Hello nobles ones. Please check out the original video I'm responding to for the full context.
   • What did the Romans think about Race?...  

there are still 3 main items I'd like to cover which I think either require more expansion or might need to be readdressed entirely.

The points about: Cosmopolitan phenomena in Classical urban areas, Race and racial perception, where we'll be confronting Roman racially exclusionary practices in the acquisition and analyses of socio historical data, and a few points about slavery which I'll address from the perspective of a reading of the classical socio economic strata.

On your video you strive to discuss the differences between the modern usage of the word race racism and the ancient usage of it, fair. I reckon however that's it's important to also spend the same amount of time and effort into explaining the fundamental difference between the modern meaning of the word cosmopolitan which you do use to describe more than one Classical city, and the ancient meaning of this word, particularly when contextualized in period.

To your credit, you do say that depending on the city and the era in question, some times people were coexisting peacefully and other times they weren't, but you leave it at that. Perhaps by choice.

Just like the racial aspect, this is a key element of distinction when addressing Rome and modern society in a comparative key as you are, thus I'd like to add to your analysis.

Modern philosophical theories of cosmopolitanism focus on the uniting features defining the world as a shared homeland for all mankind. Hence expanding into the realm of equal rights together with the capacity to live with the element ‘Other’.

The Roman Empire instead is a political entity that conquered, expanded and incorporated by military suppression. More concretely, Rome had subdued large parts of the known world; forcing the inhabitants of the conquered regions to serve Rome. Rome was imperialistic, which is a clear cut opposite to modern cosmopolitanism.

An imperialistic society is riddled with inequality and the dominion of a elite minority exploiting the subjued masses. Consequently, from this perspective the imperium Romanum, was not cosmopolitan at all.

The reality is that in Rome there is an intrinsic societal ambiguity, where the authorities construct a dichotomy between cosmopolitanism and imperialism. The situation has compounding layers that contribute to the interpretation of documented facts.

In agreement with Invicta's usage of the term cosmopolitan, Roman society was not purely top-down it was dynamic in a sense. The Inhabitants of the provinces adopted a Roman identity and at the same time kept their local one—due to Rome’s tolerance towards local habits, cults and languages. The ancient world was indeed culturally and physically interconnected.

So yes Rome or Alexandria were cosmopolitan in a sense, but ancient cosmopolitan discourse must be recontextualized and adapted to Classical conceptual frameworks.

Not a major point of disagreement, just thought I'd add a bit of context to the words used.

While I agree with the general idea that modern Racism is different from ancient racism, I am adamant that connections between culture and behavior should be laied out through non- modern culturally invasive inference in order to properly conceptualize the underlying mechanisms of attitudes towards racial differences.

In other words, I think this idea that ancient Racism is not based on physical appearce but rathert cultural differences, is modernism and as a result fundamentally flawed.

This assertion rests on the assumption that racism based on phenotypic variance is a modern construct. I respectfully beg to differ.

Is there a causal link between physical appearance and racial discrimination associated with societal trajectories of discriminatory behaviour among the Romans?

There absolutely is a documented correlation between physical characteristics specifically appearance and discrimination when it comes to social feedback in Rome.

Certain discrimination patters have always existed. In fact, and this is conjecture on my part, but I'd go as far as saying that implicit discriminatory beliefs and racial disparities based on your looks that exacerbate these issues have existed since prehistoric tribalism.

But the phenotypic differences that we consider indicators of race, such as skin pigmentation, hair texture, body composition and sweat gland density, in fact appear in social interactions within the human species on a continuum, that simply covaries with ancestral latitude.
This ancient analysis treating the environment as a key factor influencing human condition, mental predispositions and physical appearance in human subgroups and societies.
It is very challenging to find a solid demarcation between cultural prejudice and racial or physical prejudice in the sources.

#invicta #ancientrome #metatron