Prominent examples of scientific racism in ancient Greece

I searched and found this document about Ancient GR racism, not sure about the scientic studdy. A little bit beyond me

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/AGRacism.pdf

Here is an abstract from the first page

Tribalism & Racism among the Ancient Greeks

A Weberian Perspective

By

Michael Bakaoukas, Ptychion (Phil.), M.Sc. (Phil.), Doctorate (Phil.) The University of Piraeus, Greece

Abstract Were the ancients Greeks “racists” in the modern sense of the term “racist”? The terms ancient Greek “proto-racism”, tribalism (and/or racism) are used here to denote the abstract, narcissistic notion that not only the non-Greek barbarians, but also certain ancient Greek tribes (like the Macedonians, the Boeoteans etc.) should be excluded from the Hellenic community, for they were considered to be inferior compared with the general Hellenic civilization.The present paper analyses comparatively the social phenomena of ancient Greek tribalism and modern racism in order to answer the following question: “what distinguishes the ancient Greek racism from the modern one?”. The basic philosophical and sociological question to be answered, running through the whole paper, is the following: “Could modern scientific, biological racism have evolved in ancient Greece?”. Scholars are right in rejecting such a possibility. However, we will see that, following ancient Greek racial thought, the interpretive model of modern racism could successfully be applied to ancient Greece. In other words, we make use of the Weberian “idealtypus” of modern racism. However, one has to cut it loose from the connotations of modern-day racism and analyse ancient Greek racism within the framework of the cultural, religious and political conditions of Antiquity. This is exactly the method that has been followed in the present study, in an effort to present in a critical spirit ancient Greek racial thought.

Introduction

"... I wish all of you now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily in peace. All mortals from now on shall live like one people, united and peacefully working forwards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country - a country where the best govern-, with common laws and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people as many narrow minded others do, into Greeks and Barbarians. I’m not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, you must not resolve them by taking to arms; you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I shall act as your negotiator. You must not think of God as an authoritarian ruler, but you should consider him as common father, so that your conduct resembles the uniform behavior of brothers who belong to the same family. For my part I consider all -whether they be white or black-, equal, and I would like you to be not only the subjects of my common-wealth, but also participants and partners. Within my powers I shall endeavor to fulfill all my promises. You should regard the oath we have taken tonight as a symbol of love..."

THE “OATH” OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT - SPEECH BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT - AT OPIS (ASSYRIA), IN 324 BC, TO SOME 9,000 DIGNITARIES AND NOBLES OF ALL NATIONS [Pseudo-Kallisthenes* C; Eratosthenes]

I believe Benjamin Isaac's interpretation of the quote as racism is horse manure. The quote itself, as presented in your OP, is clearly an argument that the climate and laws prevalent in Asia at the time make for a cowardly and torpid culture, not the race of those individuals. This is bolstered by this point made with vigour by the author (my emphasis):

As a strong proof of all this, such Greeks or barbarians in Asia as are not under a despotic form of government, but are independent, and enjoy the fruits of their own labors, are of all others the most warlike; for these encounter dangers on their own account, bear the prizes of their own valor, and in like manner endure the punishment of their own cowardice.

The U.S. military's dedication to an all-volunteer force, since the debacle of the Vietnam War, is the result of a realization that many of the problems encountered during that conflict were the result of the high percentage of unwilling conscripted soldiers present. They learned that a highly-trained volunteer arm is vastly more effective than a large unwilling conscripted one. How is this any different from what Hippocrates of Kos is saying above?

I believe the following statement (from here) is crap, but I include it below as an example of the extreme rationalization Benjamin Isaac engages in to argue his point:

If, however, we read that people are stupid and courageous because they live in a cold climate, then it can be argued that this is a form of proto-racism, since there is an implicit assumption that these people are stupid through physical factors beyond their control. Their descendants will remain stupid, because the climate of their country will not change and thus their bodies will remain the same. Moreover, each individual belonging to such people will be assumed to have the characteristics ascribed to his group, whether inherited, or caused by the environment. This is to the point because, as we shall see, the distinction between heredity and characteristics acquired through external influences was not considered significant in Graeco-Roman antiquity.

By this logic, as the extreme lead pollution of Mexico City is inescapable by its poor citizens, acknowledging the consequent measured loss of IQ (estimated to be 20 points last I read) by their children is racism.