03-17-2004, 09:09 PM
Having forced my way through this rather dense article, I have to say that I'm not terribly convinced. Then again, it's hard to say anything definite about it, as the extract is merely the introduction to a far longer piece, and actually features very little of substance. The author, Mr Isaacs, spends more than half the article debating terms - he doesn't believe that 'race' exists (fair enough), but then goes through all sorts of hoops trying to define what, therefore, 'racism' might mean. After some rather wearying and apologetic hand-wringing, he manages to define racism as the belief that alien groups of people possess immutable physical or mental characteristics which render them inferior. Ok, fair enough again - but he then states that he intends to demonstrate the existence of this belief in 'ancient times' - whether he manages this feat or not the article does not go on to elucidate - beyond a cursory note from Tacitus and a vague bit about Aristotle, Isaac's findings remain inscrutable.<br>
<br>
However, by the very definition of his terms his argument seems to fail - like a man trying to pitch his tent on quicksand, just when he gets his thesis to stand up straight, it sinks. It cannot be doubted, after all, that the Romans (in common with most other people throughout history) were fairly xenophobic at times (a later term, as Isaac points out, but it'll do) - Roman literature is scathing about the effeminacy of Egyptians, the fanaticism of Jews and the savage irrationality of Germans (etc etc). But is this racism, by Isaac's interpretation?<br>
To the Romans, what was important was citizenship and belonging - neither based on ethnicity. Their stereotypes of outsiders were intended to reinforce their own virtues - Egyptian effeminacy V Roman masculinity, Germanic savagery V Roman restraint and rationalism, and so on. In other words, it was the behaviour of the outsider, and what that behaviour represented, that was the problem. As we know, it was perfectly possible for a German, a Syrian, a Jew or even an Egyptian to become a Roman citizen, thereby neutralising their otherness - this is hardly the belief in immutable and genetic inferiority that Isaacs describes as 'racism'. Added to this, the possibility of any slave in Roman society to be freed, and his or her offspring to be considered as full citizens, mitigates against a Roman (or 'ancient') belief in the inherent servility of certain groups or 'races' (this appears to be another of Isaacs' points)<br>
<br>
The extract mentions Balsdon's 'Romans and Aliens', which is a very good book on this theme, but Isaacs seems a bit sniffy about its lack of discussion and ethical finger-pointing. So what? Balsdon presumably saw the difficulties in judging ancient cultures by modern standards, and chose not to go there.<br>
<br>
(p.s - shouldn't this thread go into 'References & Reviews?) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nathanross@romanarmytalk>Nathan Ross</A> at: 3/17/04 10:33 pm<br></i>
<br>
However, by the very definition of his terms his argument seems to fail - like a man trying to pitch his tent on quicksand, just when he gets his thesis to stand up straight, it sinks. It cannot be doubted, after all, that the Romans (in common with most other people throughout history) were fairly xenophobic at times (a later term, as Isaac points out, but it'll do) - Roman literature is scathing about the effeminacy of Egyptians, the fanaticism of Jews and the savage irrationality of Germans (etc etc). But is this racism, by Isaac's interpretation?<br>
To the Romans, what was important was citizenship and belonging - neither based on ethnicity. Their stereotypes of outsiders were intended to reinforce their own virtues - Egyptian effeminacy V Roman masculinity, Germanic savagery V Roman restraint and rationalism, and so on. In other words, it was the behaviour of the outsider, and what that behaviour represented, that was the problem. As we know, it was perfectly possible for a German, a Syrian, a Jew or even an Egyptian to become a Roman citizen, thereby neutralising their otherness - this is hardly the belief in immutable and genetic inferiority that Isaacs describes as 'racism'. Added to this, the possibility of any slave in Roman society to be freed, and his or her offspring to be considered as full citizens, mitigates against a Roman (or 'ancient') belief in the inherent servility of certain groups or 'races' (this appears to be another of Isaacs' points)<br>
<br>
The extract mentions Balsdon's 'Romans and Aliens', which is a very good book on this theme, but Isaacs seems a bit sniffy about its lack of discussion and ethical finger-pointing. So what? Balsdon presumably saw the difficulties in judging ancient cultures by modern standards, and chose not to go there.<br>
<br>
(p.s - shouldn't this thread go into 'References & Reviews?) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nathanross@romanarmytalk>Nathan Ross</A> at: 3/17/04 10:33 pm<br></i>
Nathan Ross
