3 ms·

hmmm....whilst the Roman Empire (like all true Empires) was multi-ethnic, it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white', and it was cert

hmmm....whilst the Roman Empire (like all true Empires) was multi-ethnic, it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white', and it was certainly male dominated, with very clear gender roles. We may well need to refresh the syllabus to be more inclusive but have got to wary of retrofitting todays values onto a society which did not hold them. Human diversity, includes cultural diversity, and we have been super diverse throughout history in how we structure our relations with one another

kamma4434 4y ago
Romans considered ‘race’ and skin tone in the same way we consider hair color; a part of you, but a marginal one.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  very interesting. Also had a very different idea on sexuality also, I believe 'active vs passive' rather than 'male vs female'
puffoflogic 4y ago
And if maintaining the diversity of human culture were actually the goal, that might matter. But it's not and it never has been. DEI has always been about creating a cultural, well, monoculture.
Tomte 4y ago
> it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white' I thought so, too, but https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-iv-the-color-of-purple/ https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-o... is a well-sourced article that shows that it just wasn't so.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  great blog, and agree very well researched - will certainly take a deeper dive - thank you
TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
Where do “values” come into it? It's not about claiming the Romans practiced DEI, but showing that the popular image in the West of Romans being ethnically homogenous and light-skinned is not rooted in reality. It's important that people don't get an unrealistic image of what the past was like.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yes fair comment! happy to update my view
- kamma4434 4y ago
  On average they probably looked a lot like people from Southern Italy or Greece - but lots of people in paintings have rather dark skin. But you could find people of all stripes, in all social positions.
watwut 4y ago
> it was certainly male dominated, with very clear gender roles Note actual complaint: Girls studying the course, which is story-based, complained there were not enough female roles, and that those included were passive and undeveloped. And actual solution: include more prominent female characters As in, the updated course is not lying about gender roles. It is including really existing female character. Also, it is removing previous inaccuracy - "undeveloped" definitely counts as inaccuracy and if those female individuals were not passive framing them as such is inaccuracy too. Side note: prominent women in patriarchal societies are typically not passive. Passive people rarely become prominent in any society. However, they operate under different constraints then men in the same society do. (Look at female rights activists that rose to some level of prominence in Arab world - they are not passive at all. Look at women who were "first woman" in something or ruling queens in Europe - they were not passive.)
mdp2021 4y ago
> it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white' I really have no idea what «today [you] understand as "white"», but the Roman Empire employed individuals, and used many as slaves¹, displaced all over the territory, from peoples all around and beyond its borders, extending as you know from Hiberia to Persia, from Britain to Africa and Egypt. And in ages of strong migration fluxes after the push of nomadic warrior populations (so they did not pick from static pools). Which makes it pretty difficult to identify "white" outside of some very fuzzy system of categories. (Though I noticed that in some cultures they do.) ¹Proper term always being 'servants', but the Slavs were the highest priced - which meant having a "slave" an "upgrade" over "just a servant". So, again, composition in the population was forced by processes. Edit: about the above note - quite incredibly, it just appeared on The Atantic an article ('Just say Slave') starting with an anecdote about the translation of 'servus'. That paragraph seems to intend to reserve the use of 'servant' to free work. My mention of "«proper[ty]»" was about the reminder that the use of 'slave' poses a dubious reference to Slavs.

kamma4434 4y ago

Romans considered ‘race’ and skin tone in the same way we consider hair color; a part of you, but a marginal one.

hunglee2 4y ago
very interesting. Also had a very different idea on sexuality also, I believe 'active vs passive' rather than 'male vs female'

puffoflogic 4y ago

And if maintaining the diversity of human culture were actually the goal, that might matter. But it's not and it never has been. DEI has always been about creating a cultural, well, monoculture.

Tomte 4y ago

> it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white' I thought so, too, but https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-iv-the-color-of-purple/ https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-o... is a well-sourced article that shows that it just wasn't so.

hunglee2 4y ago
great blog, and agree very well researched - will certainly take a deeper dive - thank you

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

Where do “values” come into it? It's not about claiming the Romans practiced DEI, but showing that the popular image in the West of Romans being ethnically homogenous and light-skinned is not rooted in reality. It's important that people don't get an unrealistic image of what the past was like.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes fair comment! happy to update my view
kamma4434 4y ago
On average they probably looked a lot like people from Southern Italy or Greece - but lots of people in paintings have rather dark skin. But you could find people of all stripes, in all social positions.

watwut 4y ago

> it was certainly male dominated, with very clear gender roles Note actual complaint: Girls studying the course, which is story-based, complained there were not enough female roles, and that those included were passive and undeveloped. And actual solution: include more prominent female characters As in, the updated course is not lying about gender roles. It is including really existing female character. Also, it is removing previous inaccuracy - "undeveloped" definitely counts as inaccuracy and if those female individuals were not passive framing them as such is inaccuracy too. Side note: prominent women in patriarchal societies are typically not passive. Passive people rarely become prominent in any society. However, they operate under different constraints then men in the same society do. (Look at female rights activists that rose to some level of prominence in Arab world - they are not passive at all. Look at women who were "first woman" in something or ruling queens in Europe - they were not passive.)

mdp2021 4y ago

> it was nevertheless predominantly what we today understand as 'white' I really have no idea what «today [you] understand as "white"», but the Roman Empire employed individuals, and used many as slaves¹, displaced all over the territory, from peoples all around and beyond its borders, extending as you know from Hiberia to Persia, from Britain to Africa and Egypt. And in ages of strong migration fluxes after the push of nomadic warrior populations (so they did not pick from static pools). Which makes it pretty difficult to identify "white" outside of some very fuzzy system of categories. (Though I noticed that in some cultures they do.) ¹Proper term always being 'servants', but the Slavs were the highest priced - which meant having a "slave" an "upgrade" over "just a servant". So, again, composition in the population was forced by processes. Edit: about the above note - quite incredibly, it just appeared on The Atantic an article ('Just say Slave') starting with an anecdote about the translation of 'servus'. That paragraph seems to intend to reserve the use of 'servant' to free work. My mention of "«proper[ty]»" was about the reminder that the use of 'slave' poses a dubious reference to Slavs.