Racism In Rome

[skel]

i just read the thread about blacks in the legion forum and was wonder what kind of racism if any at all was there in rome? the other thread said that there was all sorts of races and ethnisities in rome but what did the people of rome think of those people and how were they treated?

 

also how did slavery pan out as far as racism go? were people slave simply becuase they were thought ot be inferior like whites did to blacks?

[Primus Pilus]

Its difficult to say exactly how the Romans may have felt about any given ethnic group at any given time, but generally speaking, they were more concerned with culture and social standing. A Roman, and one of Latin descent, stood above all, whereas a barbaric appearing Gaul was considered contemptible. The poor were generally frowned upon as much as happens in any society, but Roman citizens were still more respected than any barbarian culture. Greeks were often accepted/admired (depending on the person or group of course) above various 'barbarian' cultures because of many similarities. However, evidence seems to show that a ethnicity played little part once that group was Romanized. If they looked, acted and behaved like a Roman, then to most, they were a Roman. Non Romanized foreigners were certainly subject to some disdain, though I'm sure.

 

Its difficult to trace the exact origin of racism as it relates to skin color, but we can assume it came in earnest with the age of exploration of the 15th to 18th centuries. Europeans found a vast land full of people that they considered to be different, primitive and beneath their own culture in general. The vast need for resources in a time of great wars and extensive colonization required the subjegation of these people to win the 'race'. As the subjegation of these people continued it certainly created an environment of superiority. Racism based on ethnicity (mainly concerning African people in this post) certainly existed prior to this point, but there were other factors involved such as religion, but its this age of discovery that truly began racism as we understand it today.

[Ursus]

Agreed with what PP said. Culture and especially social class mattered more than ethnicity to the Romans.

 

Most Roman slaves would have look liked their masters - Mediterranean complexion. Of course, their were fair haired Celts and Germans in the mix, and some black skinned Africans.

[Caesar]

From what I understand, it was less race, and more how "Romanized" you were that determined your treatment.

[pompeius magnus]

Considering some very prominant members were black, that tells me that Romans did not view race as important as other aspects, such as language, dress, and other such cultural issues.

[Fatboy]

One of the more pleasant aspects of reading about the Ancient world is the almost total lack of racism.

Xenophobia, bigotry, sectarianism and extreme nationalism were all amply represented in Classical times but yes, the racism familiar to us today was pretty much unheard of.

 

To take Ancient Egypt as an example, they may have routinely referred to anyone and everyone from the East as a " vile Asiatic " and the Nubians as " craven hearted wretches " but this sort of language of course was all part of maintaining a healthy fear and hatred amongst the population for Egypts traditional enemies. They certainly considered other peoples inferior but had no conception that this was due to the colour of their skin or some other " racial " difference, they were simply foreigners who had the temerity to live beyond the borders of Egypt and the foolishness not to submit to the obviously universal authority of the Pharaoh. Both the dark Nubian Pharaohs of the 7th and 8th Centuries BC and the lighter skinned Ptolemaic Dynasty were equally well accepted by the Egyptian people, the Hyksos apparently less so but this was due to their much less successful adoption of Egyptian customs, unsuprising as thay seem to have been a nomadic people.

 

Similarly, the Greeks and Romans would liberally refer to other peoples as Barbarians and talk of their base instincts and savage customs, but it never entered their heads that the colour of their skin could be responsible. They would often admiringly attribute positive physical and mental characteristics which they themselves considered desirable to a particular Barbarian. Having pale skin was considered desirable in many cultures through history but this was seen as a sign of success, that the person concerned could afford to stay indoors rather than work under the glare of the sun all day, rather than the source of superiority. Cultural snobbery was rife in the ancient world but true racism as we know it today never entered their heads probably because it is so well......stupid.

 

I think nowadays, so familiar with the concept are we that sometimes we can forget how ridiculous the idea is, that people of a different skin colour or who look superficially different could be somehow fundamentally inferior. Many years ago I decided to really investigate the whole idea of racism and particularly the ideology of the Nazi's. I purposely did so with a completely open mind and was delighted to find out that it was even more absurd than I had thought it was. Racism is not wrong because so many people say it is. Its not wrong because we may find it distasteful. Its wrong because its complete and utter bullsh*t.

 

The differences between people of different races is so miniscule as to render any of these racist theories comical. Even the difference between a man and a woman is massive compared with that between two men of different " races ". In fact there really are no biological differences that can be ascribed to " race ". Sure there are trends towards an aptitude for certain activities among different peoples around the world possibly resulting from the local gene pool but this is completely independant of " race ". Famously black dudes in America tend to make particularly great atheletes. As descendants of slaves taken from West Africa they of course share their powerful physique and amazing muscle definition. So is this because they are black ? Hardly, there are not too many Central African Pygmies playing running back in the NFL. This stuff has got nothing whatsoever to do with " race ". Germans for example also have a tendency towards powerful physiques and and defined muscles, much more so than the equally white French.

 

Oh hang on a minute, I was getting carried away and forgot what this thread was actually about for a moment. This is turning into general rant against racism. Well, any excuse for an anti racism rant is a good excuse but I will attempt to get back on the topic of racism's appearance in history anyhow.

 

Where it really matters of course is the area of mental abilities and this happily is where the idea has been most thoroughly discredited. As has been said it was the European colonialists who came up with the racism we know today. You can see why they began to think that way. Obviously they wondered why it was that technologically and culturally they were so far in advance of the various peoples they came accross on their travels. I suppose the answer that they were just simply " better " than everybody else

was a pretty satisfying one. If you can imagine that you are part of the English community in India , with a mere couple of hundred of your countrymen living like kings, lording it over millions of natives, well it would be pretty easy to believe that you were somehow inherently superior. In fact it would be important to believe you were superior to maintain authority. Similarly, hundreds of years earlier at the birth of the colonial era the Spanish Conquistadors would have had to nurture a deep belief in their superiority over the natives to even attempt the incredibly audacious campaigns they waged in South America. Deep Religious faith was really where they drew their unshakeable confidence though.

 

The theory that other races were mentally inferior to the white man was wonderfully destroyed in the 19th Century when the occaisional British colonist would adopt a native child of the Australasian Aboriginal peoples. Often sent to England to be educated, the British racial theorists were naturally fascinated to see out how they got on learning the same curriculum as British childeren. It was generally thought that the aboriginal childeren would find maths unmanageable a this discipline suited the " civilised " mind and was beyond thier savage intellects, capable only of a kind of animal cunning.

Of course the aboriginal kids turned out to be no different than the native kids and several turned out to be specifically talented at maths, thoroughly debunking the theory.

 

The Romans surely had no real concept of racism. The fact that people of all colours and creeds were accepted into the Empire and could rise to postions of great importance certainly shows this to be true.

The North African Emperor Septimus Severus is an example though I cannot see why he is often called " the black Emperor ". That guy wasn't black. From the busts I've seen of the man he is clearly not black at all. I have seen some busts of his family too and while some of them certainly look North African they do not look black in the slightest. Is this another incident of this disgusting trend of people of certain colours " claiming " historical figures for their " race " or am I going blind? Why would being from North Africa make it likely you were black when only a portion of the population would have been so? I have also heard ridiculous claims that Jesus and Moses were Black. Racism cuts both ways and the black people who have been claiming these things are legitimising racism simply by virtue of the fact that they are saying it matters what colour any of these guys skins were. I haven't bothered investigating any of these claims but they seem nonsensical to me.

 

Ah! Way off topic again but I can't help it, racism is one of the few things that makes me lose my cool. Its just so ignorant and pathetic, it bothers me.

 

Anyway, enough of this rambling, yup the Romans would turn their noses up at you for all sorts of reasons but generally speaking, skin colour alone wasn't one of them.

[longbow]

Nice post Fatboy

[Caesar]

Awesome post! Very well said!

[PerfectimusPrime]

Roman were pretty much known for their tolerance...

 

Roman society has been claimed to be totally colour-barless, or something.

 

Of course from the way they dealed with the jewish revolts you would probaly get the picture that the Romans were antisemitic, but thats not true... They dealt every revlot the same way.

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and the word barbarian was not a racial class, it only pointed out society's sadicism and social backwardness, and of course bad hygine ...

 

In a sense the romans had a uh,certain 'dislike' for unwhased and drunken germans. But, no, not really racism.

[Germanicus]

The North African Emperor Septimus Severus is an example though I cannot see why he is often called " the black Emperor ". That guy wasn't black. From the busts I've seen of the man he is clearly not black at all. I have seen some busts of his family too and while some of them certainly look North African they do not look black in the slightest. Is this another incident of this disgusting trend of people of certain colours " claiming " historical figures for their " race " or am I going blind?

 

 

It's interesting, because I've heard him called the black emperor too, perhaps historians, people have been confused by this :- According to Dion and Herod, who were subsequently quoted by Gibbon :-

 

A verse in everyones mouth at the time, seems to express the general opinion of the three rivals; ['The Black candidate(i.e. Niger) is the best, the African (i.e. Septimus Severus) is a good candidate, the white candidate (i.e Albinus) is the worst']

[Lawrence]

To build on what Fatboy said:

 

While it was centuries before Rome was great, one could not be amiss to look at Herodotus' works, and how anyone not Greek was a 'barbarian' in his eyes. This represents something that suggests racial discrimination was more a matter of pride than hatred, because Herodotus even refers to the Persians as barbarians - they were in fact a very diverse culture with a number of impossible-to-ignore technological advances, not to mention the fact that they had thousands of men of Greek blood in their ranks.

 

Lawrence

[Ursus]

I think it depends on how one defines race. The ancients seemed to define race as we would a culture. From that perspective, the ancient Greeks and Romans may have been "racist" insofar as they asserted the superiority of their culture over others.

 

But if we define race in the modern usage, by certain physical characteristics and especially skin color, that form of racism seems to be largely absent from their mentality.

[P.Clodius]

When the ancients talked in terms of "Barbarians" it didn't invoke the negative connotation it does today. They simply meant foreigners.

[PerfectimusPrime]

When the ancients talked in terms of "Barbarians" it didn't invoke the negative connotation it does today. They simply meant foreigners.

Not exactly, you see the Romans did not call Greeks barbarians.

 

The greeks called every other people barbarian...

[Hamilcar Barca]

If you want some great examples of blatant racism or prejudice from the 1st C AD, look no further than the Satires of Juveneal. The man hated Egyptians with a passion.