altyfc Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 "Nothing comparable to the virulent color prejudice of modern times existed in the ancient world," writes Frank Snowden Jr. "The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. Greeks and Romans did not establish color as an obstacle to integration in society. An ancient society was one that for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man." Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Agreed, the Romans only discriminated against anyone who wasn't actually a Roman. It is widely agreed that the ancients would allow anyone of a particular economic or heirarchal standing to be included within their own social fabric, regardless of culture or ethnicity. I can certainly accept this consensus. I can't, however, believe that things were any better for those who didn't fall into the 'elite' status. While accepting biological differences and some cultural practices within their own environments, the Romans still preferred their own. A poor man of differing color would be judged the same as a poor man of their own culture, but he was judged just the same. In theory, thats certainly more just from an ethnic standpoint, but still doesn't exempt the Romans from discrimination and prejudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted May 2, 2004 Report Share Posted May 2, 2004 Sounds like todays capitalism mixed with a system like the caste in India? cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Julius Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but it seems that human beings; how ever far advanced they become, sometimes repeat the same "stupid" mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 True, anything that involves humans will intrinsically become corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynch Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 We as a people are like cheese, eventually even after you cut the mold off, it's back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 "Nothing comparable to the virulent color prejudice of modern times existed in the ancient world," writes Frank Snowden Jr. "The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. Greeks and Romans did not establish color as an obstacle to integration in society. An ancient society was one that for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man." Aaron I don't know if the original poster is still around, but I think this would be an excellent topic of discussion, since we spent so much time discussing the alleged negatives of Roman society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 What negative sides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Well, I did say "alleged" negatives. ;-) For my own part, the relative social tolerance and relative religious tolerance are two of the first things that attracted me to the Romans. For all the talk of the evil empire, they seemed to have had less prejudices than we moderns do. Two things seemed to stand out in Roman society: gender and class. The first was very much a fact in the early republic, but as time went on women achieved a certain degree of liberation, at least if they were in the upper classes. So that leaves us with social class as the main source of "prejudice" in Roman society. And the Romans did sneer at anyone who wasn't culturally Roman, but this was balanced by the fact that they were more willing than many societies, past or present, to turn a non-citizen into a citizen. After 212, all adult freeborn males in the empire functioned effectively as citizens. So again, what we are left with is "class distinction", of which Romans were truly obsessed. But, in theory at least, the classes that had the greater share of honor and privledges also had the greater share of duties and responsibilities to the State, which seems "fair" in a way that modern egalitarian sympathies won't admit. I'm forced to conclude the Romans, whatever their faults, were a lot more tolerant and accepting than modern cultures are in many instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GasHuffer Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 I don't mean to soun\\d pessimistic, but it seems that human beings; how ever far advanced they become, sometimes repeat the same "stupid" mistakes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I could not have said it better. Besides, What is the big deal ? It's simple mathematics and only sponouec at the top of the food Chian. And his brother the "Black Race" is at the Bottom. And again you can use this simple rule and apply it Social Status & Changes to Antisocial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.