Racism In Rome

[Germanicus]

My guess is that something-that's-darned-near-to-racism is simply a natural way to think, and it takes EFFORT to quit treating people as if they were divided up into breeds or races and to treat them as individuals.

 

Good point. It's just an inbuilt thing I guess, a protection mechanism that says "This is us" and "that is them". Hope that makes sense

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's just an inbuilt thing I guess, a protection mechanism that says "This is us" and "that is them". Hope that makes sense

 

Yep, I think that puts a finger on it and why it's easy to find racial prejudice in all groups.

[Sextus Roscius]

It's just an inbuilt thing I guess, a protection mechanism that says "This is us" and "that is them". Hope that makes sense

 

Yep, I think that puts a finger on it and why it's easy to find racial prejudice in all groups.

 

Indeed, personaly I beleive that all people are born Racist becuase thats how humans work, we are naturaly scared of something different from what we have.

 

If I were to walk into your house speaking in Klingon uttering something that sounded like complete giberish, it could really translate to something civilized and if you too spoke Klingon then we could go on to have a completely civilized and cultured conversation in our language of Klingon, but since you don't speak Klingon, you would be taken agasp and most likely look at me as if I were an idiot and then go on to do something rude or angry.

 

All said, I think Germanicus stated it perfectly in saying that it is a built in mechanism.

[Honorius]

If I were to walk into your house speaking in Klingon uttering something that sounded like complete giberish, it could really translate to something civilized and if you too spoke Klingon then we could go on to have a completely civilized and cultured conversation in our language of Klingon, but since you don't speak Klingon, you would be taken agasp and most likely look at me as if I were an idiot and then go on to do something rude or angry.

 

 

U speak Klingon???

[Andrew Dalby]

It's just an inbuilt thing I guess, a protection mechanism that says "This is us" and "that is them". Hope that makes sense

 

Yep, I think that puts a finger on it and why it's easy to find racial prejudice in all groups.

 

Indeed, personaly I beleive that all people are born Racist becuase thats how humans work, we are naturaly scared of something different from what we have.

 

 

1: We have an inbuilt tendency to classify. It helps us learn what to eat and what not to eat, among many other things. 2: we have a tendency to learn to be afraid of certain people/animals/things that we have classified. Let's admit it, if we didn't have those tendencies, we'd be dead.

 

These tendencies are very easy for others to play on. Rather easily (unfortunately) we learn from others to hate, to despise, to make fun of, whole classes of people and things. In France, where I live now, there is an assumption that red-haired people smell. When I was growing up in England, teachers forced left-handed children to write with their right hands. When we have overcome such prejudices, we think they are silly and medieval. Sadly, similar prejudices seem to come into existence all too easily.

[Sextus Roscius]

In deed, I must agree with you Andrew. Humans can easily have minor inbuilt prejudices escalate into something much larger than they are really worth.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Our innate mechanism for categorization partly explains the universality of racial prejudice, but only partly. All categorization gets you is the lumping of people into groups where individuals are treated as units and treating people with the same looks into the same kind.

 

In addition, we must also have a mechanism for detecting causal relations, that is, not just a mechanism for lumping like-with-like, but also a mechanism for detecting like-generating-like. Without this, there is no reason why a racist would view (say) a child of an enculturated Roman as having less potential in a Roman environment than the child of a Roman who emulated barbarians. Without this, there would be no reason to worry so much over blood lines, of intermarriage, and so forth. Again, this mechanism is also adaptive insofar as it solves biological problems in which the same looks don't equal the same kind (e.g., camoflauge, mimicry, sexual dimorphism, aging, cosmetic surgery, and so forth).

[rvmaximus]

Roman racism helped Herman to defeat Rome

 

Yes, Herman did inflict a major defeat on Augustan Rome, before he was killed by his own people shortly after being soundly defeated by a Roman force under Germanicus in 14AD.

 

The Romans had great respect for Germanic fighting prowess and physical strength, that's why they started employing them so often in their legions. That's why Roman Emperors used German bodyguards.

 

Rome did not conquer because they hated northern Europeans. If this was the case why did they let so many Gauls and Spanish Celts into the Senate.....indeed, why did they elevate some to the highest office ? (Trajan).

 

One question for you - Were Germanic incursions accross the Rhine into Gaul prior to Roman Occupation, and the rapes, murders etc that those Germanic invaders inflicted on Gallic peoples racially based ?

The Germanics were stopped cold be the the Celts for a long time. The Geramiics lived in a harsh cold land..Celts in a much better place that the Germans coveted. Also..am not sure of the Romans complexion...seemed that there was a huge diversity.

German bodygaurds were used by the late emporors so that they would not go the way of Caesar. Poltics was not high on the German soldires list as the Romans. As for fighting prowess..debatable..Caesar thought very little of the prowess of the Celts or Germans. He had an easy time of it gieven how he was so outnumberd by both. Crossing the Rhine also while not being attcked(and marching around for days) showed and amazing amountnof confidence..since he estimated that the German forces were many times large that the Celtic. Plus the toughest of Germanics were in the are of Belgae(most German sfeared them the most)...they became Romans one way or another. Some Roman writers used poetic lisence to build up their enemies. But the Roman soldier for the most part was easily the best ar the inafntry level.(hand to hand)

Caesars dream before his death was to conquer Parthia..the real heel in the Roman side. Pacify the Gerams so they would stop their attacks..and to free up legions to ga after the riches of the east. Germania offered the Romans littlle and Roame offered the Germans much. (better bland,culure and weather....)

Roman cavalry was inferior to most..including Celts ,Germans..so that is why they were so recruited. But all wee inferior to the Parthians who really made the Roman infanntry obsolete. Perhaps Caesar would have found his death there..one that I am sure he would rather.

[Primus Pilus]

The Germanics were stopped cold be the the Celts for a long time. The Geramiics lived in a harsh cold land..Celts in a much better place that the Germans coveted. Also..am not sure of the Romans complexion...seemed that there was a huge diversity.

German bodygaurds were used by the late emporors so that they would not go the way of Caesar. Poltics was not high on the German soldires list as the Romans. As for fighting prowess..debatable..Caesar thought very little of the prowess of the Celts or Germans. He had an easy time of it gieven how he was so outnumberd by both. Crossing the Rhine also while not being attcked(and marching around for days) showed and amazing amountnof confidence..since he estimated that the German forces were many times large that the Celtic. Plus the toughest of Germanics were in the are of Belgae(most German sfeared them the most)...they became Romans one way or another. Some Roman writers used poetic lisence to build up their enemies. But the Roman soldier for the most part was easily the best ar the inafntry level.(hand to hand)

Caesars dream before his death was to conquer Parthia..the real heel in the Roman side. Pacify the Gerams so they would stop their attacks..and to free up legions to ga after the riches of the east. Germania offered the Romans littlle and Roame offered the Germans much. (better bland,culure and weather....)

Roman cavalry was inferior to most..including Celts ,Germans..so that is why they were so recruited. But all wee inferior to the Parthians who really made the Roman infanntry obsolete. Perhaps Caesar would have found his death there..one that I am sure he would rather.

 

In the future, please take the time to double check your spelling and grammar. Many of your posts appear nonsensical because of this issue.

[P.Clodius]

Racism? That's a modern term to describe extreme "tribalism". Tribalism is ingrained in all of us. To ascribe racism to the romans is rediculous IMO. They were traditionally an inclusive society. Now I know points have been made arguing the reluctance to include the allies, etc... What does this have to do with racism? The arguments about the allies were mostly socio-economic/political/law (Foedus Cassianum) related. Where in Livy or Polybius does it say "Lets kill the Carthaginians because they're a bunch of coons."? Balbus was reputedly of carthaginian descent and served as consul, many gauls and germans were included in the senate, many people from many nations saw service in the auxiliaries and were treated equitably and equally. Gimme a break, the romans were about as institutionally racist as a 6 month old baby!

Edited January 5, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

IMO, the feature distinguishing gut-level tribalism from deliberate racism is the issue of innate potential. Namely, can children born to parents of a "bad"-tribe but raised in a "good" tribe ever rise as far or be as good or have the same abilities as children born to parents of a "good" tribe and raised in a "good tribe". If ancient Romans were anything like modern Mongolian tribesmen, Yucatec farmers, or even American preschoolers, it's likely that they would answer that children born to Roman parents had an innate advantage over children born to barbarian parents even if both were brought up as Romans. That's racist--but it's simply the way people reason about all kinds of biological kinds (see e.g., the story of the ugly "duckling").

 

To call Roman society, racist, by the way, isn't much of a cultural criticism. Racism is endemic to all human cultures and you can find it even more strongly in children than adults, suggesting that racist attitudes aren't something that they pick up from the wider society (like learning to spell).

[WotWotius]

Not all Roman viewed barbarians as mindless savages; some writers even had a slight admiration of the barbaric lifestyle. For example, the Greek philosopher Posidonius once declared that 'Barbarism was mans' natural state' which basically means that living simple lives away from the corruptions of the big cities is a very admirable way to live. This probably gave rise to the idea of the 'noble savage': a person who had not been suduced by the Roman way of life so was therefore seen as a better person.

 

The idea of the noble savage is present in other literary sources too. For instance, throughout the Agicola, Tacitus constantly implies that the life style of the native Britons is simple but virtuous. This is epecially present in the Adlocutio speech of Boudica (probably made up by Tacitus, thus furthering the idea of the noble savage) written in the Annals whereby the Britons are depicted as brave but oppressed, upstanding, austere creatures. The Roman on the other hand are portrayed as toga claded, purfume wearing servants of a ladies man (Nero) who have been enslaved by their lifstyles. It seems strange that there is so much self hatred in Roman litrature.

 

However, the vast majority of Romans would have felt superior to their barbarian niegbours, as the idea of their divine right to conquor anything they surveyed (and beyond!) was so ingrained into their psychies. For this we have Virgil to thank: '...I set upon the Romans no limit of space and time. I have bestowed upon them an empire without end.' (Jupiter speaking to venus on Mt Olympus).

 

This view resulted in the Romans placing foreigners into two catgories. The first being GENS SUBIECTI: defeated people who recognise Rome's rule and therefore should be taxed, but not disrepected. The second being GENS SUPERBI: proud people who resist Roman dominence and should be suquently wiped off the map--an act that the Romans felt no guilt in doing. For instance, the divine peacful Emperor Marcus Aurelius didn't even bat an eyelid when he ordered the mass genoside of certain Sarmatian tribes. Julius Ceasar even boasted!! about how many foreigners he killed in his Gallic campaign '...i killed a million and enslaved a million...'

Edited February 1, 2006 by WotWotius

[Kosmo]

The Mediterraneans were the most racist people in history. However, the P.C. racism of the West prevents us from seeing hate against Northern Europeans as racism.

 

I have to disagree with you.

Racism is an atitude of prejudice against another race. A race is a grup with distinct phisical features.

If you say that northern europeans and mediterranean are distinct races you see something that ancient romans did not see.

Roman women were makings their hair blond and lots of historical figures are described as blondes. They liked very much whow northern europeans looked and they were not very different from them as indo-europeans.

[Arvioustus]

If you look at ancient Roman artwork and portraits it is very difficult to say they are even 'Mediteranean looking' ( even though I do not know what that is exactly). I see a variety of faces almost like the USA of today. They really do not even look like modern Italian faces. It seemed like blond hair and dark hair were well represented as well were an amazing aray of physical diversity much more so than the modern Italians I studied. If I was to generalize and compare I would see the Romans as a muscular type people( not the body builder type but a look of extreme strength) and not very attractive facial features at all. (the modern Italian does not resemble them at all) However, looking at the portraits it is plain to see that hair or skin tone was not an issue but just an extreme lack of facial beauty. I am not talking about portraits of the slaves (there are many) but of the Romans. Ethnically it would seem like they are in a class by themselves and just merged with other Europeans so much that they dissapeared completely.

[M. Porcius Cato]

A race is not a group with distinct physical features. The various physical features alluded to do not cluster for various genetic reasons. The only meaningful definition of race is as a sort of super-family (a family of family of familiy of ...families), and the Romans were positively obsessed with descent.