BBC CLAIMS ROMANS WERE BLACK

WE

Serves you right for genociding the Amerindians.

I mean...it's impossible with the expansion of the Roman empire and slave trade that there were NO Black people in Rome. This considering the system of freeing slaves as well. They definitely weren't often significant unless they were freed by a rich master who also gave them money though. Or they were adopted.

stop flogging this bullshit every fucking day

IMAGINE MOI SHOCK!

Seriously though, an "historian" got BTFO by fucking Paul Joseph Watson. This whole thing is the biggest lolscow Veeky Forums has had so far, watching leftist actually defend this retarded revisionism is hilarious.

Wow fucking stellar argument there.

HOL UP SENPAI, WHAT U BE SAYIN?

angry stoned man says angry things. oh noes.

Is it really worse than creationism?

Its actually pretty likely africans contributed to building britain since some of romes most populated provinces were in africa

Those africans werent black though but berbers

Really? This is why people hate us. Stop butting your fedora into unrelated threads.

the guy is a high school English teacher, not a historian lol

This terrible bait is useful because it's a perfect example of why it's obvious that /pol/ spams this shit just to push a narrative and not because they care about history. Notice the reference to white guilt.

>maybe there were half a dozen North Africans in Roman Britain
>that means the entire nation of Nigeria is entitled to move to the United Kingdom

Classic tale of media propaganda.

There actually were a few black/moor/middle-eastern legionnaries, high-ranking slaves, even nobles in Britania at the time
The point that fucker PJW is making is that representing them all as POC is agenda-driven, and that historians should be mocking it

Instead of sligthly mocking it, some guy who's an historian I guess takes issue with the person mocking the BBC's portrayal of ancient London, and proceeds to cite every case of archaeologists discovering one antic POC remains, ""proving"" that ancient Britain was as multicultural as it is today.
So now if you say there weren't as many POC as this representation might lead you to believe, you're an alt-right racist piece of shite, and your criticism, however valid it may be, will be treated as the rantings of a old uninformed racist trying to "erase history of our glorious multi-ethnic society"

PJW is a professional propagandist capitalizing on edgy Islamophobic teenagers. Basically, if Goebells was alive today he would be PJW.
Having said that, in this case I have to agree with him, depicting a mixed race family as a "typical" British family at the time is quite stupid. Then again, depicting an obviously well-to-do family as "typical" is stupid too, the typical Roman-Britton family at the time would be some dirty-poor substantial peasant.

so wait, why were all the articles titled "BRAVE HISTORIAN HEROICALLY SHUTS DOWN RACIST NEO-NAZI YOUTUBER!" ? haha this is even better than I thought

It just appears to me that the same people who find an issue with this kind of historical revisionism don't find the same issue with other forms of pseudy history and pseudy science even if it occurs higher up in the hierarchy and affected the lives of a larger part of the population.
And just bringing in Creationism isn't Fedora, a lot of Religious people dislike that stuff too. Fedora would be generally just attacking religion, i that makes any sense.

BBC documentary mentioned, pretty we wuz straight from the start

youtube.com/watch?v=wBEEHfYU1ck

Why are cucking for Islam?

>Then again, depicting an obviously well-to-do family as "typical" is stupid too, the typical Roman-Britton family at the time would be some dirty-poor substantial peasant.
Not only well to do but the commander of one of the occupying legions tasks with constructing the wall.

That's like making an educational short about a "typical Japanese family in occupied Japan" and focusing on the family of General Douglas MacArthur.

Newfag

Serious question, why did leftypol actually shill for this revisionist shit? is there some part of communism about we wuzing or something?

>all slaves are black

Yeah man, totally a /pol/ conspiracy.

How the fuck does creationism effect the lives of anyone in any way comparable to lying about the historical cultural makeup of a region?

And who the fuck implied that you fucking illiterate?
I said it is impossible for the number of Blacks in Rome to be 0 but somehow you interpreted that to mean all slaves in Rome were black like a retard.

Leftypol is anti-white and therefore supports anything that sets back the interests of white people.
Marxists believe racial identity is an obstacle in the way of class consciousness, so in order to immanentize the eschaton of the worker's revolution prophesied by Marx they will logically support the undermining of racial and cultural identity.

Because now you are "lying" about the history of the whole world? You also have to deny much established science as well as the uniting theory of all biology Evolution.

It seems like /pol/ is more triggered by what they think the video is about rather than what it actually depicts.

The BBC isn't claiming that the Romans were black or that Britons were black (as /pol/ seems to think). The most you can take away from the video is that the Roman army was ethnically diverse... which it historically was.

Creationism is rightfully regarded as a fringe religious thing that most everyone, including mass media, mocks and doesnt take seriously at all.

This is a BBC produced cartoon meant to educate children that lies in order to push the current multicultural stuff they are depertalyt trying to push onto the masses.

How many Roman slaves were black, what proportion of the total?

The BBC is claiming that that's what a typical Roman Briton family looked like.
That's grossly inaccurate.

At least a few hundred thousand. You're almost certainly talking about the majority of the slaves and at least 5% of the population of Britain.

You mean 0.0005% right?
Romans barely interacted with Blacks, let alone bothered to enslave them.

> At least a few hundred thousand. You're almost certainly talking about the majority of the slaves
Pls be a bait.

>Because now you are "lying" about the history of the whole world?
but it's not history it's entirely irrelevant PREHISTORY. You can swap it out and flip it around however you want, no one was around then to be effected, and no modern historical claims change because of shit that happened millions of years ago. Lets look at another relatively modern scientific theory that effects "the history of the wordl, plate tectonics. What exactly changed in the human historical record when plate tectonics went from a fringe theory to accepted fact? NOTHING.

>You also have to deny much established science
wrong
>as well as the uniting theory of all biology Evolution.
Who cares? The average human has zero direct interaction with the theory of evolution it's purely academic. Literally BILLIONS of people around the world "deny" evolution and it has no effect on their lives.

Stop turning science into religion and stop hunting for heretics.

>We shouldnt act like our ancestors
>Bongistan was nigger infested back then
>Of course we should follow our ancestors

Fuck liberals

What are you talking about? Worldwide including Muslims YEC monotheists probably outnumber the people that accept evolution, you're talking about 40% of the USA for a start.

Just because you live in a rational little European bubble it doesn't mean everyone does.

>all these people with no knowledge of history or archaeology fighting back and forth
>not realizing that this is fundamentally an epistemological argument about what constitutes race and ethnicity before it's a factual argument about whether black people were in Roman Britain
>all this fucking squawking about like it's the fucking 19th century and everyone is trying to force their conjecture over everyone else's

Did you actually just pull the Nazi comparison, dude, grow the fuck up.

All Leftists want to destroy the white race

its down to 38%. No one takes this shit seriously. And this still doesnt justify neo liberal propaganda targeted to children in order to shill multiculturalism

>Just because you live in a rational little European bubble it doesn't mean everyone does.

I live in a coonass village in south Louisiana

Their main complaint is that it is being depicted in a way that leads someone to assume a far greater degree of ethnic diversity than is proven as of now, also there are parts of the video that depict Brittanic tribesmen in woad, as black, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous and sadly assists the fucking /pol/acks in once again, being kind of, correct.

the average roman family in britain wasnt black, in fact, that was EXTREMELY rare and claiming other wise is dishonest propaganda, doubly disgusting since it was targeted at children.

revisionist history is gay

>The BBC isn't claiming that the Romans were black or that Britons were black

yes they are. why are you defending this revisionist retardation?

>almost certainly talking about the majority of the slaves

this delusion

Our good (((Revisionists))) at it again. Whats next? Egyptians were black?

>The BBC isn't claiming that the Romans were black or that Britons were black

Where do they say that's the typical Roman family?

blacks stealing history not surprising they steal everything else

>African celts

fucking hell, you can meme on PJW all you want but he is spot on here

>he thinks our Kangz wuzn't black

stay mad white boi

it's pathetic to pretend your people were everyone of antiquity because you have no history

race as a modern concept was formulated in the 19th century. you would have to have a stable definition of these races in the first place to make claims like yours and not have them be complete conjecture. i agree with the general idea that popular media tries a little hard to project multiculturalism onto the past, but projecting monoculturalism onto the past is just as scientifically and historically baseless given the history of how race concepts have been applied (sporadically and almost entirely conjecturally and ideologically) in archaeology. there are no archaeological markers for skin color, just for place of birth/genetic lines, and those categories are not stably related to race even in the modern world, let alone in a fundamentally different culture millennia older than our own.

if anything, you're the revisionist (or, more likely, ignoramus) pretending race isn't an incredibly unstable concept

>islamaphobic
kys user

There is little proof the Romans primarily enslaved black people, they were very interested in Gallic, Germanic, Dacian and Thracian slaves also, i'd put the percentage around 40-50% black slaves (evidently post acquisition of Carthaginian and Egyptian lands, where it probably got a lot higher).

black people werent common in ancient roman Britain user. Keep digging that hole though and showing everyone on the fence just how retarded leftypol is though

>browsing a history board
>history doesn't matter
you absolute cuckold

...

>the entire discipline of archaeology is leftypol
for being such le science is le best chuds, you guys are really bad at providing evidence for your claims and for considering the possibility of paradigmatic influence on your way of thinking. this'll be the last reply i make to unsubstantiated statements.

>its down to 38%. No one takes this shit seriously.

When did circa 40% of the most populous developed nation in the world become "no-one"?

Where are the Han British?
I can't believe their contributions are forgotten like that

Good, It's not like anybody called you here in the first place.

subsaharan africans or even africans in general weren't common in roman britain.
Which is by the way proved by the fact that the finding of a northafrican person from that time was deemed to be exceptional. As in, an exception. You know, to the rule. Of there not being many fucking africans in roman britain.

>Kids growing up on a diet of afrocentric BBC and battlefield 1

will the next generation be full We Wuz?

In the description.

That's the plan.
>People oppose african/asian immigration
>gaslight them into thinking immigration from those places has always been the norm
>oy

>Roman army was ethnically diverse...

well, I guess it boils down to what you define as "diverse", being >1% black (which is what the video is talking about) - then yeah, the Roman army was "ethnically diverse", but by that logic even Japan is "ethnically diverse". If by "diverse" you mean having a significant % of its population black, then no, the ancient Roman army was not ethnically diverse, considering Rome had limited contact with 'black' African tribes, most of the Africans in the Roman army were north African Berbers/Maghrebs.

Also, that is entirely beside the point, as the video does not say anything about Roman armies at all, the videos description *explicitly* describes a "typical" Roman-British family as black Africans- which is blatantly false.

Consider this - most historical sources point to there being about 125,000 migrants/slave labourers in Roman Britain, and Britain's estimated population of the period was about 4 million so only about 3% of Britain's population was foreign born, taking into account the previous fact that most slaves/migrants were not black, the percentage of 'black' Africans in Britain was negligible and definitely not representative of the average Roman-Briton or Roman-British family.

That would be like portraying the average French family as ethnically Algerian Sunni Muslims, or portraying the average Indian family as protestant Christians, i.e; wrong.

You were probably baiting but incase you were not, this reply is probably not going to have much of an effect on you, but I am still putting this out there for people who are lurking/reading this thread and are/were about to genuinely believe what you were saying

>responding to bait with greater bait
I tip my hat to thee, master baiter

cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/next-generation-americans-gen-z-may-be-most-conservative-wwii

absolutely splendid, swing the pendulum too far and you build up massive potential high energy

Link?

nigga, watch the OP video. Its in the first 7 seconds

Thanks God they dont show slavs as niggers

redundancy?

>mfw mulatto
>mfw this whole "who was what" drama is the furthest thing from the minds of people who do important things
>mfw i only don't care because either way, the entirety of western civilization is me
>mfw I am the future

retards

PJW claims it's supposed to be a typical family, but nothing in the original BBC video says so.
So, is there any source on BBC saying this was a typical family besides PJW saying so?

>If they start asking, why in game based on slavic mythology no niggers, they can go farther

>PJW claims it's supposed to be a typical family, but nothing in the original BBC video says so.

except for the description of the video, which does claim its a typical family. You are denier tier retarded with these mental gymnastics lol.

everyone in existence is the future you dumb bastard

Oh, fuck me, I'm blind.

Could it be maybe this guy is spazzing out over a slightly poor description by whatever 18 year old intern uploaded it to Youtube? Or maybe most people aren't so obsessed with race that when they say a "typical" family they are necessarily worrying primarily about skin colour, I mean it's not "typical" that the father in most Roman families would have been a reasonably high ranking officer but I don't see anyone shrieking "OMG DIS YOUTUBE DESKRIPTION SEZ ALL DA ROMANZ WUR OFFIZERS".

>>mfw this whole "who was what" drama is the furthest thing from the minds of people who do important things

If it were so far from their minds it would never come up in the first place. These lofty important people are the ones who pay for this stuff, and they're not in the business of giving away free money for no reason whatsoever.

It's not a coincidence that things like this get funding but "Buzzfeed: Top 10 Reasons Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all!" does not.

distally, but not proximally ya dumb dumb

why the fuck can't they just like ACTUAL black history? Why do they have to appropriate white history like this?

>people are still upset about bf1
Yeah, because if there's one thing that historical shooters have never seen before, it's an anglo man holding a gun on the cover.

>Why do people focus on the most immediate visible glaring inaccuracy that smacks them in the face and not the one you have to think about for a moment?
If this question gives you problems, you might be autistic.

>It's OUR turn now honkey, yo' time is OVER!