Were the Romans racist?

Greeks wrote about North Africans not about Bantu subhumans which compose modern Africans

well, if Benjamin Isaac say so...

a greek source during roman times

the one i'm talking about referred to ethiopians nto bantu
i found it on Veeky Forums but i can't find it now

No, race was invented by Europeans during the 18th century and the Enlightenment. It was impossible for them to be racist.

Only towards forest niggers like Celts and G*rmanics, aka barbarians.

> t. reddit
Atleast say colonial powers and not europeans im pretty sure a peasant in Belarus didn't know about race.

Fucking this. Racism is totally natural.

It requires a rigorous application of thought to not be racist.

east europeans had different notions, there wasnt much scientific racism, it was more just basic human xenophobia and folk traditions, but it was all more or less along the same lines of kill the xeno burn the heretic purge the unclean, these being juice, gyppos, t*rks and above all each other

there was no reason to make a thing out of racism because there were no large non-european populations to subjugate and exploit, british french etc... developed racist notions because they needed to process what they were doing in the colonies, they had to somehow explain it to themselves in some way that still allows them to maintein a identity of ''decent civilised christian gentleman'''
east europeans, or central europeans, or even any of the ordinary people in britain or france or spain, had no need for that, what you need to subjugate your own people is just force and some political/religious demagogy, or just the good old classist systems as inherited from feudal times along with a bit of socialdarwinism, and the church helps out a lot to get people to go with the programme

that said its not that people didnt 'know about race', whatever that means, the word rasa, raca, meant pretty much the same as blood, as in my blood, of his blood, their blood - meaning a bloodline, or a group of common descent, but it was used to designate familes, local provenance, a sort of micro-ethicity, not a generalisation on scope and magnitude of the english word 'race'

for example, the fact gypsies are obviously not caucasian would not be a reason to consider them a different 'race', that be redundant, its not like anyone could mix them up

on the other hand -those people from that village there, you know what those fuckers are like right, its their race- thats how they would designate each other, as in, what today we would consider people of the same ''race'', based on differences in local phenotype and familial behavioral traits

>i remember reading a greek source that spoke highly of africans while shitting on northern europeans

well, thats the same thing as the post youre answering to states, humans shit on other humans

Yes. They were p racist against uncivilised germanic horde

>b-but it's totally okay when I do it

The Severines were from Africa and Caracalla looks Black in his bust, but there was probably racism.

India and China got on the light skin is better train way earlier.

Not in the way we now think of it

Yes, but definitely not in the "everyone that isn't part of my loosely defined ethnic group is scientifically inferior to me" sense of racism that developed during 16/17/18th centuries.

Yes, who wouldn't be against snow nigger barbarians?

They were literally the Nazis of their time.

Not really no.
You can only be racist if you hate people that are a darker shade than you are.

Ignorance

whats the word for hating people that are a lighter shade than you are?

racism as well.

Prejudice.

Racism is power + prejudice

Ethiopian was a catch-all term for blacks at the time. It didn't refer to modern day Ethiopians

But Greeks and Romans were darker than north euros on average.

Probably.

you mean youre only racist if youre actualy doing something about it?

so then just being prejudiced is fine?

>Benjamin Isaac

not him, but while every culture has prejudiced individuals, not all cultures institutionalize that prejudice along scientific-naturalistic rationalizations where that kind of behavior is openly celebrated and encouraged. That's the real difference.

Weak bait, /pol/tard.

not that guy, and I'm nobody's /pol/tard, but he does have a point.

Hating someone for being an "other" isn't racism qua racism, it's simple, crude prejudice.

"racism" refers to the cultural institutionalizing of a specific strain of prejudice where that behavior becomes a celebrated, integral aspect of that culture, framing the discussion not as "familiar verses foreign" but rather "us/white vs them/black"

Literally name a single classical Chinese source that mentions Africa.

It also requires rigorous application of thought to be more racist than normal.

Yeah, probably

desu, a concerted effort to be anti-racist hasn't existed ever in history as far as I know

I always though racism would be about biologically disvaluing someone.
But the meaning has been widened like a 50 year old prostitutes flabby cunt.

but that's exactly my point.

It only exists within a specific naturalistic framework where the prejudice justifies itself through scientific rationalizing. That requires cultural institutions which disseminate these justifications to the masses in order to reinforce simple prejudice into actual racism.

They were descendants of phoenician settlers and we're definitely not black. Go look at modern tunisians for comparison.

>Changing the definition of a word so it can't be applied to minorities

The punics were a mix of berbers and leventine, they wherent different looking from romans and Caracalla doesn't look black you delusional kangz.

turks were racist againt european.

It's acknowledging that Romans were perfectly capable of exhibiting "racism" towards lily-skinned Germanics even though modern racists attempt to frame things in terms of light-skinned = good, dark skinned = bad. Romans sure didn't see things that way when they were holding the line against a giant, ravenous horde of unwashed pink-skins

Zheng?

>modern racists attempt to frame things in terms of light-skinned = good, dark skinned = bad.
That's stupid and centric towards whatever you are. First off, modern day "racist" is simply a label given to them by their opponents. They don't view themselves or call themselves "racist." Second, racism would be dependent upon whatever group dislikes another group based on race. It's not exclusive to light skinned people.

Racism use to mean prejudice based on a concept of race, none of your critical theory power dynamics bullshit. Make up a new word, don't steal an existing one.

Basically this
race was never a major issue until the Enl*ghtenment

Romans were more culturalist of that makes sense, they detested what they saw as barbarism (not being Roman)

Sociology being pedantic about terms is useless. There has always been some sort of discrimination in any civilization worth mentioning. Maybe not on the basis of "race", but of equally superficial matters. Humans are autistic by nature.

>That's stupid and centric towards whatever you are.
Western, which is where the concept of racism originates

>They don't view themselves or call themselves "racist."
Because they know that they will be shamed for believing in pseudoscience if they openly espouse racial supremacist views

>Second, racism would be dependent upon whatever group dislikes another group based on race. It's not exclusive to light skinned people.
Find one instance in non-western history where people justified economic expropriation using scientific-naturalistic concepts like "race"

"race" is a term specific to biology. It's looking at the number of species in the world and believing the differences between humans wide enough to justify a distinction. Before the science of biology existed, racial supremacist theories simply did not exist and were more 'culturalist' for lack of a better term.

And what word would you suggest we use to describe, say, the Roman habit of screwing over Goths financially and politically while systematically depriving them of the fruits of their labor/using them as disposable manpower."?

but thats racism dumbo

>race" is a term specific to biology.
wrong. Ancient man divided groups into races as well. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts
>an historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[2] (Gossett, pp. 4).

>only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century.
I love when somebody posts a source which they didn't spent too much time reading and disproves their own point

>something slightly changed definitions therefore it didn't exist
brainlets everyone.

>>something slightly changed definitions therefore it didn't exist
>slightly

>be american
>do anything (ie write a book)
>by any possible means relate it to racism
>and always about black males
Why

Op never said racism was invented, they just asked a simple question.

you mean its all systemic? everything in any culture is systemic, thats what we call a culture

Americans are mentally ill: a dementia caused by the aberrant practice of chattel slavery, so inhumane it warps the minds of their descendants to this day.

>The vedic caste system is called Varna
>Literally color in Sanskrit
>The highest castes were and still are more white
>The lowest caste Shudra, means dark
Gee, racism sure never existed before colonialism, huh guys?

Romans didn't really have race as we do today. You were either a Roman, an Italic brother, an effeminate easterner, or an uncivilized barbarian, and even then there were things to admire and hate about each of these categories.

Sure. Here's Isidore of Seville, who was basically a Late Antiquity Roman fossil:

"In accordance with diversity of climate, the appearance of men and their color and bodily size vary and diversity of minds appear. Thence we see the Romans are dignified, the Greeks unstable, the Africans crafty, the Gauls fierce by nature and somewhat headlong in their disposition, which the character of climate brings about."

And on the Greek side, Aristotle:

"The peoples of cold climates generally, and particularly those of Europe, are full of spirit, but deficient in skill and intelligence; and this is why they continue to remain comparatively free, but attain no political development, and show no capacity for governing others. The peoples of Asia are endowed with skill and intelligence but are deficient in spirit; this is why they continue to be peoples of subjects and slaves. The Greek stock, intermediate in geographic position, unites the qualities of both sets of peoples. It possesses both spirit and intelligence; the one quality makes it continue free; the other enables it to attain the highest political development, and to show a capacity for governing every other people – if only it could once achieve political unity."

Note how Greeks considered themselves perfected Eurasians or liminal to Europe and Asia, as befits a transcontinental civilization.

>Note how Greeks considered themselves perfected Eurasians or liminal to Europe and Asia, as befits a transcontinental civilization.
Another interesting note is that only after Northern European had a cultural conquest by Greco-Roman civilization did they go on to become very wealthy and powerful. Really jogs the noggin.

actualy they werent

they had no conception of race or things like rights or freedom remotely compatible with todays notions

the ottoman empire had this concept of ''rum''

they didnt see ethnic differences as relevant, they divided the subjugated populations into religious denominations, because by their logic every religious subpopulation needs to function under their own religious law, while at the same time accepting the law, harach, and authority of the sultanate

they didnt see anything about the subjugated populations, creeds, customs, culture or oppinions as relevant, the word used was 'raja' which had the operative meaning, 'those people there', the local fauna basicaly, similarly to how colonial empires regarded their subjects, just local wildlife to be dealt with

one one hand this made them suprisingly tollerant from our perspective, anybody who had the talent, capacity and the luck to get enslaved or drafted could become a grand vezir or aga or whatever, individually this gave people a lot of opportunity

on the other hand tho, what this realy meant, collectively, was total subjugation, total submission, what was expected was a voluntary acceptance of slavery, be passive and let shit happen as power wills it, inshalah mashalah, that was how you integrated into the ottman system, you served, you bend over and take it like a good slave, as allah wills it, and thats how you become part of the system, slaves were actualy the empire embodied, and as for the rest of the raja, just shut up and live on, ignore the absurd taxes, ignore the local bajas fucking with you on every turn, ignore that your children are taken as tax, live like content cattle

somehow the ottomans didnt understand why this makes people rise up every other generation, they kept putting the uprisings down in as much blood and brutality as they could manage, but people just kept rising up in bloody rebelions till finaly they got rid of every living turk, man, woman and child

or carthaginian

Wasn't there a Roman expedition that went into Sub Sahara Africa and subsequently went sideways?

there are 'lost legions' whereer there are swamps and deserts

probes that went missing basicaly

>And what word would you suggest we use to describe, say, the Roman habit of screwing over Goths financially and politically while systematically depriving them of the fruits of their labor/using them as disposable manpower."?
really? you just couldn't find another word to use? or maybe you thought redefining a existing negative word so that it could only be applied to certain races would help your political narrative. The fact that you fags have to "correct" everybody when they use racism in the original context probably means you chose a stupid loaded term to begin with. Why not just say white supremacy, roman supremacy, jingoism etc.

the entire social studies department in the US were taken over by leftists in the 60's.

They weren't Nazis, it's just that when contemporary ideologies don't exist and there aren't kikes embedded in your society taking control of the media to tell your people to hate themselves, you just start doing practical things without worrying about being put into an ideological category. So you kill some kikes, take the wealth they hoard, and do something productive with it.

The words you're looking for are chauvinism and ethnocentrism

go back to stormfront, troll. oh wait. you can't.

>yes boy y- I mean, yes goy yes. It's all the leftists/jews/SJWs/russians/etc fault. USA #1 we dindu nuffin we gud boyz

The American leaders who weren't faggots were white nationalists so somewhere somebody fucked up.

you mean being a human to other humans

they were white nationalists when it came to their states but saw that freeing blacks and putting them in government would give the republicans power in the southern states. Unfortunately for them the freed blacks just walked north during the 40's and filled in all their cities.

More like "low class trash"

i remember reading something about roman cristians wanting to brown everyone and build a kingdom of god. then shit collapsed. had something to do with pagans wanting to put the alter of victory back.

which ones tho, the tops orthe bottoms?

i love it how so many of you hold human beings up to somesort of standard and criterion, fuck id love to be 16 again and think that way too

>which ones tho, the tops orthe bottoms?
rich or poor, anyone who glorifies antisocial behavior is someone held in low esteem by the majority who don't

umm, you can't be racist against europeans, sweetie :)

>citation needed

All the stuff I’ve read suggests that the Celts were subhuman monsters

The Celts would have surprised you. They had roads, walled cities, a literary tradition, and metallurgy which was arguably superior to mediterranean technology.

The biggest thing they were lacking was political unification. They were still largely a clan-based society which settled their differences via blood-feuds and did not practice the rule of law the way that the Romans did, that's how Caesar was able to divide and conquer them- by playing tribes off of each other.

Germanics, on the other hand, were often described as savage fur-wearing barbarians.

not to mention they were still into champion combat

>rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
The "power" definition of racism is fucking retarded and literally just used by retards to promote the narrative that "minorities can't be racist" through bullshit semantics. KYS

>the words you're looking for are chauvinism and ethnocentrism
No, the word i'm looking for is racism, a 100% correct usage of the word.

>based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
And by what basis does one regard their own "race" as superior to the rest?

What answer could there be but "power"?

>and by what basis does one regard their own race as "superior" to the rest?
Having power over other people isn't necessary for you to feel racism against others. Hutu racism against Tutsi's grew out of them being oppressed by the Tutsi's. Many minority groups in Burma are rabidly anti-burmese, and the muslim minority in india hate hindi indians with a burning passion. Hell, there are a sizeable amount of blacks in the U.S. who believe that whites are genetically inferior to blacks.

racism is not necessarily related to oppression

but it's related to power? fuck off

You somehow missed antisemitism and other racism against market minorities in your obvious examples.

>Muslim Burmese get Burmese
>Muslim Indians hate Indians
Interesting

>Literary tradition
Many celtic cultures were anti-writing. The druids viewed it as weakening of the mind.