Ancient Racism

[M. Porcius Cato]

the negative image in Roman writing is probably stemmed from the nature of their sources and what was viewed at that time as well-established academic understanding rather than a blatant intention to blacken all non-Roman races.

 

This is fine for Tacitus' view of the Germans or Caesars' view of the Britons, but it's not the whole story. My examples included Cicero's views of ethnic groups with which he and other Romans had much contact. When the stereotypes I quoted above were written, the Greeks, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Sardinians, and Spaniards had been dealing with Romans for some time and in many contexts--much longer and more broadly than had the Germans and Britons been dealing with Romans at the time of Tacitus' and Caesar's writings. I don't think a lack of contact was the cause of the ethnic stereotypes and negative attitudes.

[WotWotius]

I was not saying that all stereotype derive from lack of contact; I was just giving it as one factor behind Rome's racist attitudes. What I actually meant was that although Roman writer's possessed more than a deep-seated hatred for foreigners, generalisations in Roman ethnography (particularly when looking at slightly more obscure races) often sprang from poor research and ignorance. Tacitus, to use an example, based his account of the Jews not on contemporary Jewish texts, but on older, generally Greek, sources written when contact between the classical world and the Jews was more sporadic. As a result of doing so, Tacitus gives us a highly garbled; highly generalised; and a highly blackening account of the Jews. Yes the Rome of Tacitus' time had been in direct contact with Judea for a number of years, but one must keep in mind that in during this time, only a few senator had visited the province in person (be it through military service, or as a governor), and to them it was just a backwater

[M. Porcius Cato]

I am not saying that all Roman stereotyping sprang from a poor understanding of races (their innate feeling of superiority was probably the main reason); I am just giving 'armchair' historians such as Tacitus the benefit of the doubt.

 

I see. But does Tacitus deserve the benefit of the doubt here? Don't get me wrong--I'm a huge Tacitus fan--but it seems to me that if you know and abhor stereotypes, you'll not repeat them causally in a book where you want to establish and protect your credibility.

[caldrail]

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.

 

All populations/cultures have an instinctive need to weed out those they find undesirable. This tribal sectioning is part of the cultural bonding process inherited from our distanr ancestors in the wild. Its an unfortunate human characteristic that we really need to stem in our own society for that very reason. Where the romans are concerned, they didn't need 'race' to pour scorn on, because there were enough lower classes, barbarians, or undesirable foreign nationals in their midst. I used the greeks as an example but remember the greeks are essentially the same 'race' as the romans themselves. In fact, this culturalism is one of the reasons that becoming roman was so desirable. If you live in Rome, then do as the romans. That way you achieve social acceptability and probably lead a quieter and more profitable life. Those that choose to retain their national characteristics have effectively segregated themselves and I suspect the romans felt no qualms about pouring scorn on them.