6 ms·

Rome was famously multi-ethnic. This is sort of like asking who are the "ethnic Americans". It's just the wrong question to ask.

by bloppe 3mo ago

carlosjobim 3mo ago
What do you mean? Native American Indians are exactly ethnic Americans. The rest are from other ethnicities. Just as there were (are) ethnic Romans.
- rodric 3mo ago
  While I can appreciate this, it was not the historical point of view of the people calling themselves Americans. “What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.” ~J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, 1782 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/letter_03.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/letter_03.asp
  - carlosjobim 3mo ago
    Does it matter much if they called themselves American? The tribes and nations on the continent were certainly more related to each other than to the arrivals from other continents. Just as European tribes and nations were more related to each other than to faraway peoples. And African tribes and nations. The "American" described in your quote there by Crevecoeur is not an American in any ethnic sense. Any modern non-native person calling themselves an American, can only do that in a cultural and ideological sense. Which is of course immensely strong by itself. Just as Catholic, Protestant, Communist, and other non-ethnic labels people have identified with.
    - thatoneguy 3mo ago
      "American" is a poor demonym because "America" is both North and South America. USian would be a better fit and "Native USian" would naturally include all indigenous and non-indigenous people in the US.
    - ericmay 3mo ago
      If you’re following this line of reasoning then even the “native” Americans aren’t actually native because they migrated here too. Further, the concept of “America” referring to what is geographically the United States today isn’t a concept that was held be tribal peoples. It wouldn’t have ever made sense to describe them in this context as the original Americans because they never held such a concept themselves. Also, tribal peoples, whether that’s in Europe or elsewhere are defeated and destroyed and swallowed up by other tribes and civilizations and over the long arc of history lose the status of being original as they are absorbed into a new entity. You can’t describe or study a Roman people as if they are “native” but not extended that same viewpoint to the modern day United States, for example, because both have absorbed other peoples who were native.
      - carlosjobim 3mo ago
        America is a real physical landmass. Two actually. "American" is to be understood as those ethnicities from that physical and very much existing landmass. Whether they called it America or not, which they of course didn't. The same thing for discussing Australian native ethnicities for example. Otherwise we have to argue that dinosaurs didn't exist, because they had never heard about Pangea. > Also, tribal peoples, whether that’s in Europe or elsewhere are defeated and destroyed and swallowed up by other tribes and civilizations and over the long arc of history lose the status of being original as they are absorbed into a new entity. Well it's not true, because of genetical heritage. It still exists, and now in modern times we can study the human genome better than ever. It is messy, it is overlapping, but it's not unworthy of study and curiosity. They weren't swallowed up and disappeared, genetically speaking. Very rarely would a genocide be complete, because conquerors would take the women at least from the conquered. Being ethnically Roman was not the same as being a Roman citizen or Roman subject. The tribes which ethnically were Roman can be found listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe Here is more about Roman citizenship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship Just like in ethnical nations today, you can become a citizen by virtue of birth ethnicity, or by other procedures. And just like a foreigner cannot belong to any ethnicity or nation just because she has citizenship today, neither could they in Roman times.
- booleandilemma 3mo ago
  [dead]
- forlorn_mammoth 3mo ago
  I wonder how large the spread of ethnicities is in Native American Indian populations. Just for fun, let's estimate our answer based on data from 1600, just pre the mass European arrival on the continents (plural).
- bloppe 3mo ago
  Ok, but the vast multitude of Native American tribes absolutely identified as distinct ethnicities from one another. If you were to apply this to the Romans, then "ethnically Roman" would include Greeks, Celts, Berbers, and dozens if not hundreds of other ethnic groups, each of which was represented in all the social strata of the Roman state at various times.
  - carlosjobim 3mo ago
    Certainly, as does everybody, all the way down to the core family level. Persons make up families, which make up clans, which make up tribes, which make up nations, which make up races. You are part of subdivisions within subdivisions, by heritage. Different persons give different value to each subdivision - or no value to them at all. The native Americans would absolutely consider themselves as more similar to each other than to the European and African arrivals. Just by matter of undeniable physical features. As for the Romans, it is within the mists of history and mythology (Rape of the Sabine Women), but nobody can deny that there was an original people there in Italy, and other peoples who became citizens and/or subjects of Rome weren't ethnically Roman.
    - bloppe 3mo ago
      Your clean-sounding taxonomic framework tends to be much, much messier in practice, but ok. As so often happens, I think this boils down to a vocab disagreement. Normally, you would refer to the ethnolinguistic group as "Latins". "Roman" is much more closely associated with the populus romanus, which was defined by citizenship.
      - carlosjobim 3mo ago
        It is messy, but that's why it is beautiful and interesting. It couldn't be any other way, seeing as it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Once you loose the knowledge of your ancestry that connection is lost forever, until the end of time.
  - jitix 3mo ago
    I think the equivalent of various native tribes would be Romans, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks etc. The core "Italian" Romans were themselves a mix of various Italian populations and they even fought the social wars to gain equal rights. And outside of that we have the Celt, Iberians, Berbers, Mainland Greeks, Anatolians, Illyrians, etc. Broadly speaking you cannot draw an equivalence between Roman Empire and Americas because the dominant ethnicities in US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and other countries are from outside. But IMO this would be the closest analogy. The equivalent would be if the Italian Greeks had become the dominant ethnicity in Italy and absorbed the Romans, Samnites, Etruscans, etc into their culture.
- liveoneggs 3mo ago
  The deleware people are distinct from aztec people who are distinct from taino There is no such thing as "ethnic American"
- notfromhere 3mo ago
  "America" is a place name created by Europeans and "Americans" an identity created by their descendants. So there's no "ethnic" Americans because its an invented social identity.
  - carlosjobim 3mo ago
    No, the landmass physically exists and people existed there before European discovery, no matter what you call the place. They were and are the native people of America - hence the "Americans". As opposed to the people who came there recently from Europe, Asia and Africa mainly.
mc32 3mo ago
Kind of. The empire was multi ethnic and so are modern Americans however often the question is about the foundation. Who are the descendants of the foundational Romans. Did they get diluted into oblivion? For Americans it’s easier as we can trace descendants of the founders of the nation. Of course Britain itself is the result of many waves of immigration, the neolithic, the celts, picts, romans, jutes, angles, saxons, norsemen, etc.
- tremon 3mo ago
  And according to Vergilius (aka Virgil), the foundational Romans were immigrants from Asia Minor. In this allegory, the "native Italians" are the Etruscans and Sabines (among others), and the Aeneid was the Roman version of manifest destiny.
  - mc32 3mo ago
    Verily! The composition and control over Asia Minor was very different from today. There was lots of movement around the Caspian sea, Asia Minor, the Volga, the crescent, etc in those times.

Rome was famously multi-ethnic. This is sort of like asking who are the "ethnic Americans". It's just the wrong question to ask.

by bloppe 3mo ago

Rome was famously multi-ethnic. This is sort of like asking who are the "ethnic Americans". It's just the wrong question to ask.

carlosjobim 3mo ago

What do you mean? Native American Indians are exactly ethnic Americans. The rest are from other ethnicities. Just as there were (are) ethnic Romans.

rodric 3mo ago
While I can appreciate this, it was not the historical point of view of the people calling themselves Americans. “What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.” ~J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, 1782 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/letter_03.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/letter_03.asp
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  Does it matter much if they called themselves American? The tribes and nations on the continent were certainly more related to each other than to the arrivals from other continents. Just as European tribes and nations were more related to each other than to faraway peoples. And African tribes and nations. The "American" described in your quote there by Crevecoeur is not an American in any ethnic sense. Any modern non-native person calling themselves an American, can only do that in a cultural and ideological sense. Which is of course immensely strong by itself. Just as Catholic, Protestant, Communist, and other non-ethnic labels people have identified with.
  - thatoneguy 3mo ago
    "American" is a poor demonym because "America" is both North and South America. USian would be a better fit and "Native USian" would naturally include all indigenous and non-indigenous people in the US.
  - ericmay 3mo ago
    If you’re following this line of reasoning then even the “native” Americans aren’t actually native because they migrated here too. Further, the concept of “America” referring to what is geographically the United States today isn’t a concept that was held be tribal peoples. It wouldn’t have ever made sense to describe them in this context as the original Americans because they never held such a concept themselves. Also, tribal peoples, whether that’s in Europe or elsewhere are defeated and destroyed and swallowed up by other tribes and civilizations and over the long arc of history lose the status of being original as they are absorbed into a new entity. You can’t describe or study a Roman people as if they are “native” but not extended that same viewpoint to the modern day United States, for example, because both have absorbed other peoples who were native.
    - carlosjobim 3mo ago
      America is a real physical landmass. Two actually. "American" is to be understood as those ethnicities from that physical and very much existing landmass. Whether they called it America or not, which they of course didn't. The same thing for discussing Australian native ethnicities for example. Otherwise we have to argue that dinosaurs didn't exist, because they had never heard about Pangea. > Also, tribal peoples, whether that’s in Europe or elsewhere are defeated and destroyed and swallowed up by other tribes and civilizations and over the long arc of history lose the status of being original as they are absorbed into a new entity. Well it's not true, because of genetical heritage. It still exists, and now in modern times we can study the human genome better than ever. It is messy, it is overlapping, but it's not unworthy of study and curiosity. They weren't swallowed up and disappeared, genetically speaking. Very rarely would a genocide be complete, because conquerors would take the women at least from the conquered. Being ethnically Roman was not the same as being a Roman citizen or Roman subject. The tribes which ethnically were Roman can be found listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe Here is more about Roman citizenship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship Just like in ethnical nations today, you can become a citizen by virtue of birth ethnicity, or by other procedures. And just like a foreigner cannot belong to any ethnicity or nation just because she has citizenship today, neither could they in Roman times.
booleandilemma 3mo ago
[dead]
forlorn_mammoth 3mo ago
I wonder how large the spread of ethnicities is in Native American Indian populations. Just for fun, let's estimate our answer based on data from 1600, just pre the mass European arrival on the continents (plural).
bloppe 3mo ago
Ok, but the vast multitude of Native American tribes absolutely identified as distinct ethnicities from one another. If you were to apply this to the Romans, then "ethnically Roman" would include Greeks, Celts, Berbers, and dozens if not hundreds of other ethnic groups, each of which was represented in all the social strata of the Roman state at various times.
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  Certainly, as does everybody, all the way down to the core family level. Persons make up families, which make up clans, which make up tribes, which make up nations, which make up races. You are part of subdivisions within subdivisions, by heritage. Different persons give different value to each subdivision - or no value to them at all. The native Americans would absolutely consider themselves as more similar to each other than to the European and African arrivals. Just by matter of undeniable physical features. As for the Romans, it is within the mists of history and mythology (Rape of the Sabine Women), but nobody can deny that there was an original people there in Italy, and other peoples who became citizens and/or subjects of Rome weren't ethnically Roman.
  - bloppe 3mo ago
    Your clean-sounding taxonomic framework tends to be much, much messier in practice, but ok. As so often happens, I think this boils down to a vocab disagreement. Normally, you would refer to the ethnolinguistic group as "Latins". "Roman" is much more closely associated with the populus romanus, which was defined by citizenship.
    - carlosjobim 3mo ago
      It is messy, but that's why it is beautiful and interesting. It couldn't be any other way, seeing as it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Once you loose the knowledge of your ancestry that connection is lost forever, until the end of time.
- jitix 3mo ago
  I think the equivalent of various native tribes would be Romans, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks etc. The core "Italian" Romans were themselves a mix of various Italian populations and they even fought the social wars to gain equal rights. And outside of that we have the Celt, Iberians, Berbers, Mainland Greeks, Anatolians, Illyrians, etc. Broadly speaking you cannot draw an equivalence between Roman Empire and Americas because the dominant ethnicities in US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and other countries are from outside. But IMO this would be the closest analogy. The equivalent would be if the Italian Greeks had become the dominant ethnicity in Italy and absorbed the Romans, Samnites, Etruscans, etc into their culture.
liveoneggs 3mo ago
The deleware people are distinct from aztec people who are distinct from taino There is no such thing as "ethnic American"
notfromhere 3mo ago
"America" is a place name created by Europeans and "Americans" an identity created by their descendants. So there's no "ethnic" Americans because its an invented social identity.
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  No, the landmass physically exists and people existed there before European discovery, no matter what you call the place. They were and are the native people of America - hence the "Americans". As opposed to the people who came there recently from Europe, Asia and Africa mainly.

mc32 3mo ago

Kind of. The empire was multi ethnic and so are modern Americans however often the question is about the foundation. Who are the descendants of the foundational Romans. Did they get diluted into oblivion? For Americans it’s easier as we can trace descendants of the founders of the nation. Of course Britain itself is the result of many waves of immigration, the neolithic, the celts, picts, romans, jutes, angles, saxons, norsemen, etc.

tremon 3mo ago
And according to Vergilius (aka Virgil), the foundational Romans were immigrants from Asia Minor. In this allegory, the "native Italians" are the Etruscans and Sabines (among others), and the Aeneid was the Roman version of manifest destiny.
- mc32 3mo ago
  Verily! The composition and control over Asia Minor was very different from today. There was lots of movement around the Caspian sea, Asia Minor, the Volga, the crescent, etc in those times.