4 ms·

What does "white" mean? Are you telling me the Romans were British? German? Nordic? It's clear that the Romans were an amalgamation of Indoeuropeans and Etrusc

by tovej 5y ago

What does "white" mean? Are you telling me the Romans were British? German? Nordic? It's clear that the Romans were an amalgamation of Indoeuropeans and Etruscans. Gauls, Celts, Goths, Greeks, Turks were all part of the Roman empire at some point. Modern day Italians aren't one single ethnic group either. Italy is very diverse, and a unified Italy was one of the latest nation states to form on the continent. There is also a bigger than thousand year gap in your connection of Romans to Italians. A weak argument on all counts.

eru 5y ago
Compare https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/how-the-asians-became-white/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
greenwich26 5y ago
> What does "white" mean? Are you telling me the Romans were British? German? Nordic? It means that the second image, showing Roman senators played by a few dozen white Italian extras, is a perfectly likely depiction, and the caption about how real Roman senators were much more swarthy ("like modern Italians", he claims) is nonsense. (Of course, the HBO show was filmed in Italy, and almost all the extras and background characters were Italians.) Even if I am wrong, he is wrong too.
- tovej 5y ago
  It's great that you're engaging in the discussion. You didn't really respond to my questions though. If you could, it would ground your argument, and we could actually talk about something concrete. Also, if you have some sources for your claims, I would appreciate it if you at least mentioned them. At the moment you seem to be arguing from emotion.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  These days you can actually do direct comparisons of ancestry, and it turns out that the closest-related people to the "natives" of early Republican Rome can still be found in modern-day central Italy, in the area known as Abruzzi and local surroundings. So, Italians yes but rather "swarthy" in modern terms. It's not nonsense, it's what you get from the genetic data.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  A Roman would likely have taken issue (and maybe taken offense) with that claim. The men of Britain are taller than the Celti, and not so yellow-haired, although their bodies are of looser build. The following is an indication of their size: I myself, in Rome, saw mere lads towering as much as half a foot above the tallest people in the city, although they were bandy-legged and presented no fair lines anywhere else in their figure. Their habits are in part like those of the Celti, but in part more simple and barbaric— so much so that, on account of their inexperience, some of them, although well supplied with milk, make no cheese; and they have no experience in gardening or other agricultural pursuits.
dragandj 5y ago
At the time of ancient Rome, Turkic tribes lived somewhere around Mongolia. Gauls, Celts, Goths, and even Greeks were as white as any typical European is today, if not more white.
- tovej 5y ago
  Right, I'm wrong about the Turks. I meant to say Persians.
  - dragandj 5y ago
    Ancient Rome and Persia were rival empires. How many Persians (other than usual small number of traders, mercenaries, slaves, etc.) lived in Rome? Even Persians are (largely) of Indo-European ancestry, migrating from the same steppes that filled Europe. Modern people of Iran consider themselves white, although they do typically have slightly darker skin than someone from Italy. It all boil down to what you consider white. If only Swedish people are white, then OK. If Hungarians are white (they typically are) then people of Iran are pretty much white, too. Anyway, race in humans is a pretty much artificial thing, but it is real in our culture nevertheless.
    - tovej 5y ago
      It depends, if you count Armenia as Persian, then all Persians in Armenia lived within the Roman empire for a century. Maybe count Armenians as their own group, that's a safer bet. I think you've hit upon something here with defining "white". If "white" is something that you can freely define to suit your purpose, then there's no point in having this discussion. If we define "white" to be something more specific, that would make it easier to pin down some facts. The bigger point is simply that Rome was ethnically diverse. After all, it was a huge empire, how could it not be?
      - dragandj 5y ago
        OK, what is "white"? Define it. I don't know about USA, but from european perspective, Armenians are as white as any other European nation. What is USA term for that? Caucasian? Ironically, Armenians are as close to THE Caucasus region as anyone can be :) Additionally, the few Armenians, that I know in person, would consider and insult to be called Persian (for political reasons I think). Yes, they were ethnically diverse. That does not mean that Roman senators were any other than a bunch of white male people, and that the majority of its citizens weren't what anyone from Europe today would consider "white" or "caucasian". Of course, lots of people with even totally dark skin lived in Rome and other regions, but not to the extent of "Roman senators have to be depicted as black".

by tovej 5y ago

eru 5y ago

Compare https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/how-the-asians-became-white/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

greenwich26 5y ago

> What does "white" mean? Are you telling me the Romans were British? German? Nordic? It means that the second image, showing Roman senators played by a few dozen white Italian extras, is a perfectly likely depiction, and the caption about how real Roman senators were much more swarthy ("like modern Italians", he claims) is nonsense. (Of course, the HBO show was filmed in Italy, and almost all the extras and background characters were Italians.) Even if I am wrong, he is wrong too.

tovej 5y ago
It's great that you're engaging in the discussion. You didn't really respond to my questions though. If you could, it would ground your argument, and we could actually talk about something concrete. Also, if you have some sources for your claims, I would appreciate it if you at least mentioned them. At the moment you seem to be arguing from emotion.
zozbot234 5y ago
These days you can actually do direct comparisons of ancestry, and it turns out that the closest-related people to the "natives" of early Republican Rome can still be found in modern-day central Italy, in the area known as Abruzzi and local surroundings. So, Italians yes but rather "swarthy" in modern terms. It's not nonsense, it's what you get from the genetic data.
uniqueid 5y ago
A Roman would likely have taken issue (and maybe taken offense) with that claim. The men of Britain are taller than the Celti, and not so yellow-haired, although their bodies are of looser build. The following is an indication of their size: I myself, in Rome, saw mere lads towering as much as half a foot above the tallest people in the city, although they were bandy-legged and presented no fair lines anywhere else in their figure. Their habits are in part like those of the Celti, but in part more simple and barbaric— so much so that, on account of their inexperience, some of them, although well supplied with milk, make no cheese; and they have no experience in gardening or other agricultural pursuits.

dragandj 5y ago

At the time of ancient Rome, Turkic tribes lived somewhere around Mongolia. Gauls, Celts, Goths, and even Greeks were as white as any typical European is today, if not more white.

tovej 5y ago
Right, I'm wrong about the Turks. I meant to say Persians.
- dragandj 5y ago
  Ancient Rome and Persia were rival empires. How many Persians (other than usual small number of traders, mercenaries, slaves, etc.) lived in Rome? Even Persians are (largely) of Indo-European ancestry, migrating from the same steppes that filled Europe. Modern people of Iran consider themselves white, although they do typically have slightly darker skin than someone from Italy. It all boil down to what you consider white. If only Swedish people are white, then OK. If Hungarians are white (they typically are) then people of Iran are pretty much white, too. Anyway, race in humans is a pretty much artificial thing, but it is real in our culture nevertheless.
  - tovej 5y ago
    It depends, if you count Armenia as Persian, then all Persians in Armenia lived within the Roman empire for a century. Maybe count Armenians as their own group, that's a safer bet. I think you've hit upon something here with defining "white". If "white" is something that you can freely define to suit your purpose, then there's no point in having this discussion. If we define "white" to be something more specific, that would make it easier to pin down some facts. The bigger point is simply that Rome was ethnically diverse. After all, it was a huge empire, how could it not be?
    - dragandj 5y ago
      OK, what is "white"? Define it. I don't know about USA, but from european perspective, Armenians are as white as any other European nation. What is USA term for that? Caucasian? Ironically, Armenians are as close to THE Caucasus region as anyone can be :) Additionally, the few Armenians, that I know in person, would consider and insult to be called Persian (for political reasons I think). Yes, they were ethnically diverse. That does not mean that Roman senators were any other than a bunch of white male people, and that the majority of its citizens weren't what anyone from Europe today would consider "white" or "caucasian". Of course, lots of people with even totally dark skin lived in Rome and other regions, but not to the extent of "Roman senators have to be depicted as black".