Ancient Racism

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

Do you thinks that gauls, carthaginians, greeks, etc would have been abused or cornered off in their own parts of a city? Other religions were certainly shunned but were they racially abused?

I'm pretty sure it would have happened but i cant find any ancient text.

 

vtc

[caldrail]

Not because of race. The romans are noted for their lack of racism. They were after all a cosmopolitan society and as long as you adopted roman ways, the colour of your skin didn't matter. Theu did notice that skin colour got darker the further south you travelled, but for them this was merely a curiosity. For instance, Trajan was laughed at when he first spoke in the senate. His spanish accent was a matter of hilarity to the wealthy roman establishment, but he still became an emperor, not to mention one who was regarded as one of their best. Syrians and at least one arab also made the top slot.

 

However - the romans were definitely culturalist. They regarded thenselves as the center of civilisation and no barbarian culture was regarded as equal in their eyes. The romans for instance were not keen on greeks. They regarded their language as essentially 'lower class' and vulgar, despite its importance in art, commerce, and literature. Greeks were regarded as disreputable and untrustworthy because of their national image, not because of racism.

 

Individual people would have been abused certainly. That was standard practice in politics and intrigue, where slaves or clients were paid to harangue your rivals or paint graffitti on their houses.

[Andrew Dalby]

However - the romans were definitely culturalist. They regarded thenselves as the center of civilisation and no barbarian culture was regarded as equal in their eyes. The romans for instance were not keen on greeks. They regarded their language as essentially 'lower class' and vulgar, despite its importance in art, commerce, and literature. Greeks were regarded as disreputable and untrustworthy because of their national image, not because of racism.

 

You're absolutely right, Caldrail, and yet -- as you suggest -- there's another side to it. It was a love-hate relationship! Romans really admired Greek literature and oratory, and under the Roman Empire a full education included studying Greek in depth. Many went to study at 'university' level at Athens or other Greek centres. A large number of educated Romans must have been truly bilingual in Greek

[WotWotius]

The Romans, in their own little world, believed that due to the nature of their location, they had managed to maintain the balance between the hardy (but weak-spirited) nature of the barbarian north, and the intellectual (but crafty) character of the Greek south:

 

So moreover, from the clearness of the atmosphere, aided also by the intense heat, the southern nations are more ready and quick in expedients: but the northern nations, oppressed by a gross atmosphere, and cooled by the moisture of the air, are of duller intellect. That this is so, may be proved from the nature of serpents, which in the hot season, when the cold is dispelled by the heat, move with great activity, but in the rainy and winter seasons, from the coldness of the air, they become torpid. Hence it is not surprising that man's intellect should be sharpened by heat and blunted by a cold atmosphere.

Though, however, the southern nations are quick in understanding, and sagacious in council, yet in point of valour they are inferior, for the sun absorbs their animal spirits. Those, on the contrary, who are natives of cold climates are more courageous in war, and fearlessly attack their enemies, though, rushing on without consideration or judgment, their attacks are repulsed and their designs frustrated. Since, then, nature herself has provided throughout the world, that all nations should differ according to the variation of the climate, she has also been pleased that in the middle of the earth, and of all nations, the Roman people should be seated; on this account the people of Italy excel in both qualities, strength of body and vigour of mind. For as the planet Jupiter moves through a temperate region between the fiery Mars and icy Saturn, so Italy enjoys a temperate and unequalled climate between the north on one side, and the south on the other. Hence it is, that by stratagem she is enabled to repress the attacks of the barbarians, and by her strength to overcome the subtilty of southern nations. Divine providence has so ordered it that the metropolis of the Roman people is placed in an excellent and temperate climate, whereby they have become the masters of the world.

- Vitruvius, Architecture VI. I. 9-11

[Ursus]

Do you thinks that gauls, carthaginians, greeks, etc would have been abused or cornered off in their own parts of a city?

 

It was a double edged sword. The Romans had a healthy contempt for non-Romans. At the same time, they were rather generous in granting citizenship to provincials. The clasical authors had some snide comments to say about those tall, fair eyed and fair haired barbarians to the North, but those Barbarians were becoming equites and Senators within a few generations of Caesar.

 

After Caracalla, the distinction between "Roman" and "non-Roman" is less meaningful then the distinction between social class.

 

 

Other religions were certainly shunned?

Were they? The Romans adopted foriegn cults all the time, albeit with some modifications. The only religions prosecuted by the state were ones that were perceived to exist outside the bounds of acceptable social conventions.

[WotWotius]

The Roman mindset was higly responsible for the rise of the Empire. Superiority in every sense was ingrained within the psyche of all Romans; this often resulted in arrogance and xenophobia, but also a belief that it was in Rome's destiny to rule. This superiority was not restricted to the ruling aristocracy, the ordinary people of Rome felt this way; they accordingly imposed honours and offices on aristocrats who brought them victories - Scipio Aemilianus being a fine example - and they rejected aristocrats who appeased foreigners and even allies - the tribune Livius Drusus for example. This belief was present everywhere in Rome; it often surfaced in Roman literature:

 

'Of Mars and his own name endow the Roman nation.

To these I set no bounds, either in space or time;

Unlimited power I give them.' - Virgil Aeneid I. 278-80

 

Although Greek, the republican historian Polybius was a keen supporter of this ideology; the works were almost a doctrine written to inform other Greeks why they should assign themselves to Rome.

 

Generally speaking, the Romans viewed foreigners in two different ways: the subjected - people who had submitted to Rome, and therefore worthy of a Roman lifestyle; and the defiant - people that resisted Rome, and therefore must be destroyed.

 

Edit: spelling.

Edited May 26, 2007 by WotWotius

[The Augusta]

An insightful response Wot. And it has made me realise something. This idealogy of superiority was present in the ruling classes of the British Empire too, and the Persians - to go far back in time. Do you think that this mindset is a crucial prerequisite to imperialism? If so, this transcends theories of racism as such, and may fall more within the bounds of aggressive nationalism or jingoism.

[WotWotius]

In my view, aggressive nationalism, manifest destiny and jingoism are all subgroups of racism.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Judging by their ethnic stereotypes, it appears the Romans saw inferiority in every direction they looked.

 

Looking eastward towards Greece and Syria, the invective became progressively more caustic. "The words of Greeks issue from their lips; those of Romans from their heart" (Plut. Cat. Mai., 12.5). Phrygians, Cicero tells us, are best improved by whipping; 'worst of the Mysians' was the ultimate insult; Carians were so worthless as to be fit only for human experiments; Cappadocians were paragons of stupidity, tastelessness, and beastliness (Cic. Flac. 65; Cic., Red. Sen., 14). Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, and Jews were born for servitude (Cic. Flac. 67, Livy 35.49.8, 36.17.4-5).

 

Looking southward, the Punica were considered paragons of treachery, with Sardinians being so rotten that they were abandoned even by the Punica (Cic., Scaur. 42). Egyptians, of course, were animal-worshipping degenerates (Cic. Tusc. 5.78, Nat. D. 1.16.43).

 

Looking westward, the Romans saw nothing but barbarism: Gauls and Spaniards were hairy, cruel, ferocious monsters (Cic. Font 31, 33, 41, 43-4; Cic Q Fr 1.1.27), and Spaniards brushed their teeth in piss (Catull. 37.20, 39.17-21).

 

Legally, all of these peoples--even piss-drinking Spaniards--could be admitted as citizens, it is true. However, the only gateway to citizenship was slavery. Moreover, the passage from foreign slave to free Roman--with all the rights attendant thereto--was often purchased by the slave himself, who then lived in perpetual obligation to his former master. It was a good system for Rome (until Augustus put the brakes on it), and even the Greeks admired it: Phillip V himself commended it in a letter to the Larissans (Syll. 3, 543: 29 - 34).

 

I think the bottom-line is that the Romans, though inclusive politically, still never doubted their superiority over other ethnic groups, whom they showered with slurs, stereotypes, and slavery. Really, there is simply no meaningful distinction between Roman ethnic chauvinism and racism.

[The Augusta]

In my view, aggressive nationalism, manifest destiny and jingoism are all subgroups of racism.

 

I have to agree - and with MPC's assessment also. I was addressing myself mainly to Caldrail's post, I suppose. Caldrail appears, in that post, to define racism as being based on colour alone (although I may be doing him an injustice, as I may have misunderstood him). But I don't think we can just limit it to that. The Greeks are a race, but a different one to the Gauls etc. - the colour of their skin is immaterial.

 

However, Caldrail highlights a growing problem in England today. On watching the Champions League final the other night, the commentators were having a hilarious time making fun of certain Milan players and calling them 'typical Italians' and other such derogatory comments. They would not dare make such comments about, say, an Afro-Caribbean player or Asian player, as this would be constued (rightly) as racism. But aren't similar remarks about the Italians equally racist? I can't see the difference myself, yet no-one rang in to complain and no action was taken against the commentators. Of course, it had much to do with the fact that an English team were playing these terrible Italians! Other commentators have been dismissed from their posts immediately following tasteless remarks about black players, yet stereotyping the Italians or Spaniards seems to be greeted with great laughter all round.

 

So - is there some confusion in how we term racism today? Is the modern term taken to mean prejudice against those of a different colour, or is it prejudice against any different race by another? In all good sense, I would take it to mean the latter. And judging from the splendid examples found by Cato above, the Romans would fit this latter category. Augustus certainly wanted to 'breed out' foreign blood in his Italian citizenry, as we discussed in another thread on the Forum.

[Augustus Caesar]

I don't particularly think the Romans had racism on thier minds as we see it today. It has already been poited out above that they dealt with things in a different mindset. When I look back at things like this and see all the ideas coming through about how they dsliked the Greeks and of course the barbarians of any culture I see it a differentway from the 'racism' point of view. When it comes down to it the Romans couldn't really care less about colour. Some abuses may have been dished out on a minor scale but these were not, surely, widespread enough to warrant any real mention in their histories.

 

I also look on the north south divide, if you like, with a different viewpoint. It is generally accepted that to the south and east lived the more knowledgable folk and to the north and west lived the barbarians. Now while that is quite a general view it will suffice for this comment. When Rome encountered these peoples they would firstly wonder which way they could utilise the people to get the maximum output and profit from them. If the culture was 'civilised' they would ultimately rule over them in a totally different way to those of the 'barbarian' way of life. Looking at the classes in Roman society one sees that anyone who lives by a sword - gladiators for example - are deemed low in life and class and are not given any form of acceptance in 'society' whereas those who were a tad more 'civilised' would have a better chance of being integrated into the Roman way and higher classes. There is little or no profit to be gained by Rome taking barbarians for anything else other than the arena to entertain the masses or slavery. If they progressed from that into freedmen/women then so be it. However, they still had little to offer and were still 'shunned'. On the other hand, the more civil societies would be integrated and used for commercial profit while allowing those they ruled to make their own profit where they could. Just as long as the tribute flowed into Rome and the province was at peace then Rome allowed it to flourish. A barbarian state was more likely to be crushed first and utilised in a different way afterward.

 

So, while that is a very general view, it is one I do believe in. Rome used its power, influence, enemies and its own people to maximise profit and wealth for Rome alone. If you got rich whilst helping them out then fine. But I do think strong parallels can be drawn from the Roman citizenry to those on a more world wide stage where the way of life you led dictated to how you were ultimatley accepted or rejected by Rome. So those, as I stated above, with a sword, would be treated as low class, those with a book (scroll!!) would be deemed as educated and therefore high class. The same rule would follow for all those in between.

 

I know this may read different to some of you but I hope I have made my point as clear as I can. The big issue in Rome to me was not racism but slavery. Once you were deemed to be of a particular class that's all that mattered. Everything else followed from there.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't particularly think the Romans had racism on thier minds as we see it today. It has already been poited out above that they dealt with things in a different mindset.

 

It has been claimed that the Romans possessed "a different mindset", but what is the evidence for this claim? WotWotius and I have listed about a dozen or so examples of ethnic stereotyping. Do you have any counter-examples? If not, how do you explain them from the premise that the Romans were not racist? How, other than racism, could an educated Roman like Cicero claim (for example) that Carians were only fit for human experimentation? My heavens! It's like something out of Mengele!

[Rameses the Great]

I, for once in my life, agree with MPC. The Romans held stereotypical views. In gladitiorial fights, they believed Africans and northern barbarians were brutes who used strength to win. They thought people from the East: Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc. would use some type of magic from the gods. They believed Greeks, and other Balkan peoples, were intellects and would use their minds to win battles. They designated some peoples to be slaves such as Slavs and other barbarians. They did however know when there was a superior method to doing things and did borrow ideas from other cultures so they didn't think of others completely inferior.

[The Augusta]

Thank you to Augustus Caesar for reminding us that the modern concept of racism would not have been an issue with the Romans. And thank you to Tiberius Vibius for starting this thread, which promises to lead to some useful discussion. Augustus C. is quite right when he states that slavery was perhaps the big issue, but I would say two things to this. The first is that our abhorrence of slavery is another modern sensibility that would not have bothered the Romans, and also, certainly after the Social War slavery was synonymous with 'foreign blood', as Augustus (the emperor not our member) highlighted in his Lex Fufia et. al.

 

But another thing struck me in Cato's post, when he stated that the only gateway to citizenry (for foreign peoples) was through slavery. Clearly this has to be pre-Caracalla - and even if so, what of citizenship that was bestowed on freeborn provincials for some service rendered? Although I admit this was very sparingly given, it does admit another route other than definite slavery.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But another thing struck me in Cato's post, when he stated that the only gateway to citizenry (for foreign peoples) was through slavery. Clearly this has to be pre-Caracalla - and even if so, what of citizenship that was bestowed on freeborn provincials for some service rendered?

 

Good point. I was talking about the republican era (almost all of my quotes are from Cicero). At least during this period, citizenship was jealously guarded by the Romans (probably because it actually meant something).

 

As for freeborn provincials, I'd remind you of the case of the Gallic nobles who were given citizenship by Caesar (totally illegally but almost possibly high-minded) for having served in a municipal capacity. The consul Marcellus ordered them to be flogged. This act of course was high symbolism. The very definition of a citizen--going back at least to the lex Porcia passed by Cato the Elder--was the citizen's inviolate right to be free from flogging by a magistrate. By having the Gaul flogged--and sending him to show his scars to Caesar--Marcellus was making a clear statement about the types of men whom he thought fit for citizenship and what he thought of Caesar's opening Rome to the "hairy monsters". (As an historical analogy, it would be like a Southern governor lynching a black Senator during Reconstruction. Not that that ever happened, mind you.)

Edited May 26, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato