Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"? Strictly speaking there is always diversity because no people except twins have exactly the same DNA.

Early Britain was definitely multi-ethnic. There were several different Celtic tribes who had their own geographical areas. Is that diversity?

Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"? Strictly speaking there is always diversity because no people except twins have exactly the same DNA.

Early Britain was definitely multi-ethnic. There were several different Celtic tribes who had their own geographical areas. Is that diversity?

GrahamH wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"? Strictly speaking there is always diversity because no people except twins have exactly the same DNA.

Early Britain was definitely multi-ethnic. There were several different Celtic tribes who had their own geographical areas. Is that diversity?

I take it to mean a mix rather than ethnic isolation. If various tribes were isolated in their own enclaves and didn't mix, trade, intermarry whatever that wouldn't be diversity, would it?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"? Strictly speaking there is always diversity because no people except twins have exactly the same DNA.

Early Britain was definitely multi-ethnic. There were several different Celtic tribes who had their own geographical areas. Is that diversity?

I take it to mean a mix rather than ethnic isolation. If various tribes were isolated in their own enclaves and didn't mix, trade, intermarry whatever that wouldn't be diversity, would it?

But those enclaves likely weren't completely isolated and closed-off.
Nor were they likely to stay that way, after the Romans conquered them.

Thommo wrote:PS: This appears to be the full educational video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN_x9o8MV1o

The video mentions that this chap lives in the time of Hadrian, which puts it at 117-138AD, the emperor who brought what are suspected to be the number of black Roman legionnaires to Britain was dated at 193-211AD.

GrahamH wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"? Strictly speaking there is always diversity because no people except twins have exactly the same DNA.

Early Britain was definitely multi-ethnic. There were several different Celtic tribes who had their own geographical areas. Is that diversity?

I take it to mean a mix rather than ethnic isolation. If various tribes were isolated in their own enclaves and didn't mix, trade, intermarry whatever that wouldn't be diversity, would it?

But those enclaves likely weren't completely isolated and closed-off.
Nor were they likely to stay that way, after the Romans conquered them.

Indeed. I didn't suggest either case pertained to the period under discussion, I was merely running my own thoughts on what diversity or lack thereof might mean, in answer to Arjan Dirkse's question.

Thommo wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:So what do people mean exactly when talking about "diversity"?

A contextually significant amount of variation in the trait under discussion. In the modern political climate this usually refers to Proportions of women, non-white people and non-straight people.

Because women are such a large proportion of the population (slightly more than 50%) you can have a lack of diversity even with women making up 20 or 25% of some particular sub grouping.

In the picture, the complaint will undoubtedly be that the roman is black:


Although if one were to look closer the presence of exactly two children and no slaves* might also be regarded as atypical. It's also questionable as to whether Romans bringing their wives was typical (although it's not questionable that it was heard of).

PS: This appears to be the full educational video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN_x9o8MV1o

The video mentions that this chap lives in the time of Hadrian, which puts it at 117-138AD, the emperor who brought what are suspected to be the number of black Roman legionnaires to Britain was dated at 193-211AD.

*Watching the full video and not just the still provided at the other link, slaves are in fact covered.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:PS: This appears to be the full educational video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN_x9o8MV1o

The video mentions that this chap lives in the time of Hadrian, which puts it at 117-138AD, the emperor who brought what are suspected to be the number of black Roman legionnaires to Britain was dated at 193-211AD.

There would be valid criticism in that for the dates and rulers, rather than the depiction of black faces.

Really, so you're saying that having a black family that is even described as typical dated

Thommo wrote: prior to any historical evidence yet provided of black legionnaires is beyond all criticism?

Thommo wrote:This is why I think we need to take politics out of it.

Thommo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

There would be valid criticism in that for the dates and rulers, rather than the depiction of black faces.

Really, so you're saying that having a black family that is even described as typical dated

Is it?

Yes.

Thommo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Thommo wrote: prior to any historical evidence yet provided of black legionnaires is beyond all criticism?

A man doesn't need to have come to Britain as a legionaire.

The guy depicted is a commander in the legions. He's assigned to the construction of Hadrian's wall.

Thommo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I see, then yes, this video is a-historical.

Which, to me, makes it definitely not beyond criticism, in terms of its existence as part of a children's historical education series.

Thommo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And he couldn't have arrived at that post through serving in Britain and/or nepotism?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. I don't think there's any denying that it's possible there was the odd black person in Britain in Roman times and I don't honestly suppose that's why a black person was particularly chosen in this instance anyway.

VazScep wrote:These folk are just twats, and it's funny to point at them and tell them they're twats.

Tracer Tong wrote:

VazScep wrote:These folk are just twats, and it's funny to point at them and tell them they're twats.

Well, sure. But it's likely more interesting to ask why such a misleading (?) video was produced in the first place, being as it seems to imply that the Roman Britain of the time was more ethnically diverse than it really was. Perhaps part of an answer is that history is probably more an aesthetic exercise than we give it credit for.