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

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

I mean there seems to be good evidence of black legionnaires at Hadrians wall and in various cities 50 years later than stated.
If you read 'typical family ' to mean typically black you would criticise that as well, but I would take it to mean typical of Roman families in Britain irrespective of ethnicity if we keep the politics out of it.
It also doe not say that Romans in Britain were itypically n family units. Maybe a different video describes the lives of typical Roman soldiers.

I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case. Any history probably has that sort of bias. If the 20% figure is right, and it seems to have evidential backing, then it should be taught, but the facts of dates, places and rulers should be right as well.

GrahamH wrote:

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

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

I mean there seems to be good evidence of black legionnaires at Hadrians wall and in various cities 50 years later than stated.

That's weird, because it's not the implication of what you wrote. But ok. Perhaps if you're not aware, the usual implication of "there would be valid criticism in that..." would be that the actual criticism is not valid.

GrahamH wrote:If you read 'typical family ' to mean typically black you would criticise that as well

No, I wouldn't. But it's somewhat hypothetical, when that isn't what was said and isn't what I said either.

GrahamH wrote:But I would take it to mean typical of Roman families in Britain irrespective of ethnicity if we keep the politics out of it.

In what way was the family typical? That the father was a commander in the Roman legions? That his wife came to Britain? That they had two children?


I mean, historically speaking it appears superficially that nothing about the family is typical, but please, do enlighten me as to what you're disagreeing with.

GrahamH wrote:It also doe not say that Romans in Britain were itypically n family units. Maybe a different video describes the lives of typical Roman soldiers.

It doesn't? Wasn't this already quoted?

[double post, please delete]

GrahamH wrote:I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case.

Any evidence for that? What is the rate of depiction? What is the actual rate?

(I'll be honest, this looks 0% historical and 100% political to me, but I could be wrong)

GrahamH wrote:If the 20% figure is right, and it seems to have evidential backing, then it should be taught, but the facts of dates, places and rulers should be right as well.

It's not. The figure that was given was that less than one in twenty-one residents of Britain in the Roman era were non-British. That's 4.7% at most. To suggest that means 4.7% were black is not even wrong. To mention 20% is worse than not even wrong, it's innumerate.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH 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 prior to any historical evidence yet provided of black legionnaires is beyond all criticism?

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

I mean there seems to be good evidence of black legionnaires at Hadrians wall and in various cities 50 years later than stated.

That's weird, because it's not the implication of what you wrote. But ok. Perhaps if you're not aware, the usual implication of "there would be valid criticism in that..." would be that the actual criticism is not valid.

GrahamH wrote:If you read 'typical family ' to mean typically black you would criticise that as well

No, I wouldn't. But it's somewhat hypothetical, when that isn't what was said and isn't what I said either.

GrahamH wrote:But I would take it to mean typical of Roman families in Britain irrespective of ethnicity if we keep the politics out of it.

In what way was the family typical? That the father was a commander in the Roman legions? That his wife came to Britain? That they had two children?


I mean, historically speaking it appears superficially that nothing about the family is typical, but please, do enlighten me as to what you're disagreeing with.

GrahamH wrote:It also doe not say that Romans in Britain were itypically n family units. Maybe a different video describes the lives of typical Roman soldiers.

It doesn't? Wasn't this already quoted?

Ẃe can talk of 'typical families' with no implication that the population, whatever it may be, it typically in family units. Where they are in family units this typically how they live.

GrahamH wrote:Ẃe can talk of 'typical families' with no implication that the population, whatever it may be, it typically in family units. Where they are in family units this typically how they live.

Was the typical family any of those* things, historically speaking?

*Referring to your previous allusions to black africans, two child families, families of commander's in the legions etc.

I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case.

Any evidence for that? What is the rate of depiction? What is the actual rate?

(I'll be honest, this looks 0% historical and 100% political to me, but I could be wrong)

GrahamH wrote:If the 20% figure is right, and it seems to have evidential backing, then it should be taught, but the facts of dates, places and rulers should be right as well.

It's not. The figure that was given was that less than one in twenty-one residents of Britain in the Roman era were non-British. That's 4.7% at most. To suggest that means 4.7% were black is not even wrong. To mention 20% is worse than not even wrong, it's innumerate.

Why are you taking this as about being black? That's the alt-right agenda.

My apologies if I misremembered the British museum figure given earlier. I'll look back at that later when I have use of a pc.

If, as you seem to suggest, almost 5% of the entire population was non-white then surely the proportion in the roman population was higher.

In any case, not representing that 5% at all would be a serious distortion, in my view.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Ẃe can talk of 'typical families' with no implication that the population, whatever it may be, it typically in family units. Where they are in family units this typically how they live.

Was the typical family any of those* things, historically speaking?

*Referring to your previous allusions to black africans, two child families, families of commander's in the legions etc.

I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

I don't know, but what is your evidence it is not? Would low ranking legionnaires live in families of any sort? It seems a bit unlikely. If only men of high rank had families with them then the depiction may well be typical of such families. They don't claim it is typical of all families in roman Britain, do they?

GrahamH wrote:Why are you taking this as about being black? That's the alt-right agenda.

It's what you're arguing about. If you think the depiction show the difference between a Germanic and a Briton, you need to look closer.

GrahamH wrote:If, as you seem to suggest, almost 5% of the entire population was non-white then surely the proportion of the roman population was higher.

No, I don't suggest that, because it's not remotely true. I mean, seriously?

GrahamH wrote:In any case, not representing that 5% at all would be a serious distortion, in my view.

Notwithstanding the error of many orders of magnitude, on what planet is not representing the 5% as "typical" better than not representing the 95% as "typical"?

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Ẃe can talk of 'typical families' with no implication that the population, whatever it may be, it typically in family units. Where they are in family units this typically how they live.

Was the typical family any of those* things, historically speaking?

*Referring to your previous allusions to black africans, two child families, families of commander's in the legions etc.

I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

I don't know, but what is your evidence it is not?

Just don't fucking even. On what Ratskep is this fallacy not worn out beyond belief?

You claimed, you prove it. That's how it works in rational discourse.

Thommo wrote:
Notwithstanding the error of many orders of magnitude, on what planet is not representing the 5% as "typical" better than not representing the 95% as "typical"?

I don't think that video depicts Romans in Britain as typically black. That's your interpretation. It claim to depict a typical roman family, which is likely a very small proportion of the roman population. Ignoring ethnicity it may well be accurate.

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Notwithstanding the error of many orders of magnitude, on what planet is not representing the 5% as "typical" better than not representing the 95% as "typical"?

I don't think that video depicts Romans in Britain as typically black. That's your interpretation. It claim to depict a typical roman family, which is likely a very small proportion of the roman population. Ignoring ethnicity it may well be accurate.

What? Where are you getting any of this from?

What aspects of this family are typical? Explain yourself. I mean, you're the one that says that not representing 5% is a distortion. Explain how not representing 20 (because you miscounted) 5%s is somehow not 20 distortions, according to your thesis.

Thommo wrote:
I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

Showing that there were non-white Romans is 'whitewashing' them?
Bizarre.

If you prefer to show kids that Romans were brutal invaders you may have a point. Happy families was surely a small part of it. However you portray history its laden with biases. Empires are built on a mix of ethnicity, prosperity, brutality etc. It shouldn't be whitewashed or demonised.

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

Showing that there were non-white Romans is 'whitewashing' them?
Bizarre.

Is that what I said? I don't think it is.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that what actually happened was that you said stuff like:

"I don't know, but what is your evidence it is not?"
or
"I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case. "

And then massively sidestepped, because you don't want to* justify what you said.

*Read: "can't".

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Notwithstanding the error of many orders of magnitude, on what planet is not representing the 5% as "typical" better than not representing the 95% as "typical"?

I don't think that video depicts Romans in Britain as typically black. That's your interpretation. It claim to depict a typical roman family, which is likely a very small proportion of the roman population. Ignoring ethnicity it may well be accurate.

What? Where are you getting any of this from?

What aspects of this family are typical? Explain yourself. I mean, you're the one that says that not representing 5% is a distortion. Explain how not representing 20 (because you miscounted) 5%s is somehow not 20 distortions, according to your thesis.

I don't claim to know what a typical roman family was like, and nor it seems do you.
It seems likely to me that a typical roman in Britain at that time was mot in a family, but maybe most were.
Doesn't a family mean wife and kids living together almost by definition?

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Notwithstanding the error of many orders of magnitude, on what planet is not representing the 5% as "typical" better than not representing the 95% as "typical"?

I don't think that video depicts Romans in Britain as typically black. That's your interpretation. It claim to depict a typical roman family, which is likely a very small proportion of the roman population. Ignoring ethnicity it may well be accurate.

What? Where are you getting any of this from?

What aspects of this family are typical? Explain yourself. I mean, you're the one that says that not representing 5% is a distortion. Explain how not representing 20 (because you miscounted) 5%s is somehow not 20 distortions, according to your thesis.

I don't claim to know what a typical roman family was like, and nor it seems do you.

Best not to quote yourself literally doing that then?

GrahamH wrote:It seems likely to me that a typical roman in Britain at that time was mot in a family, but maybe most were.
Doesn't a family mean wife and kids living together almost by definition?

I'm not helping you out of this hole*.

*For the record I do not hold to any "traditional" definition of a family though, and am quite aware that the "nuclear" family of the late 20th century is not a historical trend, but rather a historical contingency.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

Showing that there were non-white Romans is 'whitewashing' them?
Bizarre.

Is that what I said? I don't think it is.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that what actually happened was that you said stuff like:

"I don't know, but what is your evidence it is not?"
or
"I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case. "

And then massively sidestepped, because you don't want to* justify what you said.

*Read: "can't".

I only said it is my suspicion, which is based on my schooling, TV documentaries etc. I recall that as Romans looking white Caucasian. I guess the alt-right nutters got that impression too. Maybe you had a better education on these topics.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

I don't think that video depicts Romans in Britain as typically black. That's your interpretation. It claim to depict a typical roman family, which is likely a very small proportion of the roman population. Ignoring ethnicity it may well be accurate.

What? Where are you getting any of this from?

What aspects of this family are typical? Explain yourself. I mean, you're the one that says that not representing 5% is a distortion. Explain how not representing 20 (because you miscounted) 5%s is somehow not 20 distortions, according to your thesis.

I don't claim to know what a typical roman family was like, and nor it seems do you.

Best not to quote yourself literally doing that then?

GrahamH wrote:It seems likely to me that a typical roman in Britain at that time was mot in a family, but maybe most were.
Doesn't a family mean wife and kids living together almost by definition?

I'm not helping you out of this hole*.

*For the record I do not hold to any "traditional" definition of a family though, and am quite aware that the "nuclear" family of the late 20th century is not a historical trend, but rather a historical contingency.

Don't be daft. I'm speculating, not claiming knowledge. It seems likely that an occupying army is not living a family life. I allow that I may be wrong about that.

If you have reason to think most Romans in Britain were living in families I'd love to know about that.

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I don't want to be a downer, but the Romans were a bunch of utter cunts who nailed people up and watched them bleed to death for entertainment. I have no clue why we'd feel the need to whitewash them, but I'm open to learning why.

Showing that there were non-white Romans is 'whitewashing' them?
Bizarre.

Is that what I said? I don't think it is.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that what actually happened was that you said stuff like:

"I don't know, but what is your evidence it is not?"
or
"I suspect that it is the case that most depictions of Roman Britain are more white Caucasian than was the case. "

And then massively sidestepped, because you don't want to* justify what you said.

*Read: "can't".

I only said it is my suspicion, which is based on my schooling, TV documentaries etc. I recall that as Romans looking white Caucasian. I guess the alt-right nutters got that impression too. Maybe you had a better education on these topics.

Ok, and what's the evidence that 99.99% of the Romans in Britain in the time of Hadrian weren't?

If you want to argue against what you were taught you're certainly free to do so, but you need to actually argue, not just JAQ. And certainly not straight up misrepresent, which is what you did there with your "bizarre" comment relating to something that had not been said.

For all that this bloke I've never heard of and do not care about might well be an "alt right nutter", that doesn't actually mean he's wrong that Roman Britain was not significantly black (and I hope that he's done more than suggest that for the appellation).