What am I in for

explain plz

>Among her fiercest critics was a US-Lebanese economist, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who described Prof Beard as a member of the “politically correct Gestapo”. He claimed that “scholarship is dead in the UK”.

Shots fired

That's been Harold Bloom's stance for the past thirty years

This is literally all I know about her, but it does make me skeptical of her book

Modern Academia

there literally was ethnic diversity in roman britain though
elizabethan england was super white but 1000 years ago there were plenty of kangz running around

you /pol/ types need to pick the right battles if you want to actualyl get somewhere

lolno
Feel free to try and defend that stance, though, I enjoy watching people get btfo

great post

a side effect of a global empire, like the romans had, is that there's a lot more mobility between landmasses/regions/etc., plenty of africans were running around rome, and some of them ended up in britain
you saw the same thing in victorian england

There's no evidence that there was any widespread movement from Africa to Britain. They would have been an incredibly small minority, and there is certainly no evidence that they intermarried. And, most certainly of all, no Africans would have been recruited into the legion itself, making that picture a completely ridiculous fabrication.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice
literally a kang who was sainted

THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING

>literally posting an egyptian
I thought it was just a meme that people thought egyptians were black

OK, now show me evidence that any of them were in Britain.

N U B I A N S

WE

>the existence of local cohorts means there were definitely inter-racial legions being sent to Britain
nigger please

it's a stale meme that was funny maybe one time and there actually was a short-lived Nubian dynasty of Egypt that adopted Egyptian religion and culture.

>Perhaps the most remarkable tale to survive is an episode in the Historia Augusta (Life of Severus 22) concerning the inspection of the Wall by the emperor Septimius Severus. The emperor, who was himself born in Libya, was confronted by a black soldier, part of the Wall garrison and a noted practical joker
blog.oup.com/2014/09/african-encounters-roman-britain/
That ball's heading straight through your goalposts. I imagine you'll want to move them.

>no Africans would have been recruited into the legion itself
See

Your own source calls the Historia Augusta "notoriously unreliable." The best you've got is a regiment of Moors who were, again, not actually black.

Also, even assuming I'm wrong on the legionnaires, you still haven't actually been able to prove that there was any significant presence, let alone intermarriage.

He's gonna accuse you of moving the goalposts.

Can't move goalposts that were outright stated in the initial post. He's just only addressed one part of the post.

Correct.

I'll just refer you to the original argument, shall I?
Feel free to actually answer all the points instead of the one you believe to be weakest.

I hate the whole Kangz argument with Egypt, but the lost legion was Legio IX Hispana. Black legionaries were not a stunning thing, fucking Nubian light horsemen were being used as auxiliaries in Syria during the middle republic and Libyans/Berbers were used throughout the imperial period. Not only that but using locals as military was not common, you used foreigners to hold soil. And considering how legions were stripped from Britain in 415(?) by Honorius it is reasonable to conclude that any local intermarriage was brought south and probably killed off during the collapse.

>significant presence
Not sure how you're defining that, but obviously there aren't any percentage breakdowns of the population- who can say? Point is you asked for evidence that there were 'any' Africans in Britain and denied that any could be in the army (although that could be another user).

I'm sure there weren't many black Africans in Roman Britain- in fact, that story seems to hinge on them being rare. But who cares? All the Mary Beard post actually says is that there was 'ethnic diversity', which you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to dispute. It's literally implied in the words 'Roman Britain'.

North Africans were mostly Semites. The figure on the far left is how the Egyptians pictured Libyans. By today's standards the Berbers, Carthaginians, et al would probably be considered "diverse" but certainly not black like the officer in the cartoon.

1. Your 'most certainly of all' point is complete bollocks.
2. Who is claiming that there were 'widespread movements', intermarriage, or large numbers? I just spotted you saying some very obviously wrong things and pointed that out.

Carthaginians were definitely using black african mercenaries tho. And those people didnt just disappear. I would assume the second black was from Punt.

How would a black African mercenary employed by the Carthaginians end up achieving high rank in the Roman army?

Anything's possible I guess but presenting him as the head of a "normal" Roman family is a case of bending history to suit modern ideology.

I mean let's be honest, whatever the truth of Beard's claims, the BBC is clearly trying to normalize immigration and "diversity."

>high rank
Firstly, he wouldnt, but that doesnt mean he didnt find himself on Hadrian's Wall or sitting in some barracks in wessex. Secondly, I think the "diversity" of the Roman world was pretty impressive due to shifting military forces. Thirdly, I agree, but I dont care about modern post-structural racial outrage politics. Mary Beard is a respected academic and shitting on her because the BBC asked her to confirm racial diversity in the Roman military and trade is silly.

The point behind pushing Roman Britain as "ethnically diverse" is not to state that there were ethnic minorities present, but to give people the false idea that it was significantly "diverse" in the modern sense of the term. In terms of political correctness, a simple minority does not constitute "diversity", which is understood as a significant, combined "minority" population which borders on or actually constitutes an actual majority.

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=611EB66EB3A68821B79B669C837E6ADE

and

amazon.com/Race-Ethnicity-Classical-World-Translation/dp/1603849947

seem to be decent gotos for this subject

>Moving the goalpost

Just because skeletons of sub saharan africans and the occasional chinese was found doesn't mean it's realistic to portray a centurion in Britannia as one. While /pol/ oftentimes overreacts, I fail to see how they are wrong on this particular case.

>Mary Beard is a respected academic and shitting on her because the BBC asked her to confirm racial diversity in the Roman military and trade is silly.
OP is asking about a book by Mary Beard on the Romans. We have direct evidence here that Beard will politicize her views on the Romans to fit a certain narrative. How does that not call into question the veracity of this book then? What else could she be bending to fight her narrative?

And it's not like there's a shortage of other Roman history books to choose from.

But she isnt, the Roman world was highly diverse. The Illyrian legion was used literally everywhere.

Wut. I'm not the guy from above, and I dont understand your comment. The Roman world was diverse due to trade networks and the use of foreign legions. This included black africans, and it included Britain.

Furthermore, if you take Great Courses classes on Roman history, she is cited over and over again and praised for her work on Roman Social history. I have never seen, in any of the threads on her, any evidence from her work that is demonstrably false. It is all either an attack on her gender, or her work in gender (invaluable), or calling her an SJW for saying the roman world is diverse.

Picture in OP shows a a sub-Saharan high ranking officer, or something.
Nobody denies the possibility of there being cheap low quality soldiers imported to and from the edges of the empire.

If Paul Joseph Watson believes something, it's probably false.

the nigger worship in mainstream media is just weird at this point.

>Oxbridge Historian vs. meme author for right wing crybabies
who knows more about ancient rome I wonder?

WUZ

Evidently Taleb, unless you're retarded enough to believe that black centurions in ancient britain were typical likr Mary does.

>britsh female professor
you can make a girl the queen in that country and shell lose her empire, the prime minister and shell let acid be thrown in people faces. So its no wonder that the professor can't teach shit.

>Taleb

Hey look guys. Taleb is fighting with someone. Next he'll be bitching about NY liberals while sending his own kids to NY elite schools.

why do whitebois get so triggered over the idea that black people may have set foot in Britain 1000 years ago?

LMAO

>why does 1984 BLACKED edition make people so upset?
can't just lie to people you have to say you fucked their girl too?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Lollius_Urbicus
He was the most powerful Roman in Britain and he was a Berber. Pic related shows how dark skinned Berbers can be. Roman was a very diverse empire that cared a lot less about skin colour that most people today. If there were powerful people in Roman Britain there is no reason to assume they couldn't have come from any of the major ethnic groups that made up positions of power.

berbers are nothing like subsaharan Africans.

It's almost like I never said they were. It's also almost you didn't address anything I did say.

>Orginal person complaining doesn't talk about subsaharan Africans
>Author doesn't talk about subsaharan Africans
>Person you are responding to was responding to someone saying "sub-Saharan high ranking officer, or something"
>or something
This really isn't about subsaharan Africans.

>that cherrypick

>Pic related shows how dark skinned Berbers can be
>can be
>hur dur cherry picking

...

So, if this is shit/sub-par/whatever, what alternatives are that are in the same vein, but, you know, better? Recommendations?

She was badly BTFOed by Taleb so I'm guessing not very good.

>Taleb
>No, it's the entirety of academia who is wrong
He sounded like /pol/ talking about how rigged academia is because the Holocaust is so well documented.

Taleb is right though.

KANGZ

>Find remains of blacks and Asians in Britain
>Roman Empire is known for it's lack of giving a shit about skin colour
>Legionnaires come from all corners of the empire
>All wealthy regions of the empire have aristocrats who are ethnically from local ethnicity as well as immigrant other ethnic aristocrats
>A governor of Britain was a Berber
All of what I have just said is true. In light of that I can't see how he is right.

What? Have you honestly read the 'criticisms' in this thread and concluded that the critics know anything about, or care about, Roman history?

>>Roman Empire is known for it's lack of giving a shit about skin colour
>literally genocided African cities

Just read the primary source

Raping and pillaging is as old as time and the Romans were pretty fucking good at it wherever they went.

They didn't destroy places for racist reasoning. It's not like they hated Carthage because of their ethnicity.

The weird thing is I seem to remember her writing in the TLS about the trap of thinking "omg they were just like us!"

>pic shows how there are modern berbers descended from sub-saharan slaves taken north during the middle ages and beyond*

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, what bugs me is the portrayal of a black African as the head of a "typical" Roman family at a time when 99.99% of people living in Britain were as white as the driven snow. The cartoon is clearly propaganda designed to normalize mass third world immigration and multiculturalism. I mean, there was a black general who served in the Russian army in the eighteenth century, does that mean that the "typical" Russian family was black? Of course not, it would be completely asinine to make that claim.

I don't like it when the past is bent and twisted to serve modern ideology, and it infuriates me when (supposedly) respected historians get involved in this nonsense.

>>Find remains of africans*

it should go beyond being bugged. uk police are jailing people for shit they say online, meanwhile the taxpayer funded tv network is trying to rewrite history in popular shows and educational programs for kids
youtube.com/watch?v=60QRkHPidQ4

MAGNUS NUBIAN PHALLUS

A good summary of Roman history and an inexplicable hatred of stoicism

Well, I'm giving em the benefit of the doubt, seeing alternatives can be illumination, either on history or their position.

...

...

>Have you honestly read the 'criticisms' in this thread and concluded that the critics know anything about, or care about, Roman history?
>Jumps on the first sensationalist tabloid page he can find to support his ideology

forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/09/23/chinese-skeletons-in-roman-britain-not-so-fast/#2844cb245065
>The shortcomings of this method, however, are considerable and are outlined by Redfern and colleagues in their article. For example:

>The fact that many of the samples were fragmented means that 41% of the sample had only two traits to score. As the researchers write, "This degree of missing data can affect classification accuracies, particularly among the sample having two or less (sic) traits." cont.

>This article is a remarkable attempt to correlate three different isotopes and skeletal morphology to answer questions about the diversity of Roman Britain in the later Empire, and it succeeds in showcasing that diversity even in this small sample. But it does not show, as the tabloids have been crowing, that there were Chinese in Roman London. The statistical results are intriguing, but the oxygen data from the two so-called Asians seem to be within the range of others in the sample, and only one produced dietary isotope data. For a slam-dunk, they need DNA. If and when they produce this, though, establishing a solid correlation between DNA from the Roman era and the results of the statistical method on the Roman skulls and teeth has the potential to help other bioarchaeologists assess ancestry without doing expensive destructive analysis.

Pro-tip: it's not the individual with a vagina.

I'm reading this right now (almost done)
She spends way too much time trying to stay skeptical of certain accounts and trying not to be biased.
The unfortunate truth is that it is impossible to not be biased when it comes to history to some degree. She should instead simply make a skeptical statement and move on.

Also, she has a tendency to interject her comparisons of society back then and her interpretation of our modern society, which is unneeded for most bits (unless it is to highlight a remarkable similarity or underline a typical misconception).

Was expecting a lit of political correctness, and there is some present, but there isn't enough for it to be overbearing.

Overall: she's alright I guess. Best paired with a different modern historian and/or and ancient historian.

She keeps taking pot shots at Marcus Aurelius when he was just a good boy.
Mary Beard plz dnt blly!

Taleb actually brought up genetic data, Beard didn't even have an argument. Historians are generally retarded.

WEFTIST

PWOPAGUNDA

this.
taleb is just an idiot.

>Veeky Forums hates academia now.

this board is fucked

>the head of a "typical" Roman family at a time when 99.99% of people living in Britain were as white as the driven snow.
You aren't looking at a typical Roman family. You are looking at a very prestige one. Considering how the Roman empire is made up in a country like Britain the more power a family is the more likely they are to be non-white.

What does that make Beard if she can't even beat an 'idiot' in an argument?

You can't beat someone whose argument is merely academia is run the the PC police and so I can discount all evidence against my position while providing none of my own, I don't need to provide my own because I know I'm right.

You're fucking retarded. The ottoman empire was global but you don't see sub saharans en masse in Bulgaria do you? Obviously there were a few blacks who by chance wound up in Britain, just like some did in the medieval era I would imagine, but it would be incredibly rare, and certainly not what people mean by "diverse" in today's sense.