Were The Ancient Romans White? The Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Hi noble ones! Check out my best seller Metatron Crusader t-shirt!
metatron.creat...
Available in all sorts of colours and sizes! Thanks for your support!
Were the ancient Romans white? Let's find out the truth.
Link to the original video: www.cracked.co...
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
Check out my Metatron merch online shop!
teespring.com/....
/ metatron_yo. .
/ metatron-153. .
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out my Wife's Channel:
/ crissang. .
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
www.youtube.co....
#Metatron #Jesus #History
"Those who are offended by the truth cannot do anything but lie" was PERFECTLY stated! They are words to live by.
My friend one day you’re going to realise that cuts both ways when people start deciding what they choose to be truth.
Such as when people start saying that gender is not a spectrum because “sCiEnCe sAys So”
Which it doesn’t if you do any research.
@@sbraypaynt Weird tribalistic statement here.
For what it's worth, Science doesn't say anything about what a thing is, only what is it not.
As for your Gender Identity bait, it is all made up. You have no 'Identity' attached to your gender, you have a series of proclivities, such as Neuroticism. Take a look at the Big 9, compare that to what you consider to be Identity, then rethink what sources you've consumed.
One day, those who lie, will stop using labels to try and define what they cannot comprehend. It causes nothing but pointless division.
The Noble Truth!
@@sbraypaynt You are absolutely right... if I identify as a cat, I biologically become a cat. But not if I identify as an Korean, because that is offensive, at least if I'm white... which is really weird, because race most definitely is a spectrum with many of us having ancestors from all over the world. Twitter logic I guess, but I bet with "do any research" you mean browse twitter.
Clown world...
@@sbraypaynt Recently, because until not that long ago, the word "gender" simply didn't exist. It was made up in the Anglosphere in the 1950s by very dubious 'researchers' like John Money (whose extreme perverse experiments led children to commit suicide when they reached adulthood), and didn't reach outside the English speaking world it until the 1970s (and in some countries, much later). I'm not young (nor an Anglo), and I can assure you that, decades ago, we didn't use nor even knew what the term 'gender' was. We said 'sex', which was the only word used to describe all the things gender ideologists who espouse John Money's erroneous beliefs do when they talk about 'gender'.
Oh the Romans were indeed very inclusive! Anyone who was not an actual Roman citizen could be made a slave regardless of race, color, ethnicity, creed or gender. Good commentary and analysis sir.
True equality right there. Maybe we should learn from the Romans /s
No ethnicity on Earth has ever been excluded, from being either a slave or a slaver.
Apart from the smaller or worse-equipped groups who WOULD own slaves if they could but couldn’t.
@@AbsentMinded619 what groups do you have in mind? Tribal groups(Africa, North America, etc) would take slaves from other tribes but of the same race and that's with bow and arrow and wooden club type of warfare. And while not acquired through war one thing that is barely talked about is that American natives wanted booze, guns....and African slaves because they already practiced slavery, now they didn't have to fight their own to acquire them. I know not ALL natives did but a majority did practice it
The bulk of roman slaves are abandoned babies left to die by Roman families
"the romans pretty much thought everyone was beneath them and hated everyone equally" 😭😭 true equality
Except the Greeks.
So basically like the English?
@@joshm3484 not really. While they admired Greek art and sciences they enslaved ordinary Greeks. If you you weren't a Greek scholar you were fooked
@@joshm3484 no, even the Greeks
@@alice_agogo like every other ethnic group in all of history tbh.
Thanks for correcting stupidity in modern "journalism." I can see it's a full-time job. Well-done!
The obvious truth is, that Stalin was black, with the same complexion like POOtin
The problem is that we are not dealing with historians
These articles are written by political activists
Sadly, many historians traded in their history degrees for their activist hats too.
Ancient romans where diverse but they where arab people
agreed!
These articles are written by underpaid interns who have no idea about the subject. They just make a 10 minute Google research, pick a couple of facts that enforce their argument and write an article about it.
@@Azrael3176 you’re delusional. They were literally Europeans. They were Caucasians. They were “Mediterranean”. You’re clueless.
I once got into an argument on reddit about this, they tried to claim there was no evidence for their skin colour... Please, there is literal art that survived, paintings out there that show people who have the exact same skin colour as modern italians. I don't understand what is this obsession with making everyone black.
because they wanted to make it seem that sub saharans have a great civ.
It's something called Afrocentrism. It's more common with black Americans than actual Africans. Said Afrocentrism also claims the Mayans and Olmecs were black.
It's like the opposite side of the coin with Aryanism - whereas that ideology presents whites as a master race, Afrocentrism presents blacks as a master race.
There's also DNA ffs
@@johnh.mcsaxx3637
Do you actually have citations in MLA or APA format to back your claim about Afrocentrism?
@@johnh.mcsaxx3637 Lol! They claim they were the real native Americans, Jews, Egyptians, etc., too. 🥴
Another thing you mention just as a sidenote: Just because the Roman EMPIRE might have stretched to cover multiple ethnicities etc, that doesn't mean that all those different groups would have automatically been found in the city of Rome itself to a "modern" degree of multicultural and multiracial diversity.
I think it is not a question of any agenda, only an Anglo-Saxon would be such an idiot as to question whether the Romans were white or not.
Yes, the Romans were white, but they did not look like a Brit or German, they looked like Italians or Spaniards, i.e. they were not all pale nor did their skin turn red in the sun(not extremely like an Anglo).
@Siddharta Goutama he said that in the video. The Romans were Europeans, ergo "white". Of course, the Romans in Italy would mostly look like the Italians we know today. Most Roman citizens in Hispania would resemble Spanish people, citizens of Gallia would resemble French etc. He said as much in the video and it will never cease to surprise me that this apparently needs to be pointed out, especially to people across the pond.
@@siddhartagoutama4140
Yes Romans were West Eurasian. West Eurasian if we put it on a spectrum kinda ranges from Northern European on one end of that genetic spectrum to MENA at the other end, with Southern Europeans in the middle, as Masaman shows.
Obviously it wouldn't be new York but there would be a fair few traders and merchants within said city. Most of the diversity would've been military though rather than anything civilian. Moving around in those days by yourself or in small groups was hard and it took a very long time.
@CyrustheChad🇹🇼 agreed, there would definitely have been a few people from, let's say, abroad. There would also have been slaves, obviously.
Ah yes, the classic, "Europe is a melting pot but Africa is 101% black no matter the time period"
Strange, that sentiment in reverse is exactly the nonsense you get on this channel. Asian is genetically diverse, the people aren't the same, Africa is genetically diverse and the sub-Saharans aren't the same as the North Africans but when it comes to Europe, oh no, they're all White and they possibly couldn't be a melting pot of different groups even thought this channel claims Egypt and North Africa were a melting pot.
Who says that?
@@jaimeMedina00 Afrocentrics
Insecure people who appeal to flattery.
Like people that think black people are the orginal Hebrews and (by the way that's flattering)
Like people that think black people built the Gaza Pyramids (how impressive)
Eventually black people will have built the wall of china because that's impressive too.
It's kind of like black history month, all of the history is celebrative. And that's okay to do but it's also important to not be myopic with history. A HUGE amount of human history is deeply unflattering/ disturbing/ should inspire us to NOT be evil/ but you will find that when you come accross evil people Nazis for example, they prefer pride/ power and they prefer flattery it its super ironic that most of this flattery that evil people cling to is false. We simply have to be honest.
I think the narrative is that Africa is the melting pot and Europe is white historically speaking lol
"I don't care if your message is good or bad, you should not change history to support it," --most important take away from this.
that is what caucasians has been doing for all centuries, they change history to support their bad message.
@@Stp-n-r If by "caucasians" you mean communists, then sure.
@@ivorkovac303 not communists, the white supremacists.
@@Stp-n-r Like Woodrow Wilson?
@@ivorkovac303 if you think he belongs to that group.
The people who push the "Rome was multicultural" are abusing the ambiquity of the term itself. As an empire, Rome obviously had multiple cultures, and thus was multicultural in a sense. But that is not how the term is used usually. Multiculturalism is used to mean that your culture should not matter in how you are treated in the state. This obviously was not how Rome worked. The Latin culture was the norm, and if you failed to adhere to that, or the Greek culture, you were considered inferior.
In many time, Greek culture was also particular dislike at well.
and the multitudes of cultures were mostly provincial and separate, rather than our modern idea of “multicultural” which means something more like all cultures occupying the same space and living harmoniously (which is a dubious utopian fantasy imo)
True. An interesting fact is that the British Empire had a larger Muslim population than it had a Christian population. So based on the same criteria, you could say that the British Empire was a multicultural, multiracial and diverse empire. But when they slander the British Empire and, according to them, their many evil deeds and crimes, the British Empire stops being multicultural and becomes completely white and they blame the whites for the bad things.
@@zekun4741 well,..., I am simplifying Gandhi here, but not quite.. see multicultural implied that all culture are treat equally, this was not the case in the British empire....a least according to the British empire.
Exactly! The Roman Empire, or the British Empire for that matter, were multiracial and multiethnic but certainly not multicultural: there was a distinct prevailing culture in terms of ideology, laws, common principles, mores and so on...
I come from a town in the middle of Syria that has been continuously inhabited since at least 6000 B.C. I have been called "White" more times than I could count. One of my childhood friends wouldn't be distinguished were he called Polish, while another is as darker skinned as an Arab from the desert. And there are people who look like everything in between. Go to Italy and travel from north to south. The cultural divide aside, you can easily notice a different "look" to the people. Living almost anywhere around the Mediterranean will make people look a shade darker than a scandanavian but lighter than a Beduin. Migration, ancient colonies and similar climate will do that over thousands of years. Many legionaries from Syria were stationed in Britain, and sure they looked different than the Britons, but they hardly looked much different than the italians, greeks and Spaniars in there (main differences were cultural in how they dressed, shaved,...etc).
If you go to north Africa and travel between Morocco to Egypt, you will also find a massive variety of people of all colours. It's honestly almost insulting when some modern Americans with their own political agenda try to project and frame the history of the region (and the people living here) to what suits their narrative.
Americans and (to a minor extend) europeans not getting that lighter or "white" facial features can arise in places other than Europe or be brought to other regions of the world is one of the most common historical misconceptions they have, only surpassed by "the enterity of Africa is black". Variations in skin tone and complexion are inevitable in big empires, and not even old nations like Egypt were void of their own "diverse" populations between the Nile delta and their southern border. This doesn't mean they were literal british-tier whites+sub-saharan africans. Most of them were fairly related ethnic groups that looked slightly different due things as mundane as climate.
Ultimately, human populations are very complex things that can't be easily clasified as "white" (and thus american) and non-white (and thus african/chinese/native american). Ethnicity and race is of course real, but there is much, much more than the five or six that make up the current North American population, something that sadly pop culture seems to always forget.
Very well said my Syrian brother. There are some Bedouins who have white skin tone as well. Same thing with some of the Yemenis too. There are some Yemenis who look white. And if you were go to Southern India, you will be surprised to find that there are Indians who have skin tone blacker than Africans. Unfortunately, with the rise and dominance of Northern Europeans led by the Brits and now Americans, the white skin tone came to be associated with them. Ancient empires like Roman and modern states like America are based primarily on race/ethnicity. It was mainly in the Muslim empires that ethnicity, nationality and race became secondary. The Rashidun Caliphate, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Mughals in the Subcontinent (which included Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma and possibly Tibet) Muslim kingdoms in China Xinjiang (Uyghurs), Malaysia, Indonesia and even the Philippines etc. were multiracial, multiethnic and multilingual. True diversity was on display in these Muslim empires.
@@maaziy_ghaziyIYI we're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to the Islamic empires. The Umayyads were racist Arabs, the Abbasids racist Persians, the Ottomans and Saljuks racist Turks. Of course I'm massively exaggerating. but the point is that overall none of them were any more or less based on race than the Romans and Persians before them. But regardless of the political entity ruling the area, the people there are diverse all the same whether you call them "white" or "black" or any other modern nonsense in between.
My understanding is that "white" wasn't used often to refer to people until Europeans be gan to distinguish themselves from sub-Saharan Africans during the early years of the African slave trade. So all of the "color words" as we understand them today date to the Renaissance at the very earliest. (Interestingly, "brown" was originally used to refer to "Malays," or Southeast Asians, rather than MENA people or Latin Americans.)
Your white because you are turkish
When you meet an Italian, you are meeting a descendant of Rome. So take a long look and decide. Lol
@Nin10dofan8in the north anywhere from 0 to 10% germanic. In the south 0-30% arab. But that was After the Western Roman Empire Fell. So they weren’t germanic and Arabs before they were just italic
No modern italians do not look like ancient romans. Cato the elder had red hairs light blue eyes, octavian was blond blue eyes sula the same and many others of whom we have accounts were way whiter than modern day italians. These descriptions are from ancient authors like plutarch and others. Many people we don't have an idea how they looked like just a description like "cleopatra was very beautiful" etc. but of course cleopatra doesn't looked like egyption since she was by blood 100% macedonian and some greek. Ptolemeins never mixed with egyptions, she might have some iranian aristocrtatic blood though
@@marcobelli6856 According to a report from the BBC in London, a modern Italian is the sum of: Romans (these do not exceed 38%) + Germanic people, among them: Lombards, Ostrogoths, Heruli, Swabians and Normans, all accentuated and established in what is now Italy and on a smaller scale: Celts and Greeks. Separately, there is Sicily that belonged to Carthage (today Tunisia and part of Turkey) invaded by the Romans and when it dissipated it was taken by the Arabs although it was short-lived due to Ostrogothic pressures (Germanics) and in the end the Normans (Germanics) prevailed over said territory. From the above it is evident that a modern Italian is the mixture of Western Europe
Yes and like the rest of Europe, a little bit of DNA from every other tribe that has raped, pillaged and plundered over the last 75,000 years.
Romans probably looked like modern Turks 😅
Same reason I hate the whole 'Hannibal was African, therefore he was sub-saharan African black' argument because it completely ignores societal and cultural pressures that shape a demographic. He was from a ruling Punic family and would've looked like a modern middle eastern person. If anything it's harmful to the history of another minority (in the US, where I see a lot of articles about this) by replacing it with something of an entirely separate culture.
Basically, Roman Judaeicans, Aegypticus, Phoenecas, and Punicos would look like the guy who runs your Halal shop; moderately swarthy, tan easily, but clearly not truly dark.
We don't know what he looked like. Mind you, there were black people in Carthage that being said we don't know how they were seen or treated. We see Carthaginian art of black people as warriors and some on signet rings known as Phoenician Scarab Corpus, Oxford University has examples. But, again we don't know what these mean. Plus mind you the Etruscans minted a coin with a black man's face on it during the Second Punic War, yet again who.this is or what this black person symbolises we don't know. Some speculate it represents Hannibal or his brother, others an elephant rider symbolising Carthaginian strength, again we may never know. I doubt its Hannibal mind you the people
Figure on the coin looks young.
I find interesting how these anti-prejudice brigades automatically assume that these people from middle-east or northern Africa MUST be dark or "brown" no exception.
SPOILER: Doctor Zhivago was played by a Syrian-Egyptian actor
And even if Hannibal wasn't ethnically Phoenician, he would have still been from what is now Tunisia, which had a Berber population, who would have been caucasian and definitely not Sub-Saharan African. Berbers living along the Mediterranean coast are closely related genetically to Middle Easterners, a result of a migration wave of Neolithic farmers from the Natufian culture of the Levant 9,000 to 7,000 year ago.
It completely ignores the formidable barrier of the Sahara desert that shaped demographics too.
The example of the Ethiopian soldier in Britain is quite often used as an example of multiculturalism within Britain but they always seem to omit the part of the account where the commanding officer banished him upon seeing him, as he had never seen such a person before and thought his presence to be bad luck. The re-writing of history for modern political aims is terrifying.
First gentile convert in the Bible was an Ethiopian eunuch.
I’m not sure how that disproves that the Roman Empire was multicultural. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s just more proof.
The Romans had a more or less explicit policy of using troops from one side of the Empire to garrison the other, in order to reduce regional loyalties.
@@citoante
Heck, the first officially Christian nation wasn’t Rome but Armenia. Rome wasn’t the second either-that was Axum, embryonic Ethiopia
@@warlordofbritannia you are mixing multiracial and multicultural. They are not the same
@@jdr1767
Back then, race was determined by ethnicity not skin color, so it really comes down to same thing.
Either way, Rome was *both* multiracial and multicultural-Gauls, Nubians, Greeks, Italians, Iberians, Jews, etc. all living under a single entity.
As a retired Archaeologist with a University minor degree in History, I find your youtube videos both informative and entertaining. One thing I will mention is your comment on the researchers who make claims about black emperors, and other issues. I sympathize with your frustration about the use of simplistic reasoning and conclusions, as I have dealt with it in my field as well.
Are you referring to the etruscan emperors of Rome?
@@Simba365 I was not referring to any one Emperor or Emperors.
Oh, if only one of my public-school history teachers were half as clear and fascinating. i don't' know HOW I absorbed what I learned. I was a poor study in lower grades, but I paid attention and remembered impressive facts. The ability of a teacher to present factual knowledge to an assembly in an engaging or entertaining way goes miles and miles toward "learning". I love this man's work.
@@cordellsenior9935 Totally agree. You always remember a few lower grade teachers that you had. I was a poor study in the lower grades, it was not until I got into college did I start doing well in studies.
The Table Of Nations states that the children of Japheth inherited the European Isles. Japheth brother was Ham the progenitor of all the dark races Ethiopians Egyptians Libyans and the Canaanites but not the negro. The Book of Jasher says that the children of Japheth made Zepho the grandson of Esau King over them and they became one people. Before Rome was Rome it was called Kittim or pronounced Chittem . He was the the son of Javan, the grandson of Japheth, and Noah's great-grandson. If Ham was Black that means all his brothers and father were too. White is a recessive trait.
What they don't realise is that even in the late Republic, very few provincial Italians travelled to Rome to vote. The distances were too great and it would take days. Then imagine traveling from the far-flung provinces. It would take months and was a perilous journey. The VAST majority of the people living in the provinces would live their whole lives and never come within 100 miles of Rome, or even the Italian peninsula. The only people that travelled in those days were soldiers, politicians, and merchants(discounting the nomadic tribes)
It's just more of the same attempts to destroy European history and brainwash the younger generations into the cult of 'diversity'.
I can't wait for the video, "Were the Zulu's black?"
"Were the Chinese Asian?"
Etc.
Was the pope Catholic?
Exactly. The woke mobs would be pooping their pants.
“Does a bear shit in the woods?”
Nobody knows but I heard he shits in the woods.
Their mention of Septimius Severus couldn't be more ironic. At one point, Severus demanded that an Ethiopian soldier be removed from his sight on account of his supposedly "ominous" skin color.
-why did you put your knee over that man's neck for 9 minutes?
-His skin had an ominous look to it
Septimius severus was born in Libya
@@mhd2680 And Elon Musk was born in South Africa.
Even if Septimius Severus had been from a native family, he'd have been Berber, most of whom are light to olive-skinned.
@@samg.5165
And that’s a North African feature
@@mhd2680 Yes, so I'm not sure what your point is.
That articles argument is like saying that Victorian England would have been a mix of African, Indian and polynesian people because the commonwealth contained many races.
Except that's what it was...
@@spock_elvis Wrong, go troll somewhere else.
@@spock_elvis In 1971 my city - Birmingham - was 91% white (census wasn't as discriminatory back then so I can't tell you what % were British), given that's post-windrush the only way it could've been more multicultural 100 years prior is if we somehow conducted a secret and fully successful genocide between then and now without leaving a single but of evidence like bones or families abroad noticing the disappearance of loved ones.
50 years later it's 48% white with only 43% white british, so yeah these days there are more non-native people here than natives but that's far from always been the case. Pretending otherwise is like portraying native American tribes in the 1600's as caucasian just because caucasians later invaded marginalised and intermingled with them.
@@Neion8 do you feel sad about it? Just curious
@@spock_elvis No, problem is people try to apply modern mobility were back then there was no airplanes and se voyages took weeks if not months and automobiles were not even a thing, roads were made for carriages and you can forget about highways as those would only come about in the 1940's.
To get from South Africa to England it would take months of travel and expensive one at that, most people would only travel if they absolutely had to, this mean even if there was a mix of people overall distances make populations more or less contained to their regional areas, even the wealthy that could afford travel usually did not because, again, being stuck on a boat for 3 months isnt exactly "fun".
I love your discussion of Claudius! I think you are correct about his "Gaulish" origins. Because, about 800 years later, crowning the truly "barbarian" Charlemagne emperor caused quite a stir in the Eastern Empire at the time. So making an actual Celtic Gaul emperor during Claudius' time would not have happened.
Caesar was a nephew of Marius, Augustus was a nephew of Caesar, Claudius was a stepson of Augustus.
A Celtic Gaul is not genetically distinct from an Italian Roman, they called each other barbarians but are really the same race, it's a cultural distinction.
@@kennethscott4997 They are both related as Indo-Europeans, but no, Gauls were Celtic, Romans (not citizens of the Roman Empire) Italic -- a different people.
@@Virtus555 Yes! Hard agree! This is, I believe, more or less documented as to why the eastern Frankish realm will start calling itself The Holy Roman Empire. And later, would lead to the Reformation in England. As well, I noticed in my college Art History that one of the first times Jesus is depicted enthroned and wearing Imperial robes, as an Emporer, was not by Italian Romans, but the Germanic Ostrogothic kings of Italy (Santa Apollinare in Ravenna).
One is European Hunter gathers and one is ancient Anatolian Farmer
They often forget that there is a huge desert between North Africa and the rest of the continent, called the Sahara, that was much harder to cross than the Mediterranean Sea. Which is not helped by the fact that "Africa" meant modern-day Tunisia and not the entire continent at the time.
They did make it down to Ethiopia.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 true, going up the Nile (or following the Red Sea) is surely the best way of crossing the desert. Still, that would mainly be relevant for Egypt.
White people couldn't survive in Sub Saharan Africa very long until modern medicine. In ancient through middle ages White populations would quickly die out from disease.
@@adamprice3466 yup, that's why Africa was colonised several centuries after America despite other factors being similar.
All other ignorance factors aside, I feel also these kinds of articles tend to ignore, like you mention, the distances, or the geographical and travel time factors. It seems like they think there were trains and planes in the Ancient Era, and everyone could afford them and move effortlessly around the territory, probably during their paid vacation time, I guess, while withdrawing money from ATMs in Latin? Even with a ton of darker-skinned colored people in the Roman Middle East/North Africa, unless they were in the rich minority or traders they wouldn't really have the means to make it to the city of Rome to watch a show at the Colosseum.
*Fun fact:* Speaking of Claudius's origin in Lugdunum, said Emperor nearly died in his birthplace. When Claudius, as a member of the Senate, visited Caligula during his journey through Gaul, the mad Emperor, who took pleasure in mistreating his uncle with cruel jokes, had him thrown into a river for an absurd reason. Miraculously, Claudius survived and Caligula spared his life so he could continue mistreating him. Despite nearly dying there, Claudius never forgot his birthplace, visiting Lugdunum again during his conquest of Britannia.
Average Caligula antic
It's so savage I can almost respect it
most of what is said about Caligula are lies recited by his enemies, namely members of the elitist senatorial class, not a valid resource.
@@JukeBoxDestroyer But it's known that Claudius was bullied by everyone since he was a child, so it's perfectly possible that Caligula (who was a bad emperor without any doubt despite how unreliable the sources are) treated him like sh*t
Lyons, the Rhône is very wide there.
These types of writers view the idea of "diversity" strictly through their narrow, politically progressive urban environments. They'll see an empire spanning across multiple regions and rather than think the obvious explanation of separate, ethnic pockets, they assume they've suddenly become ethnically diffused.
Exactly. It'd of only been that way in the military and the trading and merchant classes. It was hard to move around in those days with sich vast distances
@@ManiacMayhem7256 Yep. Sure, occasionally in the Colleseum , you'd see a wealthy King (being feted by the Roman Emperor) or rich merchant and his or her family. They might be black as coal. But they'd be in a sea of a mixture of Italian-white and German-white people. So there's room for black actors. Heck, you could probably even have a few East Asian people as traders or exiles. But as all you guys are saying, they'd be vastly outnumbered and their cultures often considered inferior at worst, curiosities at best.
Their definition of diversity is to implement the fastest possible way to eradicate all diversity in to 1 race.
@@remo27
Indeed. Also those actors better be Nilotic or Cushitic rather than Bantu
These articles are vastly different to what I was taught at school over 20 years ago now. It's amazing how much ancient history can change - even though it has already happened - in a space of 2 decades. 😆
I absolutely love that you are so passionate about truth in history. How can we ever hope to learn from the past if people rewrite it to fit their own narrative and agenda. Thank you for speaking out.
@bastiat4855 did you even listen to what he said. 🤦♀️
@bastiat Watch the video
@@shellysands7342 dont need to watch the video to know that what our cat-god friend here is saying is not a controversial point. They're just saying that Rome was a multicultural empire so simplifying it by defining it as white or non-white is akin to saying nothing at all. Also i watched the video. He circled half of the empire and idk if you know this or not but the other half was actually the more populous side during the height of the empire. The need to assign the concept of modern racial identity to the Romans is just stupid. Cracked was dumb and Metatron is just feeding the problem by engaging with this idea on their level. Its a moot point. Romans were not white or black they were Romans and they would see anyone not like them as dirty and uncivilized
@@eminentbishop1325 I don't see how making a claim is akin to not making a claim at all. One requires proof to support it, the other requires nothing.
No. You're just a racist.
They are trying to make Severus as black, which is funny because he’s one of the few where we have complete genealogy on him; he was italic and Phoenician/cannan/Tyrinian.
He was not black
he probably looked like a semite
@@jmgonzales7701 yes. He was half Phoenician(Semite) and half Italic. We actually have the genealogy of his mother and father.
@@Drakemiser thats cool
@David_Icke12349 hey, I’m American and I know history and geography. Don’t think we’re all ignorant. We just live far from the old world. A lot of Americans know about central and South America. Your knowledge of history is usually based around where you were born. But yes, I am an American that knows the history of antiquity from Sumer to Assyria to Egypt, Babylon, Mede/Persian,Greek and Roman. I like history.🇺🇸
I am German living on the Canary islands. I have lost my whitehisch skin :'(
My wife is German and I'm Portuguese. She lives here in the South of Portugal and she's still pale and red in the sun, even after years.
There would be no need for Greek or Italian caucasians to develop pale white skin; their natural light olive skin fits the climate. The ancients themselves contrasted themselves in detail with Northern Europeans
@@RadRat1978Caucasian is a debunked term/word, why would the greater romans (who are ANF dna profile btw) be associated with the barbarians of Germania (Yamnaya). Caucasian (excluding people literally living on those mountains today) arose from the Yamnaya, who barely existed before the bronze age. Why would the great mediterranean and middle eastern civilizations (the rest of Europe was barbarian neolithic mesolithic until rome, and only had civilization by 476 ad) before 476 ad all the way to 4000 bce of civilization, be associated with a new developing steppe herders that didnt even reach them or affect them genetically?
@@lyricofwise6894 You drank the cool-aid lol. Creeps in academia just dismiss this Greek word as part of their propaganda that "there is no such thing as race." It's just more anti-white, anti-Western Civilization nonsense.
Caucasians have a *very* distinct skull shape, as the ancient Greeks themselves noted. Caucasian/European types share many, *many* genetic traits.
Congratulations: you're brainwashed and arrogant about it 😏
@@lyricofwise6894 Some ancient texts showing that Southern Europeans and their olive skin was a natural outcome of their region. They are still the same race as Northern Europeans (Caucasians):
Diodorus Siculus, 100 BC: "The Guals are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blonde, and not only naturally so, but they make it their practice to increase the distinguishing color by which nature had given it; for they always wash their hair in limewater."
Gaius Petronius, 27 AD (Roman Courtier during reign of Nero). In his book 'Satyricon,' a satirical novel, he writes about a Roman character who sarcasticly suggests "Let us chalk our faces so that Gual may claim us as her own" in the midst of a rant outlining the problems with his partners plan of using blackface to impersonate Ethiopians.
Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman historian 330 AD: "Gauls are light-skinned, light-haired and light-eyed; almost all Gauls are tall and fair-skinned, with reddish hair. Their savage eyes make them fearful objects."
Decimus Junius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD, Roman poet: "The Germanic tribes are degenerate and unnatural due in part to their pale skin and blue eyes."
Tacitus, 56 AD, Roman historian, in his book 'Germania,' writes: "The Germanic tribes are aboriginal and unmixed by intermarriage with other ethnicities or peoples. Typically large-framed and fierce, with blond or red hair and blue eyes, the Germanic tribes commanded bold demeanors. [...] The men are undisciplined and lazy, leaving all manual labor to the women, and they drink too much."
Michael Psellos, 1017 AD, Eastern Roman historian and philosopher. He wrote, "Next to them stood men of the foreign mercenaries, Tauro-Scythians, terrible of aspect and huge of body. The soldiers were blue-eyed and kept their natural complexions [even in Southern European lands]. The Varangians fight like madmen, as if ablaze with wrath."
In Ancient Greece, men with pale or light skin, leukochrōs (λευκόχρως, "white-skinned") would be considered weak and effeminate by Ancient Greek writers such as Plato and Aristotle. According to Aristotle, "Those whose skin is too dark are cowardly: witness Egyptians and the Ethiopians. Those whose skin is too light are equally cowardly: female-like. The skin colour typical of the courageous should be halfway between the two [olive skinned].
I get into this discussion quite a bit at my work, and one thing I've noticed too is that ALLOT of people forget that in cases like Egypt, Anatolia and Persia, the ruling classes there by the time of Roman occupation/conquest would have been very Greek..if my memory serves me, the Ptolemy's couldn't speak the Egyptian language and wrote their records in Greek
You know the Ptolemaic dynasty existed closer to our current time than to the creation of the pyramids right?
The demographic of the ruling class during the vast majority of ancient Egypt wasn’t remotely white.
@@Bumbaclart247 yes, the Ptolemy's existed closer to us, you can see in all the depictions and hieroglyphics of the vast majority of Egyptian history that they wouldn't have been white, however, by the time Rome had their interactions and occupation of Egypt, the Ptolemy's had been the ruling dynasty for over 2 centuries
@@Bumbaclart247 We are speaking of theRoman Empire and Cleopatra and her brother were from the Ptolemaic dinasty...
The Romans were very Greek! It was "The Greek world", much the same vibe as when we say "the western world" today. The Empire formed in todays Dalmatian region of former Illyria; but the Republic formed long before it, as part of the Greek states. When the regional power shifted to the Roman Republic, hegemony had begun to take root already, and that was when the rot began to form. Hegemony is the rot of a failing Democracy.
Prior to Ptolomae, Egypt had never known even 50yrs of self rule. After 300yrs of revivalism, you think the Romans woulda just gone there and done whatever they wanted? Hell no! 😅 The Dynasts wouldn't have it. They all geographically connected, already.
@@Bumbaclart247 I don't know what you are basing your analysis upon concerning the skin color of ancient Egyptians. If you look at the DNA evidence gathered, they had less than 8% Sub Saharan DNA; Rameses II hair color (red), looking at the statuary, paintings etc...what you see are Caucasian people, who likely had various skin tones, most of which were likely just as they are now in Egypt, white, light brown, sallow complected i.e. Mediterranean looking folk.
When I first saw the title I did not even watch I assumed this was something else. Very well done. I agree with most of what you said. Being Italian and a history buff I had read lots of information around ancient society in the roman empire and the movement of tribes throughout. This was just a good commonsense take on what happened back then. A+
Grazie! 🙏
"White" is a uniquely American racial term. The very old school definition is basically British(no Irish), French, Low Countries, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Scandanavia(not Finns). Practicing Catholicism could disqualify one from being "white".
I have worked for over 40 year as an Osteo-archaeologist, mainly in London. Over this time period I have excavated and analysed 100s of Roman period human remains, most were morphologicaly European, meaning WHITE!
The thing is a ancient roman wouldnt care that he is white because someone from a germanic tribe is white too. And all these questions are stupid, why shouldnt romans be white if the majority of native people there is white(some are kinda brown if we are honest). Finding out that romans were white is like finding out that water can freeze. And racism back then in the roman empire is closer to the racism in the Balkan than the Race-racism in the usa
RUclips will soon censor such a statement🤣
@@4566b
“White” (or skin color in general) as a racial identifier is a quite modern concept. As your comment implies, they would have been more interested in what we would now call ethnicity.
Thus, referring to any group of ancient peoples as “white” or “black” is highly anachronistic.
@@warlordofbritannia thats what i meant
they look more like Osama Bin Laden than Trump or any white person, they copied all the knowledge from Middle East and North Africa.
Whites bragging about Greece or Rome are like a Sri Lankan bragging about China
This might be controversial but I think the Spartacus TV show portrayed this very well. It was very diverse, lots of nprthern european/african/middle eastern people in a variety of roles. Which was correct. But they were all gladiators or slaves... all of the powerful aristocrats were exclusively white Italians
I highly doubt they were as diverse as our modern cinema portrays them considering the distance people would have to travel back then and also the desire since humans naturally prefer to stick with their own familiar group
@@Devin7Eleven it was possible that a slave could have been set free from his master and gain roman citizenship. If the particular slave was from one of the middle-east or one of the african provinces then he could live freely in Rome or any other city/province within the empire.
@@YannFranck True, but at the same time, the journey wasn't easy nor was it cheap. How could a penniless former slave pay for the travel? Its not impossible to find an Ethiopian free man in Britain, but it would be so rare you would have an easier time finding a unicorn. If it were widespread there would be a lot of representation in medieval times, and less hatred, rather than believing black people were tainted by the devil
@@gerardfarresfranch7242 i never said it has been widespread but possible. Former higher ranks from an african province who brought their slave with them to one of the cities near the mediterrian cities when they got promoted.
@@Devin7Eleven Actually, circus gladiator slaves are one of the most believably diverse groups, because Roman patricians wanted to put up an extraordinary show to show off their wealth and power and to entertain the people. Thus having fighters who fought well AND looked exotic on top of that was a plus. Same reason why they imported lions and other exotic beasts for their arena games in Rome and other European cities instead of just sticking with those wild animals that would be native to Europe (like wolves and bears).
Based History Man emotionally destroys history revisionist in 16 minutes.
PRO: People of all races and cultures could be found in the Coliseum.
CON: They were used as live food for carnivorous animals during halftime shows.
Shitters gonna shit.
@@m.h.lockesteppe9834 Especially when they see those lions running towards them.
Unfortunately the revision is his, and before you go into anti-wøke attack mode, you should know I detest the wøke movement… I just disagree with his assessment and here is why.
28 Universities in Europe under the lead of Oxford University, did DNA surveys for the inhabitants of Europe. They found that Southern Italians are most closely related to Greeks. Southern Italians are also most closely related to the Ancient Romans. While Northern Italians are most closely related to Northern Europeans.
To simply label us all with one racíal group identity, such as whïte, isn’t accurate. Italians, Greeks, much of Spain and Portugal all have our own racíal identity that is unique to us and separate from the rest of Eurøpe. With the French as the inbetween group, both like us and them. It isn’t only DNA, it’s language (Latin vs Germanic), it’s culture and it’s different domínant physical characteristícs (such as darker hair, skin, etc…).
There was in fact animosity in Italy for a long time based on separate ràcíal identities. Not just Italy but in the US Southern Italians weren’t seen as whíte for a long time. So the history and the DNA studies contradict what he stated. I do enjoy his videos but he isn’t correct on this. Metatron is welcome to self īdentify as whíte, he’s ínaccurate to describe us all that way.
@@GhostSal Your assessment based on one study isBS. And even this study does NOTHING but distinguish different ETHNIC groups NOT RACES. Southern Italians are still European which is WHITE. Do you know Germans, Swedes, Irish, Slavs, Scots were all considered not white, but different ethnicities in the US? Only the descendants of original English colonist were considered white. Yet we all know all Europeans are white whether Latin, Nordic, Germanic etc.
Congratulations. I would say the word "Eviscerate" is an appropriate description of what you have accomplished with your very exhaustive and accurate explanation. Thank you!
North Africa has been white since Egyptian and Phoenician rule. I'm from the Canary Islands off the coast of north africa and have family in the berber population and we are all blonde/red headed.
Mostly yes, this was the case, but there were still significant remnants of black(ish) people in the south of Tunisia, and the central Sahara was still fairly black (the ancestors to the Tebou). The desert was somewhat "whitened" by Tuareg expansion in the next centuries.
Problem is that the Anglo-American sense of "white" excludes a lot of people who would fit very well within the concept of "white". For the rest of the world it generally is: you have lighter skin so you're white. But americans usually don't think like that.
Are Arabs white?
@@willfakaroni5808 mostly yes, they are, from a phenotypical viewpoint. Obviously they're more mixed because of centuries of slave trade from Africa, and there's a considerable number of Arab blacks also due to relatively recent immigration.
@@ario4795 is this historically and genetically proven? Aren't they the descendants of the legendary Troglodytes of historians of antiquity?
Possibly the hardest thing to try and talk about are the many people of Northern Africa who visually have more in common with Mediterranean/Middle Eastern races; there were certain to be "black" people but they don't seem to necessarily be predominant. Egyptians are fairly unique, ethnically-speaking, and come in a variety of skin tones, but they mostly don't look quite the same (even very dark-skinned ones) as sub-Saharan Africans. In America, most people think "African? Oh they must look like 'African Americans' as I know them", not understanding that most African-decended people in the U.S. are almost entirely descended from West and Central Africa. Egyptians certainly weren't white, but they also weren't simply "black" in the way people envision.
Excellent - at least someone with a brain, intellect and knowlegde.
and mediterranean/middle eastern people are white... with olive skin tone. Same as Italy, Spain. And take them away from the sun, they become pretty white. I know, my bf is middle- eastern and in the winter he is almost as white as I am.
Egipcias are White. Not Blacks.
Indeed. Mostly because there is a lot of discussion along the lines of a black/white dichotomy and asians and latinos often get left out or ignored.
Considering some of the discrimination experienced by those of olive skin or asians or arabs, etc. I find it obtuse and rather dismissive to characterize them now as white also.
There are literally indegous black Egyptians, they may not be as visible as the majority "Arab" population, but that does not mean they didnt exist.
Interesting quote: "Those who are offended by the truth cannot do anything but lie."
Do you mean Ghana's national IQ of 65?
@@josephinetracy1485 Not surprised by that number!! Thank You!!
@@josephinetracy1485 IQ means nothing, go find another reason to be racist
@@josephinetracy1485
Wait, you’re telling me one of the poorest and political unstable countries in the world has a poorly educated populace? 😮
@@warlordofbritannia Those tests are based on potential. To have an average of 65, which is severely mentally retarded--means that half of the population is lower than 65! For thousands of years, too dumb to even stick a seed in the ground.
Metatron, Thank you for your thoughtful presentation on this topic. Your thought process and presentation is a solid model for a constructive way to approach issues of this nature. I can think of two points you might consider addressing to give more depth and understanding to your presentations (you may do this already in other presentations). You already do an outstand job of explaining that ancient Egypt, Rome were huge and consisted of may people of different backgrounds and cultures. But as you point out those societies were not multi cultural as we try to think today, where each culture was given equal respect, and usually other cultures were viewed as inferior. In addition, I am amazed at how much interaction and trade existed among the ancients. The book "The Year Civilization Collapsed 1177 B.C." (an excellent read - also good RUclips presentations) does a good job of fleshing out how extensive trade and interactions were between the ancient civilizations.
But the first point, that may add depth to this, is to consider how long many of the ancient civilizations lasted. The United States is just a flash in the pan compared to ancient Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt (you get the point). Even with the short life of the U.S. consider the vast changes that have occurred. An observation about the U.S made in one decade may be totally inaccurate in the next. Now consider a point made about Egypt or Rome at a specific time and think about whether it appropriate 100 years, or so, later. It is prudent to keep in mind that although change was less rapid in the past things were very fluid and given such great timespans one needs to be careful of the date of the observation and avoid generalizing one's point over the entire lifespan of the civilization.
The last point is on race. I believe your observation that ancients would probably view anyone different from themselves in a very guarded manner is spot on. And given human nature to be comfortable of those who look like yourself and act like yourself is understandable; where as, it is also understandable to be warry of those who look different and act different from you. Those differences naturally would include language, dress, customs, body types, facial features and skin tone. And of course, being human, if you are different from me and mine then you must be somewhat inferior. From what I have encountered in my studies, the ancients had a number of markers that would mark their superiority over others, and where as skin tone was sometimes one of those markers, it never seemed to reach the top of the charts. (This may be because with large groups of people skin tone can change quite markedly depending on sun exposure while working).
But this changed in approximately 1450 with a little book written by Gomes de Zurar, a Portuguese man. The book was commissioned by the King of Portugal to provide justification of the emerging, and very profitable, slave trade in African peoples. The premise of the book was that all dark skinned persons from Africa were bestial and inferior therefore slavery was good for them. The concept went viral in Europe and soon any excess of melanin made one fair game for exploitation. This was racism on steroids and was markedly different than how the ancients thought. A good Ted Talk on this topic can be viewed on RUclips under the title "The Lie that Invented Racism" by John Biewen.
This is a critical shift in thinking about skin tone and anyone who wants to understand the race issue ignores it at their peril. I believe it would be very hard to find anyone referring to themselves as "white" before this book went viral. The concept of "whiteness" has, and is evolving. Note that, just a few decades ago, the Irish and Italians were not really considered as "white" and equal to the real European races in the good old U.S.A., but being the manganous people we are, we have finally admitted them into the "white" club (kind of - some are still not sure).
Metatron, thank you for your consideration of these points. Keep up the good work.
Compliments. Excellent commentary: intelligent, reasoned, based on a broad historical culture and the result of serious reflection.
And being a long and interesting comment obviously it doesn't have any likes because the very ignorant social media users can't read more than two lines!
I'm always amazed when people wonder and speculate what the ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, ancient Egyptians, or ancient ________ (insert favorite civilization) looked like. I'm amazed because there's no need at all to wonder, just look at the artwork they left of themselves. There's no better witness of what the Egyptians looked like than the Egyptians themselves, and they left us thousands of visual representations of themselves, e.g. paintings, reliefs, statues, artworks, murals, engravements, drawings, etc. Same goes for all the other great civilizations. They depicted EXACTLY what they looked like, from skin color to the shape of their noses, to type of hair, to what they wore, etc. No need at all for confusion or doubt.
Wait, if we’re going to base our knowledge on what we think ancient people looked like based on the sculptures and artwork they left behind than would that mean that everyone had round or oval faces and sexual dimorphism and facial diversity didn’t exist until very recently?
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov I'm no art historian, but I've observed that ancient civilizations, at least the great ones, left a very sophisticated spectrum of visual representations of themselves, everything from sculptures to artwork and everything in between. If we take the Greeks and Romans, for example, besides artwork depicting "round or oval faces and sexual dimorphism", there are also innumerable life-like artwork that takes the guesswork out of their appearance. An excellent and moving example of this are the mummy portraits in Roman occupied Egypt from 2000 years ago:
ruclips.net/video/B1NkjU8Xowc/видео.html
The ancients were capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, i.e. they made Picasso-type as well as realistic artworks.
@@CurtisCT I just checked out that video you linked to me and I guess there was a few black romans but yeah, I guess I’m right: everyone had round or oval faces back then and the men looked just like their women 😂
Most cultures portray themselves in the most idealized and centralized way that it is almost impossible to tell accurate history from primary sources of the state. Imagine taking the history of Carthage purely from Roman historians, it's like reading a marvel comic book.
You just need to look at their descendants today (modern egyptians,modern greek and italians ).
This revisionism is endemic today, especially in schools. Thank you for calling it out.
It's a bit on the nose.
Elementary schools? Universities?
Yeah and I've met young people that already think that way. It's working.
*Wokeism* (= *Posmodernism* ) is just the result of the miseries / damaged caused (effectively, in most cases) by: *1) The USA* / *UK* (= the *English Empire* in general), *2) France* (also before but especially on the XIX - XX centuries), *3) Germany* (= the birth place of the *Protestant Reform* & modern racism / antisemitism) or even *4) Netherlands* (which only succesfull colony is: *Southafrica* ).
In other words, the modern countries who really control the *_"Western Civilization"_* discours (in which mediterranean countries and actually closer to the traditional west just like: *Greece* , *Italy* and *Spain* ... are now merely puppets) are the ones who export these *_"woke"_* identity politics / activism (which actual roots are more other bullshit than just simply marxism!! xd) and could also be the main responsible on the balcanization (= fragmentation / destruction of human society and real nations) above the rest of the world.
To be fair revisionism has always been prominent in academia. The only difference is that now the lies are so blatant they've become more noticeable to the average person.
Yesterday I watched a RUclips short which played a BBC clip of an "historian" talking about the black Roman Emperor Septimius Severus who ruled over the Roman Empire - obviously black because he was born in North Africa. It was only white culture bias which mistakenly assumed, because he was Roman, that he was white. I shook my head and thought to myself, "If only Metatron was sitting next to him" And right on cue...
It is possible Severus was part Libyan Berber, but the Berbers are mostly brown North African people, while a small amount are mixed with black sub-Saharan. We only know that his mother was Italic/Latin Roman from Italy, while his father was ethnically Punic, meaning descended from Phoenicians of ancient Lebanon who colonized and founded Carthage.
He was Middle Eastern, though, judging from the contemporary portraits, he almost certainly would've been called black in the US. From what we know, Severus seems to have just thought of himself as a Roman and a Punic.
@@hyperion3145 I don't think he would be referred to as black in the US. Libyans and other North Africans are treated as "white/Caucasian" by the US Census Bureau, as are Lebanese people (the modern descendants of Phoenicians/Carthaginians) and all other Levantine natives, Arab or otherwise. With that being said, yes, he was not purely European or Italic/Latin Roman, he was at least West Asiatic if not a bit North African Berber (another Afro-Asiatic group similar to the Semitic speaking Phoenicians).
@Eric Connor The problem is white is equated with European. North African Berbers and Near Eastern Syriacs, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Georgians, Anatolians and Iranic peoples are also white. Although they aren't in Europe but in Asia and Africa.
@@sandraleiva1633 So many humans are so stupid they can't understand that "races" don't stay neatly within continents. Seriously, people hear "Africa" and think "Black! It's all black as night!" lmao. I can't stand the stupidity. I really can't.
I was disappointed on my recent travel to Rome. No one spoke with an English accent. I felt Hollywood lied to me.
I think about a Japanese friend form college. He said even among the Japanese they could be very insular and have long memories. He said his family moved to a small village several centuries ago and it is still small in a modern sense. He said among the elderly his family were still considered from where they came from centuries ago.
That is very true even in places such as russia, mainly Kuban.
thats hilarious, that made my night thanks
It is funny that considering how much the world is focused on social justice and being “woke” (for lack of a better term) that Japan and China pretty much get a free pass on being very insular and xenophobic countries when it comes to accepting immigrants and foreigners.
I find it ironic when people say "Rome wasn't white" but will turn around and call people from the near east, Semitic people, etc. white or say that Italians aren't white. I feel as though they are almost consistently disingenuous because what they picture in their mind as "white".
He conveniently left out the recent genetic study on Rome. You can to if you want.
A lot of what they do is projecting. Take "well clearly orcs are stand-ins for black people and so having orcs in DnD is racist." Well, I never made that association, so who's the actual racist here?
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU There are many genetic studies all the time be more specific or go away because you're being disingenuous otherwise. If you're talking about the study from 2019 that shows that genetically many immigrants in the heart of the empire were from the near east I hate to break it to you but that study shows less than 1/4 of the population and near easterners are white in terms of skin tone unless you want to tell me southern Europeans aren't as they functionally share a skin tone as do most people who live on the Mediterranean.
@@zasshulad2619
The fact that people read your response and upvoted you saying near easterners are white in skin tone is what is disingenuous
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU so you choose ad hominems instead of providing any information about the study you meant? Great job my dude.
When the fastest method of travel was a sailing ship (which had a uncommon habit of sinking with all hands), people didn't tend travel that widely especially if your not by the coast or a river. Especially not to a neighbouring continent over hundreds or even thousands of miles (unless you really like long walks). Anyone that suggests differently I would recomend some good walking boots and trying it out or better yet some Roman sandles.
What a load of shit. For a start, the fastest method of travel was a horse. And people have always been willing to travel if there is profit involved. Since the dawn of time. Caravans from China to the Middle East. Maritime trading all over the Mediterranean. Journeys of thousands of miles. In future, if you don't know what you're talking about, better to say nothing at all. It also might be useful if you learn to construct a coherent sentence.
@@darrenjpeters A horse is 30 miles a day if you treat it well and you are lucky, a ship from roman to mid medieval times was around 5 miles an hour (tea clippers were at about 20 mph and did a trip from China to Europe in 100 days by comparisson) multiplied by the time spent sailing aka daylight with twilight hours. Horses are fast but not built for endurance, humans can walk/run faster and further then horses over a day. Humans are enduarance predators, that ate things like horses in prehistory. We litterally ran them to death.
Traders did travel yes, with horses carrying the load, deffinately, but it still took time (months), hence prices were high for goods from afar. Hence the success of things like the silk road. Maritime trading was far more effecient (more goods plus speed) once navigation techniques were worked out (but with risks from storms, hence the developement of insurance for ships something about a costly investment), but strangely enough people from village xyz didn't up and move 1000's of miles just because they wanted to. Hence the reason for a level of homogenity amoungst pre air travel populations.
I had a HUGE online comment war with someone who thought Africans could be legionnaires in Claudius's time because they saw it in a Dr Who show. They called me ignorant because I didn't recognize Africans and other ethnic groups could become Romans. They just didn't know the WHOLE picture. What else is new right?
Yep. They also think blacks got us to moon cuz it’s in a movie.
@@ManuelOcasio-Cortez HA! Good one!
People, you can’t take a film made in the 50s and call it historically accurate. Movies were made for entertainment value….not historical accuracy. So you video is spot on! Thank you.
Actually it depends exactly what parts. The ancient weapons experts rate the chariot race and battle scenes as pretty good and more realistic: CGI-jockeys did not exist then the stunts were done with real horses. A lot of rapier or small-sword duels are also rated very highly as the instructors were then only one or two generations away from the last duel schools of 19th century. The very contemporary "300" is for example a complete piece of junk I could watch only on fast-forward.
This special worry about skin color is something peculiarly North American. A society which has been obsessed (until today), with classifying people's origins without the slightlest knowledge about their national or cultural background, in many cases for discriminatory reasons.
Facts!
@@yagamienjoyer4408 White Anglosaxon Supremacists considering the Irish & the Italians as Non-White, simply because they were Catholics? Is that an evident Fact enough?
Not accurate. The British, French, Spanish, Portugese, and the Dutch brought black slaves to North America. Those countries (all of white Europe) considered blacks subhuman and bestial. Only a few years after the US was formed, we outlawed bringing slaves in to America (1816, if memory serves). Only a tiny minority of Americans owned slaves. The first REPUBLICAN President, Lincoln, fought a horrrific civil war agaibst the democrat slave owners to end slavery. I hate the revisionist history prevalent today.
@@robertanderson218 Slave trade...You are talking about centuries ago. I am talking about racial discrimination until today.
Martin Luther King's, the Klan,...that's Today.
@@piofernandezlopez7376 also Slavs trade was made because of culture not color. For example Romans made alliances with black and blonde kingdoms and hated blacks and blondes with tribal culture
What an excellent discussion! The second I've seen, making me a for sure fan of this channel! Thanks also to Metatron for joining us in America, where our intellectual abilities have been deliberately lowered by a variety of parties for a long time. Metatron is a great asset to our culture.
Sir, this is my first time having your channel come up on my feed. I like it. I have just subscribed .
A certain group from America have a real issue with history
Oh the book ban Neo Nazi. True!
Lost Causers…I *hate* these guys
Leftist? 🤔
@@MAGABOY-29
Last time I checked, those waving the flag of a failed slaver’s rebellion from 160 years ago were the opposite of leftists.
@@warlordofbritannia, Lol! Another person who failed history class. Black people are so desperate to be apart of history these days so they went and made Cleopatra “Black” for Netflix.
Germanicus: "It hurts me so much the cruel way everyone treats you, Claudius. I can't stand it when they imitate your stuttering and stammering..."
Claudius: "Y-Yeah. Being a Gaul li-living in Rome is not so-something easy, you know?"
Germanicus: "...What?"
Technically, he had italic ancestry: he descended from roman aristocrats (still funny, though)
Degenerates like you belong on a cross
@@pinchevulpes Bro, are you ok?
@@TetsuShima you ever played fallout new Vegas?
I don’t very much like seeing you on all my favorite channels farming for likes either.
There are two things certain in the world: that the Roman Empire was one of the most wonderful cultures in the world, if not the most wonderful culture that ever existed, and at least one comment from the last Caesar under every video that talk about it 😅
The Greeks and Romans were not as light skinned as peoples of the North, but they were still European. I love your videos about these topics Metatron.
Indeed, we are europeans but with just less lighter/olive skin. But still Europeans.
Just tanned People
@@iop3907 I do enjoy my mediterranean tan xD
I wonder if you guys think the same about Turks 😂
@@sowpmactavish Interesting topic, linguistically the Turks speak a language from Central Asia. People from Turkey have mostly Middle Eastern(Semitic) and Greco-Roman ancestry, and also Central Asian DNA from the Turkic tribes of the steppe. So it is rather complicated.
Met ti posso dire che secondo me sei un grande attore? Mi piace come riesci ad essere ironico ma mai davvero aggressivo! Le espressioni! Non ne sbagli una, mi sono scoperta a sorridere esattamente quando tu lo volevi! Sei GRANDE!
My father was born in Sicily. My mother’s parents were both born in Sicily. Because I have a dark complexion and course textured hair, I always assumed that I had a strong African ancestry. It didn’t work out that way. When I had my DNA tested, turned out to be less than one percent non-Italian. These people need to stop trying to rewrite history.
I'm from the South of Portugal and thought the same. Turns out, did a DNA test and i'm 98,5% European, 96% Portuguese/Spanish.
@@TruthMatters9674Ancient Europeans had more melamine than today but they were not black(as Wesley Snipes).
@@TruthMatters9674Portuguese is just another name for Spanish black a moors you descended from black people God they really did a number on education for people to speak nonsense
Take those results with a pinch of salt
@@phreed2 Why is that?
they were duh look at the statues, clearly white
AYACTCHUALLY
They were white, but ironically Anglo Americans discriminated against Italians in the 1800s as white ethnics or less than full white due to their bizarre racist ideologies. Italians and Irish were placed next to African Americans near the bottom of the 1800s American racial hiearchy by Anglo Americans.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Except for the few token black statues
Sarcasm?
Most people in ancient times did not travel hundreds of miles from where they were born. Some of the Legions might have been well traveled, but the vast majority of the population wasn't in the Legions. The population of just the CITY of Rome was 4 to 5 million. The Roman army has been estimated at around 380,000 soldiers serving in roughly 30 active Legions and 60 or so auxilia.
Pretty sure the city was more like 1.5 million but other then that I agree.
Rome has 4 million NOW, but they never had that high of a population in antiquity. Rome's population in antiquity peaked between AD 1 and AD 200, estimated to be between 800,000 and 1,200,000, give or take. I believe London was the first city in the world to reach a population of over 4 million. In fact I think they were the first to reach 2 million.
There's this cool concept called "slavery" where you move people from one place to another against their will. Rome had a habit of enslaving prisoners of war and shipping them home where eventually they'd become free men and their decendants maybe even citizens because multi-generational slavery is a more modern concept linked to chattel slavery. So a victory in Thrace results in an influx of Thracians in the Empire, a rebellion in Germania brings in Germans and fighting in Arabia Felix distributes Arabians to the provinces.
at the beginning of imperial Rome, the city had around 5 million slaves within the city, making up over 3/5ths of the population of the time. Most of those slaves were from conquered lands, including syria, thrace, judea, gaul, spain, germania, etc. Very, very few had thus far been traded to people in Rome by african berbers who were bringing slaves up from the southern reaches of the Nile and Libya. So few, in fact, that it wouldn't be unlike watching the rarest of penguins at a zoo.
@@Kainis80 Exactly, there was a wide range of peoples from within the Empire and the bordering cultures but most probably the only "black" people would have been the occasional Nubians/Kushites.Rome was indeed very diverse, just not in the sense a 21st century American would understand the word.
Completely agree with you on this analysis of the article. I find it so frustrating when people manipulate history to push agendas cause if the agenda is actually a good one, it just discredits it.
On the Romans white question I would definitely say by today's standards they were white. But what's interesting is the convo this topic starts and how the idea of Race categories have changed over time. For example, for a long time the only people considered white were Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians (true whites). Ethnic groups like the Irish or Italians for a long time were oppressed in America and Irish in servitude and Italians lynched, in some cases seen lower than "blacks". There's a very good video on this called "Finding your roots: How Italians became White".
What's more interesting is how Romans saw themselves like this quote from Pliny the Elder (Roman army commander, philosopher) 77AD "For it is beyond a question that the Ethiopians (ie Africans) are burnt by the heat of the heavenly body near them... and are born with a scorched appearance, with curly beard and hair, and thst in the opposite region of the world (Northern Europe) the races have white frosty skins with yellow hair that hangs straight; while the latter (Northern Europeans) are fierce owing to the rigidity of their climate but the former (Africans) are wise owing to the mobility of theirs... In the middle of the Earth (Italy) owing to a healthy blend of both elements... men are of medium bodily stature, with a marked blending, even in the matter of complexion".
From this quote you can see how they saw themselves in between black and white, whilst today we would depict and think of them as white like Germans or Englishmen or in other words Anglo-Saxon, but they saw themselves as distinct from those ethnic groups.
you and everyone else overcomplicate things.
race is nothing else but geography + skin colour.
since Europe is located in Northern part of the planet, close to the North Pole, of course people would be white. and not just Europeans.
Asians that live close to the poles also look white. Mongols and Eskimos for example.
Asians like Mongols look very different to Asians like for example Vietnamese, Thai or Indonesians that live in a tropical ecuadorial region of the planet.
IF Europe wasn't separated by the Mediterranean Sea from Africa, Europeans would be considered part of the continent of Africa.
and "white Africans" would be an actual thing.
@levish4145 I don't think I was overcomplicsting things, just detailing some of the history on the discussion of Race, as the current categories we use for the most part originste from the pseudo-science of Eugenics and racist ideologies, but thankfully that has changed over time.
Like I said I would agree that Italians are white but I thought it interesting to share some history on whiteness to show the answer isn't so clearcut and how these categories have changed over the years and quite recently also. Now people are celebrating Romans as part of white history, when not too long ago they were an oppressed group in America and much like the Irish, weren't considered white. And they distinguished themselves from the Northern Europeans as a different racial category, as the quote from Pliny details.
@@Ziggy246 well, since US was a former English colony with mostly English population, of course they would even be xenophobic against other white people like for example the Irish and Italians. that was indeed pseudo-science.
and Italians not being considered white is stupid.
the Americans simply didn't like foreigners and were always looking for different types of excuses to not welcome new immigrants. even calling other white people like Italians as dirty, for example. not surprised by this mentality.
anyways. Romans were white just like the rest of the Europeans. well, most of them at least because some foreign population came from Asia. for example the Magyars(Hungarians), the Huns and Bulgars. I'm pretty sure they looked Asian but lost their Asian appearance after centuries of intermarriage and mixing with white people. so basically all Europeans these days are just white.
I won't include immigrants that came last century of course. like the Arabs, Asians and Africans that came from former British or French colonies. in my eyes, they obviously aren't European. just citizens if countries that happen to be in Europe.
calling a black guy in France as pure French is like calling a white guy like myself a Japanese person just because I might happen to have a Japanese citizenship. this doesn't work that way.
people are connected with their roots, race, values, history, blood, traditions, religion, etc.
Article: People are wrong for assuming that any empire in Europe was white
Also article: Assumes that any territorial possessions in the Med clearly shows that people in the empire were "tanned", as if that somehow makes them not white.
Tanned people are not white. They’re not tanned. They are light brown.
Any empire in Europe was white....
Depends on who’s defining “whiteness.” Ask the Klan and they’d tell you “tan” is about as bad as “black.”
@@warlordofbritannia The Klan? You mean the 80 or so old ass democrats that still want Jim Crow laws?
A few inbreeding rednecks in the arse end America aren't really relevant to anything really, let alone the Roman empire. They don't like Italians and stuff no but they also don't like Catholics, Irish ect.
The Italians however do very much consider themselves not black... Very much so. It's one of, if not the most racist country I have ever been. It makes Americas bible belt look like Bradford. They, along with anyone who isn't a neo nazi, consider themselves white. Otherwise my girlfriend could be black because she's tanned and blonde or my mum could be black because she's tanned with black hair. In fact there's only my dad that's white because he's a redhead with blue eyes. I mean if we're going off tan then Essex is basically Somalia
Thank you for asking the million dollar question! Defining terms is a very good beginning of a discussion/lecture. Kudos!
Also, Cracked's been a wretched hive of cultural bankruptcy for a long time, mostly writing articles that nitpick movies or literature to death to the point of Literal Mindedness. They more than likely got their success from having an audience that hasn't learned to think for themselves and / or are too young to have even watched the movies they're talking about and therefore just keep nodding their heads going "Dats Ryt!" like obedient zombies.
It began as a would be competitor to Mad Magazine and failed from the get go. That's why it reads like it's written by a twelve year old, twelve year olds (or their intellectual equivalents) are their target audience.
dude. calm down it's a comedy website
sounded more like some 40k orks lmao
*Dass Rite
Lol, accurate.
This concept of “wh-te” is a very Northern European concept! The Spanish, Italians and Greeks usually don’t have this!
Well they better get on board or get ok with becoming Africanized.
@@ManuelOcasio-Cortez it’s the elite who push globalism and a new world order. They want one world global government. If the elite continue in power, this will be the end result.
@evenry576 the Anglos and Northern European Protestants didn’t even consider Mediterranean people to be “whi.te” until the late 1900s. That means all the people I mentioned.
Lol they considered them as white .but they have got under ottoman servitude@@LewisC-t1f
They did and were white in the conventional sense up until the Moorish conquest of Europe in the 8th Century. After which, skin colour changed dramatically.
Augustus had blonde hair and blue eyes; I'm pretty sure that is white. And a lot of modern Italians have fair features. White people come in fair and darker complexions, blonde, brown, red, and black hair, etc. But the facial structure is pretty consistent
Pretty stupid. Nobody would ever confuse a Swede with an Italian, only reason we don't classify them as different "races" is because of regional politics.
Did the Ancient Greeks and Romans have square jawlines or is that just idealized, Hollywood, 21st century projected crap and everyone had round or oval faces and NO one had square jaws? Because I’m not seeing an ancient representation of it (of square jawlines I mean) 😂
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov Wtf are you on about in every comment bruh?
@@SpartanLeonidas1821 seriously? Am I the only one who notices that there is not a single ancient or historical representation of a square jawline before the eighties and nineties?! 😂
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov nobody cares dude they're movies as long as they're entertaining and get people interested in the actual history that's all that matters.
WE WAZ ROMANZ AND SHIT
They don't have their own apparently so they need to steal from us.
We built the aqueducts to give cool-aid to the Empire and shiiiiiieeeeettttttt!
@@piercebrosnan9528 Koolis Aidus
@@Jayyy667 Friedis Chickenus
@@danskrr PEPO fricta Pullus Dodge disco
I stopped reading Cracked over 12 years ago, this was because most of their articles were constantly "men and boys are dumb, women and girls are smart" (imagine insulting the majority of your audience all the time), a few years later I tried reading it again but noticed a lot of racism against Europeans.
I also noticed as I got older that basically any "fact" I learned from Cracked would later end up to be complete non-sense or completely debunked. Cracked is pure clickbait with very few information of substance
Yep. The days of it being Mad Magazine, but funnier are loooooonng gone.
The majority of the human race is female.
@@katsmeow2775 ...so?
Men are both dumber and smarter than women and women tend to be in the middle of the IQ line
Just another content farm.
Recently the thing that stuck in my craw the most, was last year Daryl Davis was on Timcast, where he asserted Sicily was a black African nation because the Moors conquered the island for a couple hundred years. More or less also positing this is a line he feeds hardcore Neo-Nazis or KKK to deradicalize them. All I could think of as he said this kind of bull was "If this is what he tells hardcore white nationalists to make them normal, there is hell to pay in the future if/ when these people do the reading themselves and see that bits of Daryl's info is straight up lies and black supremacy. They will become more hardcore then they ever were before, thinking they've been utterly deceived."
I hate the USA's view on race and how it's been pushed unto the rest of us in the world.
Was it that view first made by an Italian? I believe modern racial science started because northern Italians claimed the same thing was why southern Italians were inferior
Hahahaha....
North africans are actually comparative white and caucasoid, they're only sand-N-words because they're sandy africans,also brown people either meant wetbacks or southeasterners in asia
Seriously? I used to admire that guy a lot but if he's spouting that kindof utter BS then I'm sorry I misjudged him.
@@willfakaroni5808 That was invented in silly Hollywood fiction. (North African Berber Saracens conquered Sicily to use as resource extraction colony to grow citrus for 1 century 1,000 years ago in between many invaders before and after-most from far Nordic Germanic Europe.) Yea some North Italians denigrated South Italians to try to seem ‘whiter’ but that was a LARP not based on ‘racial science’. Ironically if you look up Y-DNA haplogroup maps, Italy’s highest concentrations of Nordic/Germanic genetic🧬admixture are not in Lombardy but in Sicily and hotspots (like Molise) across Southern Italy.
After fall of W. Roman Empire, all Italy/Sicily was settled by Germanic Ostrogoths, Vandals, Langobards, Vikings, Varangians, Normans, Swabians, etc., from Theoderich the Great, King of Italy, to Norse Varangian Harald Hardrada (later defeated by Anglo-Saxon Harold Godwinson in England at Stamford Bridge shortly before Godwinson was defeated by William the Conqueror’s Normans at Hastings.)
Mediæval South Italy was fought over for centuries between Lombard Kingdom of Italy armies of Langobards with their mercenary Normans (Latinized Norsemen who had settled 9th century Normandy under Rollo) against Byzantine Catepanate of Italy armies of Varangian Guard mercenaries (Hellenized Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons).
At 1018 Battle of Cannæ, Apulia, South Italy, Lombards led by Melus of Bari and Norman knight mercenaries led by Rainulf Drengot and Gilbert Buatère were defeated by Byzantine Varangian Guard (Harald Hardrada would rise to Varangian commander fighting in Italy/Sicily.)
A half-century later Normans led by sons of Tancred de Hauteville returned stronger for vengeance against Byzantine Varangian warriors. Normans commanded by Robert Guiscard conquered Sicily and South Italy (later burned Cannæ in 1083 to erase that bad memory).
Robert’s younger brother Roger Bosso de Hauteville would be made of Count of Sicily in 1071. His son would be elevated to King Roger II of Kingdom of Sicily in 1130.
In fact northwest Sicily, where the Norman Court at Palermo was founded, today has the highest concentration of Norse genetic admixture-not only more than in modern “Germanic” Lombardy in North Italy, but in all Southern Europe.
I loved hearing your pronunciation of the emperors.
Thank you for acknowledging the immature way people write nowadays. I noticed it years ago and I remember thinking "The articles I had to read for high-school research sounded way more professional what is this?" Someone cited a source to me a few days ago from an article that sounded indistinguishable from a regular internet comment. Inaccurate opinion based information and name calling as well as dismissal of the "other side," absolutely unprofessional. How they target the people who pride themselves as intellectuals and succeed with this type of not only misinformation, but blatant immaturity, is astounding to me.
One problem is that people frequently cite opinion pieces as sources, and have no idea what the difference is. It's like children teaching children.
Yeah it's like these "writers" think they can replace actual factual information with pure snark, as if no one would dare to disagree with them because of how much they "owned" them
@@adc1222 Exactly. I refuted the source and all I got was "You're a liar." And that was good enough for this guy. I couldn't believe it. Like you have to know on some level you're being dishonest and settling, but you're fine with it? Feels validating to see someone else call it out. I've never heard anyone else mention it.
It IS literally the point.
The point is NOT "good debate" or "historical accuracy". The point is to:
1. Own the cons / libs
2. Appropriate what's popular to indulge in power fantasy.
People gobble it up anyway and that's all that matters.
If you think these articles are bad now, wait until ChatGPT will be used to automate the creation of these articles at the rate of thousands per day.
I don't know, I think those ones would at least sound plausible.
@AppleScab (Venturia inaequalis
) wait 3 years or less
ChatGPT will actually give you the straight truth if you ask the right questions on this subject, I just checked. A quote: "It would be generally accurate to say that sub-Saharan Africans, like many other non-Romans, were often viewed as culturally inferior by Romans until they became citizens and Romanized. The Romans did not have the same concept of race as it is understood today, and did not use race as a primary means of categorizing people." It then goes on to say how they did, and if you press for specifics it steps out of its default woke-state a little and starts spitting facts. There are also ways to partially jailbreak it, although I haven't been using that for serious applications.
This is very much a double-edged sword.
Totally agree with you, Metatron. With one caveat: the line you draw on the 117AD map relates more to present-day population "whiteness" than to the Roman times. Please keep in mind that most of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) was populated by Greeks, as was the whole Black Sea coast, north and south. So if you consider "white" as "of European origin", then that blue line should also include most of Asia Minor and the Black Sea coast.
Having said that, excellent presentation, mate!
How many of those Greeks in Asia Minor were of Greek descent though, as opposed to Hellenized natives? It's not like the Greeks suddenly started breeding like rabbits after Alexander's conquests.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Well, how many Americans are direct descendants of the Plymouth pilgrims? And those who are not, are they not Americans? And are you willing to publicly state that British people with, let's say, Russian or Polish five-generation ancestors are not really British? Be careful, mate, think before you talk...
Oh, and by the way, the Greek colonisation of the Black Sea began in 1.000 BC, much before Alexander.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs How many of the pre-Greek Anatolian natives would have been non-white? There were supposedly Thracian migrations into the region before Greeks set up their colonies and there was even a large scale Celtic migration in the 3rd century BCE. The middle of Anatolia (around where the current capital of Turkey is) would have looked more like Gaul than the Middle East at the time of the Roman Empire.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Many of those people groups on the West Coast of Anatolia were related Hellenic Branches either way. Greeks Proper had been colonizing it since the second Millennium BC 👍
@@lluisboschpascual4869 FACTS!!! 💯
Hi!
I like your videos and appreciate your opinion because it seems to me very accurate (as long as I can tell not being an historian my self but an amateur).
I wold like to hear your opinion about some thoughts of mine (or not only mine) regarding Roman history:
1) Initially, Rome was a republic made of free citizens farmers and levy warriors when needed. There were also the Patricians, who were the wealthy owners of great estate and formed the aristocracy.
In the beginning the political situation resembled very much that of a city state like that of Athens before the reforms of Solo (let alone those of Clisthenes).
2) There was a fight between those two classes for centuries. Some politicians opted for a more democratic reform while the Patricians (guess what) wanted to assume even more power.
3) The Patricians opted gradually for the militarization of the society with the excuse of the danger that neighbouring people represented. This might have been veritable in the beginning but soon it became an obvious excuse for more imperialistic - colonialist expand and gane of power for the wealthy Patricians to use against their Patrician enemies and also against the people of Rome (and by that I mean the plebei Roman citizens).
4) This had two major consequences:
a) The accumulation of power for some eminent Patricians who became (practically) warlords and later Emperors in a form that initially resembled the status of Alexander the Great as "Στρατηγός Αυτοκράτωρ", that soon led to Imperial Rome with little to no republic.
b) The once proud and glorious Roman citizens were reduced to a mob of beggars with no property at all, that could seek their fortune only by becoming professional soldiers in the army of the empire but anyway aspiring to become lower rank officers at the most.
5) the Patricians never really lost their power and in fact not only held the right to become senior officers or commanders of provinces (which was anyway depending on military office) but also regarded as their exclusive privilege to be eligible as Emperors. There are exceptions that are few, under special occasions but they just confirm the rule.
6) The avidity of the Patricians and the everlasting struggle for power of their own and of their family or faction, led to the decay of the Empire and to it's fall, more than any external enemy.
7) To the Patricians the number one enemy remained the plebei people of Rome and their main concern that of keeping the people subjugated. Only the soldiers and officials were allowed to bear arms and so the people itself could not defend their lands and had to wait for the army to do so. The second in order enemy were the other powerful families that could surpass them at their struggle for more power.
In conclusion the Roman imperial state represented an imperialistic - colonial power and Roman leaders were (at least the majority of them) fascists before fascism.
Last but not least, I consider the so called "Byzantine" Empire the mere continuation of the late Roman Empire period.
My apologies for bothering you..
I greatly appreciate this video and I’m so happy to see someone who is speaking the truth. My grandparents immigrated to Cuba from Spain and England and I live in the United States and since I was a child I have always found myself in discussions, where with my friends defending my race that I am white and yet I’m told that I am not white because my parent’s were born in Cuba and it doesn’t matter that they are of European descent. It’s so tiring to have to go through this discussion and I find it as being racist. I look very European and especially Spanish and Italian and I am as white as a European American.
My husband’s family is from Cuba and mostly Spanish and French. Also, people thinking Cubans eat spicy food like tacos and burritos. Oh, brother!
Its the same with Mexicans. People seem to think, for whatever reason, Mexican is a race unto itself and that all Mexicans are brown. They don't know that Mexican is a nationality and there are Mexicans who are White, Black, Brown, what have you. Sure, if you want to say the original Mexicans (as in the Mexica, better as the Aztecs) were Brown, then by all means do so because its true. But saying Mexican itself is a race is ignorant.
@@matthewgordonpettipas6773 stereotyping! 👍
It depends how you look like.
Yeah Americans have a very weird definition of "white', usually you'd say Caucasian = white, but in the US they think Latinos aren't white. That would mean Spaniards, Portuguese aren't white either (nor me during the summer when I get a tan), so the literal conquerors of the Americas by the definition of some people in the US makes them people of color. So then white people aren't the devil, it was people of color who conquered other people of color after all?
It's just too much cognitive dissonance.
I'd also like to see a video about the continuity of populations from ancient to modern times- a lot of people seem to have this notion that modern Italians are totally different than Romans, even though the statues look like "guys from New Jersey."
It's usually either white supremacists trying to say the darker skin of Southern Italians is a product of MENA conquests or Afrocentrists or liberals saying Gaelic and Germanic crossover made Romans white.
@USERZ123XD
But not enough to displace entire population. It was more a political conquest than what happened to NA in USA
@USERZ123 And? The Visigoths invaded and ruled Spain, as did the Moors, and yet Spanish ancestry is still majority Iberian.
It's interesting. In some places we know there was a major population shift, whereas in others we think the population has been pretty stable throughout. But an overview of where/how it's happened across Europe would be awesome.
@@ManiacMayhem7256 No, they mixed with the locals. Northern Italy is likely whiter than it was in Roman times as a result. Southern Italy is more what you'd expect to see for roman looking people.
As always, a non-bias, honest truth-seeking video - lovely work! As you are now in the USA, I thought I'd let you know about the largest MTA event (Military timeline event if you didn't know) that takes place in March, in Virginia. It goes from ancient Greeks, through to WW2. Just in case you are interested :)
Non biased?
28 Universities in Europe under the lead of Oxford University, did DNA surveys for the inhabitants of Europe. They found that Southern Italians are most closely related to Greeks. While Northern Italians are most closely related to Northern Europeans.
To simply label us all with one racíal group identity, such as whïte, isn’t accurate. Italians, Greeks, much of Spain and Portugal all have our own racíal identity that is unique to us and separate from the rest of Eurøpe. With the French as the inbetween group, both like us and them. It isn’t only DNA, it’s language (Latin vs Germanic), it’s culture and it’s different domínant physical characteristícs (such as darker hair, skin, etc…).
There was in fact animosity in Italy for a long time based on separate ràcíal identities. Not just Italy but in the US Southern Italians weren’t seen as whíte for a long time. So the history and the DNA studies contradict what he stated. I do enjoy his videos but he isn’t correct on this. Metatron is welcome to self īdentify as whíte, he’s ínaccurate to describe us all that way.
@@GhostSal interesting. I think that comes down to how picky we are when we describe racial features, such as black skin colour, and the lighter brownish colour. Race is more of a spectrum really, as there is a lot of variety with each race. For me personally, I would say that the Mediterranean skin colour is still caucasian, but more of an olive tone as oppose to pail.
@STL Police Metropolitan Department well, ot really. In fact, there is a decent amount of evidence that it was frowned upon in Sparta, especially on young boys
@STL Police Metropolitan Department Plutarch is really the only source for it to the extent of my knowledge, Xenophon tells us the opposite, and Aristotle also implies the opposite. In much of Greece, it was completely normalized for a mentor to expect sexual favors from teenaged students, however this is exactly what Xenophon said was forbidden in Sparta, but yet Plutarch actually says was the most common. Sadly i dont have the direct passages on me at the moment, but it seems interesting at the least that the writers writing around the time of classical Sparta explicitly state that man-child sexual exchange was forbidden, and yet the later writer states it was common. I would just like to add as a side note that i really appreciate this being a civil discussion :)
Well done, lucid information delivery and pleasant to watch. Thanks for sharing it.
Great video. Spot on! Even Trajan, who is sometimes called the first non-Italian emperor, was born in Italica (clue there), Spain, to an Italian family.
Yeah. I think that after 200 AD most Roman emperors were of non-Italian origin, but they would obviously still be considered to be white.
Santiponce
@@UlpianHeritor The two 'African' emperors Severus (Punic father) and Macrinus (Berber origin) may not be considered white retrospectively (but they definitely weren't black).
Marcus Aurelius' paternal ancestors were from the same area and he was related to Trajan and Hadrian as well. He was mostly Italian and his mother's family originated in Rome and owned a brick business, I believe.
And Spain happens to be White.
Great video Metatron! One last argument you could add is the migration of Roman farmers in mass to Rome when the government started importing Egyptian wheat. Even with all the slaves, merchants and dignataries from around the empire, the plebe (in the city of Rome) would be predominantly white.
Old Soviet joke, “The future is certain. It is only the past that is unpredictable.”
From 1984, “Not only the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” That’s what Winston is doing at The Ministry of Truth when he alters & destroys documents in Orwell’s 1984.
What a refreshing and intelligent view! I'm subscribing!!
You need to do this about the Norse and Gales. A certain race has laid claims to being celtic and viking races.
Yes, please!
And other groups, too. Israelites?
@@haidner
Israelites? They are more of a melting pot, contrary of what people might think.
any leveled headed person knows the celts, vikings and ancient israel were not black lol. yes, the hebrew israelites did approach me with that nonsense that i was hebrew and from the tribe of judah. they got angry when i said my ancestors came from west africa and the americas.
@Victor Jordan Jr You'd think that. But unfortunately, they believe all white history is whitewashed. Most arguments I debate with they go back 10,000 years to cheddar man and say he's how the viking and Celtic people looked. They mix two very distant time periods to attempt to connect dots that's non existent.
It is well known that among viking were black people and red people. Red people because vikings reached America and black people because vikings reached Africa. Then some mix appeared, black people with red hair (they were used to scare white populations) and red people with blonde hair (they were used as shamans).
Thank God someone is speaking the truth about history again.
History is written by the Victors! Would you believe the British will write the truth of how they built the British Empire?
Until YT ban him, because the truth is not really allowed these days...
The whole piece is a string of opinions. Stop calling an opinion piece “truth”
God must be laughing at your absurdity about History!
@@mercurieretrograde Agree with you. There is a saying: History is written by the Victor!
Long story short - yes.
One thing that comes to mind in first second - we have lots of ancient roman statues. Some of the best and most realistic statues ever made in human history, in many cases even with records of who is the person depicted. Features of those statues speak for themselves.
to be as fair as possible features themselves are not a concrete indicator of skin tone as there is no definite set of diagnostic traits. the wide nose found in some Africans' also shows up if rarely in other groups, as does the more aquiline features common to Italy. that said traits tend to have a regional component. Italians tend towards a specific facial structure as do sub Saharan Africans etc.
not trying to disagree just pointing out the statues features alone are not enough to be completely diagnostic.
Simple logic.👍
Modern italians look exactly like ancient roman statues. I can't say the same for ancient Greek sculpture (and the modern greeks themselves) though as they are too idealistic-looking and Youthful.
Well even if they were white. That concept was pretty strange by their standards. “White” as a classification is a fairly new invention
@@kertagin1 I agree and you can’t infer skin tone or hair color from a statue. What we know through research and DNA is Ancient Romans looked more like the average Southern Italian (dark hair and eyes with olive skin). In fact blond hair was seen as foreign and exotic, so they made their prostítutes dye their hair blonde to differentiate themselves from other wømen. I like Metatron but he is just projecting how he see himself onto the Ancíent Romans.
Note: It isn’t just rare in native Italian ancestry, it’s non existent. Only introduced after mixing with Northern Eurøpeans.
You are absolutely one of the most informed, hard working, and passionate history creators today. Might I ask if you earned an advanced degree in history or research? If so, where did you attend university?
I believe, beyond any specificity in education, universities should focus mainly on how to think logically, and you sir, do that impeccably. I salute you sir.
My thought was always that the roman romans from Rome and the surrounding areas were .... medditeranean. Similar to your tone. Not swedish light, not sub-saharan african dark, but that specific south european/north african type.
And obviously the empire was big, so there were all kinds of people, from middle eastern to british and maybe even the infrequent person from further away. Some egyptian, some persian, some germanic, some slavic, etc.
Roman wasn't an ethnicity, but a nationality.
I would rather say citizenship over nationality, when talking about the Roman Empire
He is very pale for a southern Italian, he clearly has northern Italian DNA mixed in.
I am sorry, that's not entirely correct. Italians aren't divided in smaller races, at best we are slightly different because of climate-related reasons, but human genetics are more complex than just skin colour. Rome, and Italy, were inhabited by caucasians, trying to make it more complicated than it should runs the risk of falling into historical revisionism.
@@GhostSal no, a lot of southern italians look like him...
Rome had the social wars, from 91BC to 87BC. Which was Italian allies wanting roman citizenship as well as voting rights for elections and laws. Italian allies were alrdy strong allies for 2 centuries. This was i think 1 generation before julius caesar, with julius caesar, gallic romans were given citizenships after the whole gallic roman wars. And subsequently provincials were allowed to run for offices like censors etc. A few generations later even roman gauls became senators like tacitus ( no concrete proof that he came from a noble roman line. But provincial families took on the name of the governor that gave them the citizenship)
I really like this channel. I learn so much. You’re a very good teacher.😊
Thank you!
@@metatronyt Many academics simply go along with the mainstream ideological dogma. But you're definitely not like that; you're untainted. It's a breath of fresh air, although I will say that people across the board are gradually becoming fed up with this type of dogma being pushed.
@@metatronyt You’re welcome to see yourself as whíte but I respectfully disagree. The Germanic/Celtic/Anglo tribes are “whíte” and Ancient Romans and Greeks are not. The lighter skín and blonde hair blues eyes was introduced through mixing. Northern Italians today are heavily mixed with Germanic/Celtic people. Southern Italians are a Mediterranean people and the original Latini.
Both in the US and in Italy it was Northern Italians that were seen as whíte, until recently in history. In Italy they would say everything south of Rome is Afrīca and in the US they wrote laws in the 1920s to keep us (southern Italians) out specific because we weren’t seen as “whíte”. It isn’t until after the civil rights movement we finally gained acceptance and as a result now were seen as “whíte”.
Do a DNA test, I guaranteed you have Northern Eurøpean DNA mixed in and that’s why you do not have olive skín. By the way, this isn’t an attack, I enjoy your channel but I do whole heartedly disagree.
@@GhostSal Do you know how often Northern and Southern Italians had children together? Both my parents come from Northern Italy and have dark olive skin, but both my sister and I have very light skin. Could this be because of the north and south mixing? Also, we’ve had genetic testing, so I know both my parents are biologically my parents. So that’s not the explanation lol.
@@findingbeautyinthepain8965 I don’t know how old you are but mixing is more common today and in recent history within both groups in Italy.
As far as separating us based on race, that’s all they did was look the lighter skin in the Northerners and the olive skin/dark hair of the Southerners (in Italy). Racísm isn’t science, it’s just us versus them and trying to justify that hatè. In the US it was easier for them to separate us, 90% of Italians going there were from the south. So we spoke another language, Italian which is much closer to Spanish, we have Italian names which again is more similar to Spanish names and we have darker skin tones than them (so to then we weren’t “white” just like Spainish speakers weren’t).
As far as your family, the mixing is the reason for varying skin tones. Even in Sicily, with both parents from Sicily, you can get light skin. Although that isn’t as common as olive skin in Sicily, but it’s because of past conquests. My family is mostly olive skin with błack hair but we still have some family that is light skin with dark hair (not many but they are there).
There was always that joke on 4 chan that Spaniards and Italians weren't "white" because they weren't Anglo/German. And it sounds like the person who wrote this article to that joke to heart.
Southern Italians and Greeks genetically plot relatively close to Jews and Levantine populations. Greeks and Italians have a diverse amount of phenotypes some resembling Middle Eastern ones. I’m not sure about Spaniards.
@@leonardfeder5115 Southern Italians do NOT "plot" close to Jews and Levantines, that is patently FALSE. Of course there is a small minority that do but the vast majority have no more than 3-6% N. African/Arab DNA, and even some Germans have that much. It's Spaniards who have up to 20% Arab/Jewish/N. African and has been proven. They were under Arab rule for 1000 years, only pockets of Sicily/Sardinia were ruled by them and for less than 200.
Italians and spaniards were conquered by Germans....
@@leonardfeder5115 yes, because the myth says that the paleo-veneto kingdom and Rome were both founded by the descendants of the survivors of the siege of Troy, and basically half of the cities in South italy were founded by greeks, we should also remember that greeks are not the native people of turkey, those would also be greeks(at least in Anatolia).
@@cioffa6972 no wonder why Albanian Greeks and Bulgaria is heavily mixed Ev13 and J2
A group at Stanford did a genetic study on the Roman empire (using skeletons in italy) and found that the people of Imperial Rome were most similar to eastern Mediterranean and near eastern people. The claim is that the population of the eastern Mediterranean and near east were more dense and thus influenced Roman genetics the most.
sounds like more leftist propaganda to try to shit on us whites
He is Talking about the Western Roman Empire. Of course in the Middle Eastern province if There were more people than they were mostly Not white. But the Movies Are always Set in Italy or europe that’s the “white” part of the Empire
Countless studies Claimed Romans were no different to italians Today
Thank you for this video. Many people get their information from movies and television. So when scenes of ancient life are depicted on screen, I believe it's important to be accurate.
It's inaccurate by design.
they are trying to destroy the past, to disconnect us from the truth-their efforts disguised as kindness.
I love that last line. Those who are offended by truth cannot do anything but lie.
@@mercurieretrograde Are you serious?
@@redwaldcuthberting7195 i dont even listen to this guy anymore hes woke. But I'm sure he thinks hes more roman then the closest dna relatives of Romans today. Its said in Roman litterer that white people were seen as STUPID. And blacks were treacherous.😇
Problem is, WHO knows whats true and what's not?
A lot of things have been considered to be "the truth" and were later revised or prooven to be wrong.
That last line is pretty much the Republican party here in America.
And how do you know what is true? Would be funny to go back to the past and be offended when people said the earth it's a the center of the universe.
Don't be dogmatic about the truth
Same thing with Hannibal. They had posters up showing Hannibal as a Black African general riding an elephant to attack Italy over the Alps. But in reality Hannibal, while Carthaginian was not black. We have contemporary busts of Hannibal. Same for Cleopatra who wasn't really even Egyptian, she was a Greek Ptolemy and her family tree was more of a Family straight line, so we are pretty sure she was mostly Greek.
The Creek Indians in the New World were Greek. Greek Indians. Yep. Only the select few have been initiated into the Creek Mysteries !! :D
Carthage is a Phoenician colony , and the Phoenicians are in Lebanon.
There were cases where people like Italians and Armenians were bit accepted as white. Its crazy that Ben Franklin was quoted saying that German immigrants were too swarthy and would ruin America’s whiteness which is crazy considering Nazi Germany would come centuries later. I think the Roman are considered white in the modern sense but many may have been swarthy and mediterranean looking as opposed to Celtic or germanic. In modern times many Greeks, Italians and Spaniards can pass as minorities.
I'm a simple Greco-Lusitan, I see meditteranean history by an Italian guy= I click
so you are Greek-Portuguese?
I’m an American of Teuton-Hibernian origins, and I love Roman history, particularly this channel.
@@cdfe3388 H.P love
Craft would love to meet you
I’m an italo-luso, we’re... very similar you and I
@@cdfe3388 German-Irish then
"It's written as if it was a 12 year old writing."
Emotionally, "woke" authors are in fact, at best, 12 yo, yes.
We totally agree on that
@@metatronyt so the bait show Roman’s as white but somehow it he bust of Egypt don’t show them as black.
You’re a clear cut racists.
Also when people say Egypt was black they are referring to the initial stages. They were clear black. But you wouldn’t like that so you only talk about Egypt after it’s been invaded.
Great video and you should definitely make a video on the rest of the 5 Ridiculous Lies You Believe About Ancient Civilizations.
Definitely *
@@TonyJack74 Thanks for telling me.
It doesn't even matter, because the Roman Empire never existed. Dr Donna D2 Momillennial declared such, whilst wearing virtual puppy ears and nose, which means she spoke _ex cathedra_ and was thus infallible.
@@DrCruel I hope your trolling
@@TonyJack74 LOL
Yeah. I hope so too. 😁
No barbarians were white and Romans where tan
Romans: Wow, the Germans are not that great 😂😂😂😂😂
@MaxamillionGreeninson tomato, tomato 🧐
@MaxamillionGreeninson tomato, tomato🧐
Cannot thank you enough for your service to the historian community, to History, to truth, to the knowledge of anyone interested. Even for the ones not interested, it's still useful as your videos are available to see when they eventually become interested in knowing the truth. All this diversity and inclusivity modern agenda, trying to erase nations and people's identity, is more dangerous than we imagine. Thank you Metraton, your service and teachings are truly appreciated and beyond important.
I think it is not a question of any agenda, only an Anglo-Saxon would be such an idiot as to question whether the Romans were white or not.
Yes, the Romans were white, but they did not look like a Brit or German, they looked like Italians or Spaniards, i.e. they were not all pale nor did their skin turn red in the sun(not extremely like an Anglo).
@@siddhartagoutama4140 that's just greatly offended me. 🤣
Siddharta, you nailed it. These fools are rewriting history in an insane fashion. White saviors at the lead of the pack, hoping to bang a black wolf girl and play the champion of the oppressed. Only two groups in their small minds, oppressed and oppressors. Definitely 🤔 thinking Romans are some white group, very Nordic and very Nazi, when the reality is they are of the darker peoples of Europe. They can be classed as white but they are not trying to create some Third Reich fantasy. They are the farm boys of Italia no one would leave alone. Attacked and occupied by the Etruscans, screaming we will be free. That was their beginning, happy valley people, sometimes Dionysian in flavor. Then two centuries of occupation before that early war of liberation. Forces in history never letting them go back to their farms and fields. You have to go back to their roots to see them for who they were. Next, hit by the Carthaginians of Africa, a pirate people like some of the Greek city-states were. Finally free and trading then hit by pirates. Three Punic Wars, the first two be guiltless, considered weak because they had tossed off the Etruscans just generations ago. The Punic Wars began with Carthage playing pirates on Roman trade ships. It began with Barca mad at them for sending a fleet to smash the pirates. Raiding was a profession of this era, among Greeks and others. Barca decided to flatten these happy newly freed people. They won and some people should have reviewed the Etruscan War and realized they seriously planned to stay free. Second Punic War, Hannibal looks like he’s trying to prove his father was right. At the end of the Second Punic War, they decided not to disband their army as they had after the Etruscan War and First Punic. If it was a symphony, a few ominous notes would finally be appropriate. I have never discovered an honorable reason for the Third Punic War. No
Attack noted, no reason given. But if it was a symphony, it would shift from light music of dances in fields to a new theme called the beginning of Empire. Next hit, Seleucid Empire as stupid as the Carthaginians. Even dumber because Carthage was gone except for a single wall to tell the world Rome was here. Appropriate to sing “you don’t tug on Superman, slim. You don’t steal the wind. You don’t pull the mask off the Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with Rome.” After this fifth war, they now owned about 25% of Alexander’s former empire and it truly begins. They fought from then on for an empire to keep them safe. They fell in love with the idea of civilization and lasting peace. They built aqueducts, they remodeled only if needed, and as conquerors they were people who strongly emphasized laws, justice, and fairness. Jesus, himself, thought they deserved their tax money for services provided...
Now a lone girl should come out and sing “nothing good last forever” to the tune of “no one keeps Excalibur forever”. All empires corrupt. Apples rot and go bad. I sometimes think they forgot their beginnings. In any case, politics, religion, bad emperors, they rotted on the vine. They went from grape 🍇 to vinegar.
Something ate at them, they never knew about is my theory, though multiple causes ended them - lead poisoning. It might even account for some of the bad emperors, not directly. They were going sterile towards the end. A Roman senator send the great souls were not returning. Five generals of true merit in the time of Julius Caesar and only one in this generation. So brain 🧠 damage indicated. Wasteful of resources and making bad decisions. Then Alaric the Goth invaded and Rome fell while the Western half of the Empire seems to twiddle it’s thumbs. Justinian almost seems to deserve this fate for deciding the empire would no longer accept converts to the new faith. Seems to deserve it for his war on pagans. I wasn’t remotely moved by the fall of Constantinople but Rome, centuries earlier I missed. They brought books, civilization, roads, and aqueduct. The loss of them in Europe kicked off the Dark Ages. Though my own people opposed them in an earlier time, we wept as the shadows grew. In France, we talked of building them back. In England, we reread the books of our monasteries and taught Latin. Everyone did.
The Great Isaac Asimov, whose own people were scattered, said the Romans left us a great gift. And yes, it burned in the darkness of Europe. It wasn’t the roads or the aqueducts, not even the laws which we modified and added to as we moved through the Dark Ages. They left us their library.
Asimov’s Foundation series was based on the keeping of a great library.
As for Europe, one day we did finally start laughing... the Renaissance was finally here! Age of Enlightenment, Industrial Revolutions to follow.
I still wish those farm boys had been able to go back to their fields. It’s sad that they never did. We owe them so much. They gave us so much. And if our present day world with its energy problems, its micropolymers, and everything else fails... because no one keeps Excalibur forever... then I hope we will tell our children, our empire fell and we will have to crawl once again. Recovering from the death of Rome has only one lesson... one day, your descendants will walk again.
@@cheryldeboissiere1851 Some say that Rome has not yet fallen, the Turks claimed the title of emperor of Rome after the fall of Constantinople.
The Pope gave the Spanish kings the title of emperor of the Romans (yes, the king of Spain still has this title along with that of king of Jerusalem).
And the Russian monarchy claimed to be the successors of the Byzantines (a half-truth).
But if you look, there is a large region of the world called Latin America, a region that seems to me to be misnamed because it should be Iberoamerica or Hispanoamerica, but look how far the influence of the Romans extends 2000 years later, not only in Europe but in a continent that they did not even know their influence is still there.
I mean that the original Latins were born in the region of Lazio, Italy.
@@siddhartagoutama4140 I would expect that to be the case(them being olive skin). However, that stupid article is somewhat right. Things did change in the last 2000 years, but they changed the other way from what they suggested. White skinned people were actually much further south than today, and some are still found even in Syria. Climate has changed, and remember that northern Europe was "exporting" excess people for a long time as their environment did not allow for a large population to be sustained there. Hence Vikings, Varangian guards and northern rulers far from their geographical origin.
Balkans, Anatolia, Mediterranean coastline and southern Italy all become more brown during and after the Islamic conquests, so I would not be shocked to discover that most of the emperors, Jesus and other historical personalities that are under question today were indeed Germanic white. Not making definitive claims here, but this is a possibility.
I love when when 3-second historians try to deal with roman history. And the article you are talking about is one of many examples of ill understanding of history. Or, rather, not understanding it at all. I like how you handled this topic. This was really good, well balanced answer to that article. I didnt think much about Rome in terms of ethnicity, though as far as I understand there was a "freedom of movement" within Roman Empire, so eventhough it didnt work as it works now in EU, it could allow some individuals from Africa or Middle East to travel to Rome. Having said that, we must remember that people needed to eat something and needed a place to live - all this required dinari, so the chance that poor peasant from Middle East would travel all the way to Rome, only to sit in the Colosseum is very, very low. Most probably we could see some soldiers (at least those, who survived and secured certain loot from campaigns), wealthy traders ect moving to Rome to live interesting life - and we musnt forget about slaves, right? - but most of the citizens of the biggest then city in the world would be more or less pure-Romans with pale skin.
oh they know, they understand. What they are doing is washing history to follow the agenda. Nothing more nothing less. Despicable.
Consdering Roman citizens were not exactly welcoming of even other Italians I don't think the audience at the Colosseum was likely to be filled with Libyans, Numidians, Egyptians and Syrians somehow!
Now the slaves forced to fight for their lives or straight up thrown to the lions - That's a different story :)
Great video. People pushing the agenda of Europeans not being white have even gone so far as to call me basically black, even though I’m a white English and Greek Cypriot bloke. Don’t get me wrong, my Greek Cypriot granddad is definitely not white, but Cyprus isn’t in Europe so that’s common sense.I’ve said it many times, as a continent, all the natives are white, be it paler in the north due to lack of sunshine, or darker in the south due to more of it. Don’t get me wrong, many Spaniards and southern Italians are very dark, but that’s most likely due to the colonisation of said countries by Arabs in the past. Anyway, I’m gonna go back to accepting that I’m actually a black bloke.
When you said that they were being intellectually dishonest with themselves you had me hooked! For somebody like me that is just beginning to get their feet wet with ancient Rome, I already understood this about the so-called diversity of the Roman empire. Only because I want the truth, whether it's uncomfortable or not. As you stated, Rome conquered so much territory that "diversity" is inevitably going to be within the realms of a huge empire. Acceptance or inclusion is a different story. So, the article is saying that it is acceptable to study,or admire, ancient Rome because it fits someones 21st century agenda. Once again, a modern writer trying to understand history with a completely modern... goal..is not worthy of writing an article about history. Everybody's always got to make everything about color. Like little kids with a big box of crayons.
Exactly what you said.
Damn I hate how some people use history for their own modern agendas.
History might be easier to get into than most other subjects, but then, if you don't read enough, there is also so much bullshit you can say, and the worst thing is, when you cringe, others around you might just nod and not understand what your problem is.
I find it difficult sometimes.., with other subjects you might actually give people a small lecture and explain why they're wrong. With history, it often involves so much stuff as prerequisite knowledge before you even can get started explaining, and the other person will not just not understand, but even argue with you that you can't be right, that it's easier to just not get entangled in it at all.
The problem with history is, too many people think they know, and try to argue.
With subjects like maths or biology, people are fine with being ignorant because they mostly don't care.
I hear people say "it's important that the majority of people learns more history".
I rather think: "the fewer the better".
There would be less bullshit.
Politicians and other leaders should learn history to help them with decision making. Other people should either take the time to really dive into it, or stay away from it completely.
With me this feeling started when I was 16 , trying to read stuff like the Yugurtinian War in my free time, and somebody in my class claimed Romans didn't have any cavalry..
Is it really the truth you are interested in? I hope that is sincere, and that’s why I want to share this with you. Unfortunately the revision is his, and before anyone goes into anti-wøke attack mode, you should know I detest the wøke movement… I just disagree with Metatron’s assessment and here is why.
28 Universities in Europe under the lead of Oxford University, did DNA surveys for the inhabitants of Europe. They found that Southern Italians are most closely related to Greeks. Southern Italians are also most closely related to the Ancient Romans. While Northern Italians are most closely related to Northern Europeans.
To simply label us all with one racíal group identity, such as whïte, isn’t accurate. Italians, Greeks, much of Spain and Portugal all have our own racíal identity that is unique to us and separate from the rest of Eurøpe. With the French as the inbetween group, both like us and them. It isn’t only DNA, it’s language (Latin vs Germanic), it’s culture and it’s different domínant physical characteristícs (such as darker hair, skin, etc…).
There was in fact animosity in Italy for a long time based on separate ràcíal identities. Not just Italy but in the US Southern Italians weren’t seen as whíte for a long time. So the history and the DNA studies contradict what he stated. I do enjoy his videos but he isn’t correct on this. Metatron is welcome to self īdentify as whíte, he’s ínaccurate to describe us all that way.
@@GhostSal just a question: did this Oxford study take the DNA tests during the 1st century AD, or only after all the barbaric invasions, and any other ethnic exchanges in the middle ages and thereafter?
@@GhostSal plus the fact that southern Italians have lots of Greek heritage.. anybody knowing history could have told you that that's very probably, because of the colonization of Magna Graecia etc
Probably on Sicily they'd have found some Greek, Punic, Scandinavian and Arab DNA as well? No idea
@@jankutac9753 I’ve read 3 studies that have looked into this, the one I mentioned above, one that looked at Roman Emperors DNA, and autosomal DNA. All have been consistent with their results. You raised a good question, as far as this study, I’m not sure the period they looked at.