5 ms·

North Africa was largely populated by people ethnically similar to the Greeks (Carthaginians et al). They knew about the existence of other races, sure. My poi

by ng12 8y ago

North Africa was largely populated by people ethnically similar to the Greeks (Carthaginians et al). They knew about the existence of other races, sure. My point is there was nowhere near enough contact or integration with them for the Greeks to begin defining themselves in relation to them.

jaclaz 8y ago
Well, the Romans ( a little later but not that much) had no issues with white vs. black, to the point that several empoerors were black: http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm >Interestingly, at least ten Africans became Emperors of Rome. They are listed on the historical record as the following: Macrinu, Firmus, Emilianus, Septimius Serverus, Pescennius Niger, Aquilus Niger, Brutidius Niger, Q. Caecilus Niger, Novius Niger, and Trebius Niger who was a proconsul in Spain. Racism of the white vs. black kind came out much, much later.
- ng12 8y ago
  There were many prominent Romans from North Africa meaning Carthage (now Algeria/Tunisia) and Egypt. Would you call those people black? I think there's a credible argument that, to Romans, they were not any more foreign-looking than Celts or Gauls.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    The Romans in Britannia thought of the Celts as pale headhunting painted savages. The definition of foreign-looking has shifted over the millennia.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  Just because certain Roman officials were from Africa does not mean they were "black" as it would be understood today. Roman Africans were from North Africa. They were either descendants of Roman colonists in North Africa and thus still lighter-skinned, or they were Berbers who had assimilated to Roman culture and ideals. While Berbers can sometimes be swarthier than Europeans, they are not usually considered sub-Saharan-African "black". And with regard to that website, I would strongly encourage you to get all your information on ancient history from university-press publications instead of amateur websites. There is just too much a risk of encountering crank material on websites, but as that website itself notes, there has been plenty published on this theme by actual scholars.
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    I'm not a fan of Taleb, but he has a point: https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/the-insidious-racism-of-mary-beard-et-al-8b6b768b4575 https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-ge...
    - yk 8y ago
      Classicism pro tip, if someone says Mary Beard is wrong about Rome, they should be a very accomplished classicist. Taleb in particular would need a lot of study of history to understand in which way he is wrong. Beard's argument is, that the question of Caesars's race is as perfectly useless as the question if he was a Republican or a Democrat. Sure, we can try to construct something we claim is essential about Democrats and Republicans and then project that back to build something that resembles an argument, it is just that the entire building takes place in the present and therefore does not tell us anything about the past. (The big difference between Republican/Democrat and race is just, that the entire west spent the last 200 years insisting very loudly that race is really, really present in nature.)
      - ng12 8y ago
        > Beard's argument is, that the question of Caesars's race is as perfectly useless as the question if he was a Republican or a Democrat That's why so many people disagree with her. Yes, she knows a lot about Rome but that doesn't stop her from politicizing her knowledge. The two sides are talking past eachother: on one hand we can't talk about Caesar's race from a modern standpoint. He wouldn't have framed whiteness (or Italian-ness) in the same way we do. That does not mean we can't talk at all about Roman ethnicity: he was biologically light-skinned.
        yk 8y ago
        The trouble is, there are things that are easy and things that are hard. That people lived in the past in what is essentially a different Kuhnian paradigm is one of the really hard things to understand, it takes quite a bit of reading primary sources to develop an intuition about that. It's quite funny actually that Talib tries to defend himself by quoting Tom Holland, the thing is, Holland is a pop-history writer, that is he specifically works hard to write in a way that these issues are not important to his books.

by ng12 8y ago

jaclaz 8y ago

Well, the Romans ( a little later but not that much) had no issues with white vs. black, to the point that several empoerors were black: http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm >Interestingly, at least ten Africans became Emperors of Rome. They are listed on the historical record as the following: Macrinu, Firmus, Emilianus, Septimius Serverus, Pescennius Niger, Aquilus Niger, Brutidius Niger, Q. Caecilus Niger, Novius Niger, and Trebius Niger who was a proconsul in Spain. Racism of the white vs. black kind came out much, much later.

ng12 8y ago
There were many prominent Romans from North Africa meaning Carthage (now Algeria/Tunisia) and Egypt. Would you call those people black? I think there's a credible argument that, to Romans, they were not any more foreign-looking than Celts or Gauls.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  The Romans in Britannia thought of the Celts as pale headhunting painted savages. The definition of foreign-looking has shifted over the millennia.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Just because certain Roman officials were from Africa does not mean they were "black" as it would be understood today. Roman Africans were from North Africa. They were either descendants of Roman colonists in North Africa and thus still lighter-skinned, or they were Berbers who had assimilated to Roman culture and ideals. While Berbers can sometimes be swarthier than Europeans, they are not usually considered sub-Saharan-African "black". And with regard to that website, I would strongly encourage you to get all your information on ancient history from university-press publications instead of amateur websites. There is just too much a risk of encountering crank material on websites, but as that website itself notes, there has been plenty published on this theme by actual scholars.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  I'm not a fan of Taleb, but he has a point: https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/the-insidious-racism-of-mary-beard-et-al-8b6b768b4575 https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-ge...
  - yk 8y ago
    Classicism pro tip, if someone says Mary Beard is wrong about Rome, they should be a very accomplished classicist. Taleb in particular would need a lot of study of history to understand in which way he is wrong. Beard's argument is, that the question of Caesars's race is as perfectly useless as the question if he was a Republican or a Democrat. Sure, we can try to construct something we claim is essential about Democrats and Republicans and then project that back to build something that resembles an argument, it is just that the entire building takes place in the present and therefore does not tell us anything about the past. (The big difference between Republican/Democrat and race is just, that the entire west spent the last 200 years insisting very loudly that race is really, really present in nature.)
    - ng12 8y ago
      > Beard's argument is, that the question of Caesars's race is as perfectly useless as the question if he was a Republican or a Democrat That's why so many people disagree with her. Yes, she knows a lot about Rome but that doesn't stop her from politicizing her knowledge. The two sides are talking past eachother: on one hand we can't talk about Caesar's race from a modern standpoint. He wouldn't have framed whiteness (or Italian-ness) in the same way we do. That does not mean we can't talk at all about Roman ethnicity: he was biologically light-skinned.
      - yk 8y ago
        The trouble is, there are things that are easy and things that are hard. That people lived in the past in what is essentially a different Kuhnian paradigm is one of the really hard things to understand, it takes quite a bit of reading primary sources to develop an intuition about that. It's quite funny actually that Talib tries to defend himself by quoting Tom Holland, the thing is, Holland is a pop-history writer, that is he specifically works hard to write in a way that these issues are not important to his books.