as being synonymous with "conservative's idea". I just think that this use robs us of making out differences that seem tiny but are quite important.

And I'm quite sure that the Emperor at the moral reforms was selling it as a restoration rather than a revolution.

Last thing I really want to say: Yes Amarr think that you are basically born as one of the chosen: But my point with that is that they don't think you are born as chosen because of race, biology/genetics. Arguably people are born into a culture and in the case of the Amarr, the most direct and normal way to be chosen is to be born into Amarr culture. The Sani Sabik seem to be the first ones that naturalize the idea of being chosen by God (through association by birth, later on) and supplant it with savants that are destined to rule by nature. This is the point I want to make: An idea of superiority through race is a naturalistic idea which on the one hand allows in the first place for openening being a savant by birth to non-Amarr and on the other hand makes a God, who does the choosing, superfluous to the entire concept. If it is genetics that makes you a savant, then you don't need god to choose you for being righteous and in fear of God (or for belonging/being born into to a culture perpetuating those qualities).

[Anyanka Funk]

.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I referred to that part for the fact that it says that prior to Yonis, Ardishapur territories were bad places for non-TA bloodlines. Them opening up is something recent.

"... reforms pushed by Yonis have encouraged people of all races and bloodlines to seek religious enlightenment."

Ergo, prior to Yonis's reforms people of non-TA races and bloodlines were not encouraged (if not discouraged). For reforms to be instituted requires there to have been something to be changed.

One more thing: CCP (mis)uses 'race' to mean 'people of one of the four factions'. Accordingly, by CCP terminology, Udorians, Khanid and 'True Amarr' are Amarr by race. The undercategories are the 'bloodlines'.

So, it is quite probably that when Yonis "encouraged people of all races and bloodlines to seek religious enlightenment" that refered to the foreign races of Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar and their bloodlines.

I think we need to be aware of the way that CCP uses the terms 'race' and 'bloodline' and that they do so from a perspective of how their character creation is structured, rather than how these terms are used IRL.