|
If I remember right, the Crusader Kingdoms were a lot more cosmopolitan than popularly imagined in a post-enlightenment world, definitely not like the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Also, Christian populations were still pretty significant throughout the middle east, it wouldn't have been obvious of "all Brown people = Muslims!!" A lot of these lands had been held by Rome just within a generation after all. This is all my personal opinion, but If the modern idea arose out of anywhere it would be the primordial soup of the reconquista and Spanish Inquisition, but this would only explain why Spanish people became racist. This rising sense of otherness seemed to unfortunately time with Africa and the Americas opening up and the reformation shaking up the sense of what was a "kingdom" and the people constituting it. The New World discovery was probably the biggest culprit though. All that land opening up just opened up possibilities for available land and the wars, diseases, and famines allowed Europe to seize a lot in a short amount of time with little indigenous population left around (not to mention there was nothing stopping and indigenousamerican captive from just...running away.) Europe still contained in the old world would have been a lot different. Without all that opened up land you can imagine one where Europeans don't need to buy up millions of slaves to make up a vast labor force and then justifying it by saying they deserve it or etc etc. Maybe the colonization of Africa would have been more extensive at a quicker rate and we would have seen the same biases start to arise, who knows. That's just my thoughts, a lot of that is kind of big standard "how does race come about" I think but whatever happened the modern period is the beginning of a very big break from how medieval and antiquity people's views on ethnicity. Edit:I imagine during like, early republic Romans would have very set conceptions of what a Roman looked like, etc., since even other Latins were seen as separate people's, but by the time of Marcus Aurelius at least around the Mediterranean populations would have been moving around so much a "Roman" from Nicea or Egypt wouldn't be thought of as so wildly a different species as a "Roman" from Gaul or Britain. Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Mar 19, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Berke Negri posted:If I remember right, the Crusader Kingdoms were a lot more cosmopolitan than popularly imagined in a post-enlightenment world, definitely not like the movie Kingdom of Heaven. Also, Christian populations were still pretty significant throughout the middle east, it wouldn't have been obvious of "all Brown people = Muslims!!" A lot of these lands had been held by Rome just within a generation after all. Yo dawg just wanna stop you right there and let you know there was mos def a legit black knight in KoH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Pretty sure he dies like right away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:It's complicated, yeah. I think the ancients clearly had a concept of ethnicities ('nations', if you like, but that's also a modern term that has its own baggage) and drew generalities about other people such that the Greeks thought the Persians were all degenerate, untrustworthy womanizers, the Romans thought the Greeks were all degenerate, untrustworthy homosexuals, and so on. quote:If some ancient dude had happened to explore all of East Asia, I doubt very much that he'd have put Japanese and Koreans and Chinese and Laotians and Thai people, etc, etc, all together into one "Asian" category in the way that many people today often do. It just doesn't seem to me to be how they thought of other peoples -- in works like Herodotous' history, for example, Herodotus is interested in, or at the very least aware of, all of the different peoples that made up the Persian empire. In the Iliad there's a large section where Homer takes great pains to detail where all of the divisions of the Greek and Trojan armies came from. The Romans were aware that the Germans were made up of many different tribes, that there were different people in Africa, and so on. I suspect that part of what makes "asians" count as "asians" is the old way of carving the world up into three parts: Africa, Europe, and Asia. Europe was always the good part out of those three. There's also been a long tradition of connecting these with the three sons of Noah, one of whom gets cursed; if you'd asked what this curse was in the 1950s, any sunday school teacher could tell you it was black skin. (This was the rationale for mormons denying the priesthood to blacks, for example: they bore the curse of Ham.) quote:I don't think ideas about 'purity of blood' or skin color marking one's status as a social insider showed up until the Spanish Inquisition and the exploration of America. (The place where it might, but I know really nothing about, is the Crusades. But even there my impression is that the Muslims were perfidious because they were Muslims, not because they were Arabs.) It's certainly true that we don't want to read 1900s-style "scientific racism" back into ancient sources, but it's not at all clear to me how old white supremacy is. It seems to be older than any particular account of what a "race" is, or how to distinguish them; "racism" doesn't begin with that kind of theoretical error, it starts with dark-skinned folk getting marginalized for the sake of light-skinned Europeans. The "reasons" for doing so get made up later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
I'm not sure you're going to find any definitive place to say modern racism started here, what I can say is the Romans didn't have it yet. They had different ways of being pricks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
The Romans didn't really differentiate between races like moderns do, their concept of ethnicity was based on who was oppressing and who was receiving the oppression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
The ideas of this really intense eurocentric racism towards Sub-Saharan Africans really rose with mass slavery in the Middle Ages, and thus, slightly ironically, from the Arabs. Obviously there's all kinds of nasty prior associations of certain ethnic groups with servitude ("slave" comes from "Slav", some Finno-Ugric words for slave, like Finnish "orja" come from the Aryan tribal moniker), but it seems to be the systematic enslavement and persecution of black people that led to this absolute racial ideology that was "intellectually" formulated during the Enlightenment (that's ironic too) and onwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Romans didn't really differentiate between races like moderns do, their concept of ethnicity was based on who was oppressing and who was receiving the oppression. This is a very good one-line summary, and ties in nicely with how Romans perceived male homosexuality. It was fine--if a little odd--to give. It was demeaning to receive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
On the topic of unrecognized diversity in previous eras, I really enjoy this tumblr: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/missionstatement
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:This is a very good one-line summary, and ties in nicely with how Romans perceived male homosexuality. It was fine--if a little odd--to give. It was demeaning to receive. Male homosexuality wasn't "odd" in the classical period, but quotidian enough. Besides, there's much better ways to formulate Roman ideas to sexuality. Namely, that the mainstream sexual ideas were just tragically stifled and focused on power relations, where you had Man (penetrator) and Woman (penetratee, i.e. woman or man (or boy)). So it's not really that "homosexuality" existed, they just had this totally warped dick-obsessed rape culture. It's pretty striking how Ovid wrote that he wasn't into loving men, because he wanted to give pleasure too, not just receive it. Like, what? There's very little understanding of either female sexuality (Ovid being an exception here) or what we would call homosexuality in Roman writings, just this macho insanity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Romans probably weren't really all about white supremacy either as like, they weren't really all that 'white'. All the lily white people would be the ones on the frontier or outside their borders, and all the rich peoples would have been to the east and olive/brown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:This is a very good one-line summary, and ties in nicely with how Romans perceived male homosexuality. It was fine--if a little odd--to give. It was demeaning to receive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I'm not the sharpest gladius in the legio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Speaking of race chat, was there really any sense of "orientalism" in the empire? I remember that kind of being an axe to grind over antony, but by like 150 AD was Syria on east viewed as kind of ~different~ inherently or was it just another part of the Empire?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Speaking of race chat, was there really any sense of "orientalism" in the empire? I remember that kind of being an axe to grind over antony, but by like 150 AD was Syria on east viewed as kind of ~different~ inherently or was it just another part of the Empire? If we look at the career of Elagalabus in the 3rd century, then yes, I'd say there was still a fear of the eastern provinces back in Rome proper. Then again poor Elagalabus had so much else going on...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah, it never went away. Those weird decadent rich Greek speaking easterners 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Okay, so it's always kind of been a thing. I got introduced to classics from a Catholic perspective in east/west church history and the West being pragmatic hard nosed realists and the east being more prone to mysticism and more arcane thinking. Obviously east/west clash of civilizations and orientalism is a thing in the modern era. I always wonder how much is projection back in time and how much is a undercurrent of "roman/Greek" biases stretching back millenia. Edit: For the record, I'm not trying to make any objective observations what actually occurred. Just curious about the roots and growing of that conscious cultural divide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
It goes back to the Greek/Persian wars at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It goes back to the Greek/Persian wars at least. It is kind of interesting to think one cosmopolitan empire attacks a bunch of introspective hillbillies like over two thousand years ago and people are still seeing this divide in various ways to this day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
That's odd, I was going to use Elagabalus as an example of how Easterners were accepted. People throughout the West were pretty down to worship his god, even after his reign. It got rolled into the general sun god phenomenon that was so big right before Christianity. Grand Fromage posted:Yeah, it never went away. Those weird decadent rich Greek speaking easterners
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:It is kind of interesting to think one cosmopolitan empire attacks a bunch of introspective hillbillies like over two thousand years ago and people are still seeing this divide in various ways to this day. Isn't more of the general tendency to think that those assholes on the other side of the hill are a lot more decadent/savage/arrogant than the people on your side of the hill? It's just that, at the Western edge of Eurasia, it tends to get expressed as an East/West divide since there aren't as many major groups to the west.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:Isn't more of the general tendency to think that those assholes on the other side of the hill are a lot more decadent/savage/arrogant than the people on your side of the hill? It's just that, at the Western edge of Eurasia, it tends to get expressed as an East/West divide since there aren't as many major groups to the west. Yeah it's not like Romans invented it or the East/West thing is unique. There is a specific thing about easterners but fundamentally it's the same human tendency to otherize everyone and think the dude from over there is weird because he's different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
In terms of orientalism, I know that Egypt was a big fad for a while, particularly with mystery religions. It was like India in the '60s. Or today, since "Eat Pray Love" was a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Well hey, the Pyramids are mad impressive now. Consider how crazy they were 2000 years ago and in much better shape so that the stone coating practically shined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
An oriental mystery cult... like Christianity?? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:An oriental mystery cult... Yeah pretty much. There's an extent to which orientalism gets imposed backwards, but by it's critics and it's supporters. Well, not supporters, per say, the people the critics of orientalism are criticizing. Of course I'm the nut in the group here who thinks that the Ottomans Romanized enough to be considered a legit xth Rome so what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:An oriental mystery cult... "When Constantine legalized Christianity, the Roman Empire was irreversibly tainted by oriental decadence!" -- Edward Gibbon (OK, not really)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:An oriental mystery cult... Joking aside, it's no coincidence that Christianity incorporated tons of mystery elements from other (oriental) mystery cults, because that poo poo was popular for centuries in one way or another and many who became influential in the Christian church(es) brought elements with them. The whole Eucharist thing is pretty straight lifted out of the Osiris cult for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Wanna talk about Romans and kingship. I was reading Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, and right at the beginning there's this big for Caesar:quote:During his quaestorship he pronounced funeral orations from the rostra, according to custom, in praise of his aunt Julia, and his wife Cornelia. In the panegyric on his aunt, he gives the following account of her own and his father's genealogy, on both sides: "My aunt Julia derived her descent, by the mother, from a race of kings, and by her father, from the Immortal Gods. For the Marcii Reges, her mother's family, deduce their pedigree from Ancus Marcius, and the Julii, her father's, from Venus; of which stock we are a branch. We therefore unite in our descent the sacred majesty of kings, the chiefest among men, and the divine majesty of Gods, to whom kings themselves are subject." Obviously not long after Caesar they did have a monarchy again in all but name - how did they square that away internally? "Oh well they don't call themselves Kings, so it's alright"? Or had the shine worn so thoroughly off of Roman republicanism by all of its failings, that the prospect of monarchy didn't seem so offensive anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
I think you have to take that bit with a grain of salt, If I recall correctly, the view of the Kings like hereditary figures and abusive of their powers were a thing of the Tarquinius, the earlier kings, the last one was precisely Ancus Marcius, were elected by the Curiate Assembly and one their main characteristic was their supreme religious authority and their sacred status. Look at this other translation of the same paragraph:quote:Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which attaches to the Gods, who hold sway over kings themselves." So, if Kings are chief among men, but are subjected to the Gods, but at the same time the Julii descended from a Goddess, it made them superior to Kings. Pretty much an indirect way to exalt the prestige of his own family.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
The Latin is this: “Amitae meae Iuliae maternum genus ab regibus ortum, paternum cum diis inmortalibus coniunctum est. nam ab Anco Marcio sunt Marcii Reges, quo nomine fuit mater; a Venere Iulii, cuius gentis familia est nostra. est ergo in genere et sanctitas regum, qui plurimum inter homines pollent, et caerimonia deorum, quorum ipsi in potestate sunt reges.” If I did a literalist translation it would come out as something like this: "The family of my aunt Julia on the maternal side came from a line of kings; on the paternal side it was united with the immortal gods. For the Marcii Reges are descended from Ancus Marcius - whose name her mother had - while the Julii are descended from Venus and our family is of her line. Therefore there is in our line both the sanctity of kings, who have the greatest dignity among men, and the holiness of the gods, in whose power even the kings themselves are held." sanctitas and caerimonia do sound a strongly religious note in the eulogy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Keep in mind that there were never NOT emperors of Rome in Suetonius' lifetime. Tarquins are bad, yes, but the other kings did good stuff and Suetonius is living in a time of supreme monarchs, so he can't be TOO down on kings. We will never know whether Caesar actually said that--given the ancient approach to history, it's a good bet that he didn't--but it's a thing somebody (Suetonius or somebody he copied) might want to put in his mouth. His clementia (mercy) was famous and infamous, and from Caesar onward it became a "standard" virtue of good leaders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
The kings were part of Roman history. So like even though the French are pretty devout to their republican ideals, they can still also obsess over the legacy of Louis XIV. It's not a contradiction if you don't think of it in stupid absolute ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
It's also a pretty good way of saying "my family has been prominent since the beginning, and ergo better than yours. By extension, I am more important than you, do as I say."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Oberleutnant posted:Obviously not long after Caesar they did have a monarchy again in all but name - how did they square that away internally? "Oh well they don't call themselves Kings, so it's alright"? Or had the shine worn so thoroughly off of Roman republicanism by all of its failings, that the prospect of monarchy didn't seem so offensive anymore? My understanding is it was a combination of denial and fatigue. Augustus never called himself Emperor or publicly claimed to rule Rome, he was simply "serving" the people of Rome as a guiding figure at the grateful behest of the Senate (who probably both feared the implications of not backing him and were terrified of the idea of the chaos that could ensue without a firm guiding hand). For the people of Rome, decades (centuries?) of Civil War and disruptions to the grain supply and mobs running the streets etc had come to an end with Augustus' victory over Antonius, so as long as the streets were peaceful and their bellies were full they really didn't give a poo poo if some guy was ruling them in all but name. Proscriptions and Civil War had killed or permanently exiled or cowed most of the Senators who were willing to stand up and make a fuss, those left were survivors or "new men" who weren't about to throw away whatever status they had left going up against the guy who had successfully defeated one of the most celebrated soldiers of their era, and who did after all have a family connection to that exalted (now made divine by Augustus' command) bloodline of the Julii.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I like to think the modern equivalent to how the principate system would be viewed would be like central asian dictatorships. "President" of a democracy, but always wins 110% of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I like to think the modern equivalent to how the principate system would be viewed would be like central asian dictatorships. "President" of a democracy, but always wins 110% of the popular vote. Nah, it would be more like that dictator being simultaneously the president, the prime minister, the chief justice, the minister of education, the chief of police, dog catcher, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Nah, it would be more like that dictator being simultaneously the president, the prime minister, the chief justice, the minister of education, the chief of police, dog catcher, etc. Well, Augustus in particular was a long accumulation of titles. Sort of like if FDR was president, then made vice president, then speaker of the house and then chief justice and solicitor general and etc. To the average Roman (who knows) this was a gradual thing and they either didnt care, or did but the civil wars had gone on so long would it really make a difference? Augustus ruled for like, almost half a century? By then no one knew any different and going back to the republican system would have meant more civil war. Not like that system was too different. Augustus just really streamlined it all. The republican system was probably inadequete for a pan-Mediterranean empire by that point anyways. Theres a reason why a less adequate older empire divided up, an empire of that size was probably never sustainable without modern communication technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I like to think the modern equivalent to how the principate system would be viewed would be like central asian dictatorships. "President" of a democracy, but always wins 110% of the popular vote. China (of all places) has a system with somewhat similar elements : the paramount leader is the guy who's the General Secretary of the Communist Party and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the President of the PRC. Although it's also more of an oligarchy these days to prevent someone from starting a Mao-style personality cult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Well, Augustus in particular was a long accumulation of titles. Sort of like if FDR was president, then made vice president, then speaker of the house and then chief justice and solicitor general and etc. To the average Roman (who knows) this was a gradual thing and they either didnt care, or did but the civil wars had gone on so long would it really make a difference? Augustus ruled for like, almost half a century? By then no one knew any different and going back to the republican system would have meant more civil war. Not like that system was too different. Augustus just really streamlined it all. The republican system was probably inadequete for a pan-Mediterranean empire by that point anyways. Theres a reason why a less adequate older empire divided up, an empire of that size was probably never sustainable without modern communication technology. Didn't the conspirators who assassinated Caligula want to restore the Republic? But as you said, no one would have remembered a system apart from the Principate. You'd have to go back to people's grandfathers, and even then they'd have only been kids by the time the Republic was well and truly finished (if my maths is in the least bit correct).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 11:19
|
|
