3 ms·

Why is genetics more important than any other tie to the Roman empire?

anon84873628 3mo ago
Don't know why this was down voted. Most people ruled by the Roman empire weren't ethnic Romans. Even in the early days it started as a mix of Italic tribes like the Latins and Sabines. And in 212 AD the edict of Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free men throughout the empire. I imagined this was sort of the whole point of the article.
- benj111 3mo ago
  >Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? British?
  - frollogaston 3mo ago
    Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - trashb 3mo ago
      Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion. For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc. Broadly in the Americas anyone that was there before Columbus is considered native. Anyone that came after is considered migrant. Anyone born into native heritage can be considered descendant of native and thus native themselves. British ethnicity is a thing though British ethnicity is messy and quite complex, are we talking before or after migration of the vikings? Before or after roman rein? Are we considering Ireland or Scotland separate? What about intermixing with neighboring countries through trade? Before, in or after British colonial empire?
      - parineum 3mo ago
        You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate. Ethnicity is entirely arbitrary, that's why it should be avoided. For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Ehy aren't they Asians or even Africans? There is culture that you can tie to a group of people at a certain time and that group frequently has similar lineage. That's usually what people mean by ethnicity. They're using physical characteristics due to lineage that is associated with a culture and they call that ethnicity. In this context of of Romans, there is really no ethnicity that should map to the cultural identity of "Ancient Roman" as the empire had many subjects across it's empire.
        trashb 3mo ago
        You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate. I take language and debate serious. For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Why aren't they Asians or even Africans? Yes I have arbitrarily decided, based on the later influx of people (in my view) other ethnicity from other continents. It is a divide I used as an example, there are more divides. Ethnicity is arbitrary precisely because it is not clear what the boundaries of it are. I used Native Americans as an example, we all trace back to a few individuals in Africa. However Ethnicity is not just the genetics, it also includes culture, language, history, traditions and more. and it includes a component over time for example: "They have been living like this for x amount of years"(since after a war or similar displacement event) can be a divide in ethnicity. You could subdivide ethnicity all the way until you reach the lineage and environment of a single individual. There are lots of ethnic differences between Native American tribes for example.
        liveoneggs 3mo ago
        are you an alt account for benj111?
    - benj111 3mo ago
      Ok. So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? Surely 'ethnic americans' are Native North Americans? This is the thing. Ethnicity gets wrapped up in a value judgement. We don't want to talk about ethnic Americans, but are willing to talk about ethnic Britons. Which then implies some rights those ethnic groups should have. But I would dare say the majority of 'ethnic Britons' wouldn't identify as British. So I'd rather not use it in a way that conflates nationhood with ethnicity.
      - pm3003 3mo ago
        English, Welsh and probably some kind of Scottish ethnicity are probably a thing. DNA + history + cultural habits including language. But on this topic the concept of German ethnogenesis is very interesting. The formation of Gothic identity and communities even more, though sources are extremely scarce and it's more of a mystery.
      - NooneAtAll3 3mo ago
        > So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? ...yes?
      - 8note 3mo ago
        id put the a cree person as ethnically cree dene for sure crosses borders native american is a group of ethnicities reasonably unrelated to "american" so its not particularly useable as "ethnic americans" when its could be just as useable as "ethnic canadians"
      - frollogaston 3mo ago
        > Ok. So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? Yes > Surely 'ethnic americans' are Native North Americans? Yeah but they're normally called Native Americans
    - graemep 3mo ago
      British ethnicity is complicated. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish? If Northern Irish then loyalist or republican? Do you count the Cornish separately? Germanic or Celtic? Norman ancestry. Its not defined by genetics. A very high proportion of "white British" people I know (that is of those who have told me!) turn out to have all kinds of ancestry (Indian, Romany, and Polish examples come to mind) in recent generations. Genetics do not refine race/ethnicity, culture and cultural definitions do. Americans have definitions even the culturally similar British do not understand (e.g. hispanic, white passing black). I am defined differently in different countries: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different
- frollogaston 3mo ago
  Also some rulers of the Roman empire weren't ethnically Roman/Italian, even if you don't count after the capitol was moved to Constantinople, but especially if you do.
z0ltan 3mo ago
[dead]
vintermann 3mo ago
It isn't, but OP doesn't say it is either. I think it's a worthwhile point to make that exceedingly few nations, cultures, ethnicites etc. correspond cleanly to equivalent groups that existed ~2000 years ago. Identity-building projects need simple stories, genetics (or history generally) rarely gives them.
- pm3003 3mo ago
  Probably Georgia as a political entity, Armenia, Cambodia and Vietnam as nations probably. I know other examples of relative ethnic stability: most of Northern Europe broadly has the same ethnic geographic boundaries as 1500 years ago (excepting the slavic / proto slavic things), the Basque, the Sardinians, Bretons and Bearnese, Tirolians, Kabyles, Laz "Greeks" (vanishing since WWII). By some measures also Egypt (coastal cities excepted) and Iran.

Don't know why this was down voted. Most people ruled by the Roman empire weren't ethnic Romans. Even in the early days it started as a mix of Italic tribes like the Latins and Sabines. And in 212 AD the edict of Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free men throughout the empire. I imagined this was sort of the whole point of the article.

benj111 3mo ago
>Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? British?
- frollogaston 3mo ago
  Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - trashb 3mo ago
    Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion. For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc. Broadly in the Americas anyone that was there before Columbus is considered native. Anyone that came after is considered migrant. Anyone born into native heritage can be considered descendant of native and thus native themselves. British ethnicity is a thing though British ethnicity is messy and quite complex, are we talking before or after migration of the vikings? Before or after roman rein? Are we considering Ireland or Scotland separate? What about intermixing with neighboring countries through trade? Before, in or after British colonial empire?
    - parineum 3mo ago
      You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate. Ethnicity is entirely arbitrary, that's why it should be avoided. For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Ehy aren't they Asians or even Africans? There is culture that you can tie to a group of people at a certain time and that group frequently has similar lineage. That's usually what people mean by ethnicity. They're using physical characteristics due to lineage that is associated with a culture and they call that ethnicity. In this context of of Romans, there is really no ethnicity that should map to the cultural identity of "Ancient Roman" as the empire had many subjects across it's empire.
      - trashb 3mo ago
        You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate. I take language and debate serious. For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Why aren't they Asians or even Africans? Yes I have arbitrarily decided, based on the later influx of people (in my view) other ethnicity from other continents. It is a divide I used as an example, there are more divides. Ethnicity is arbitrary precisely because it is not clear what the boundaries of it are. I used Native Americans as an example, we all trace back to a few individuals in Africa. However Ethnicity is not just the genetics, it also includes culture, language, history, traditions and more. and it includes a component over time for example: "They have been living like this for x amount of years"(since after a war or similar displacement event) can be a divide in ethnicity. You could subdivide ethnicity all the way until you reach the lineage and environment of a single individual. There are lots of ethnic differences between Native American tribes for example.
        liveoneggs 3mo ago
        are you an alt account for benj111?
  - benj111 3mo ago
    Ok. So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? Surely 'ethnic americans' are Native North Americans? This is the thing. Ethnicity gets wrapped up in a value judgement. We don't want to talk about ethnic Americans, but are willing to talk about ethnic Britons. Which then implies some rights those ethnic groups should have. But I would dare say the majority of 'ethnic Britons' wouldn't identify as British. So I'd rather not use it in a way that conflates nationhood with ethnicity.
    - pm3003 3mo ago
      English, Welsh and probably some kind of Scottish ethnicity are probably a thing. DNA + history + cultural habits including language. But on this topic the concept of German ethnogenesis is very interesting. The formation of Gothic identity and communities even more, though sources are extremely scarce and it's more of a mystery.
    - NooneAtAll3 3mo ago
      > So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? ...yes?
    - 8note 3mo ago
      id put the a cree person as ethnically cree dene for sure crosses borders native american is a group of ethnicities reasonably unrelated to "american" so its not particularly useable as "ethnic americans" when its could be just as useable as "ethnic canadians"
    - frollogaston 3mo ago
      > Ok. So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person? Yes > Surely 'ethnic americans' are Native North Americans? Yeah but they're normally called Native Americans
  - graemep 3mo ago
    British ethnicity is complicated. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish? If Northern Irish then loyalist or republican? Do you count the Cornish separately? Germanic or Celtic? Norman ancestry. Its not defined by genetics. A very high proportion of "white British" people I know (that is of those who have told me!) turn out to have all kinds of ancestry (Indian, Romany, and Polish examples come to mind) in recent generations. Genetics do not refine race/ethnicity, culture and cultural definitions do. Americans have definitions even the culturally similar British do not understand (e.g. hispanic, white passing black). I am defined differently in different countries: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different
frollogaston 3mo ago
Also some rulers of the Roman empire weren't ethnically Roman/Italian, even if you don't count after the capitol was moved to Constantinople, but especially if you do.

z0ltan 3mo ago

[dead]

vintermann 3mo ago

It isn't, but OP doesn't say it is either. I think it's a worthwhile point to make that exceedingly few nations, cultures, ethnicites etc. correspond cleanly to equivalent groups that existed ~2000 years ago. Identity-building projects need simple stories, genetics (or history generally) rarely gives them.

pm3003 3mo ago
Probably Georgia as a political entity, Armenia, Cambodia and Vietnam as nations probably. I know other examples of relative ethnic stability: most of Northern Europe broadly has the same ethnic geographic boundaries as 1500 years ago (excepting the slavic / proto slavic things), the Basque, the Sardinians, Bretons and Bearnese, Tirolians, Kabyles, Laz "Greeks" (vanishing since WWII). By some measures also Egypt (coastal cities excepted) and Iran.