In group vs out group does not map to "race".

And it has NOT been replciated in every human society, far from it. Fact is any time two populations meet, you get "cross-racial" relationships. Rome is a fine example of a major society which exhbited no particular racist sentiments. history doe sNOT support a claim of inherent raicsm, it undermines it - it is our own relatevely recent Imperial past that exalted it to a natural order.

Originally Posted by contracycle

In group vs out group does not map to "race".

Sure. It's just one of the marker. Humans are pretty good at inventing many more.

Quote:

Rome is a fine example of a major society which exhbited no particular racist sentiments.

Seriously? Calling everyone else 'barbarians'? According Roman citizenship only to the most favoured and blessed of your conquered population? Stating "Mare NOSTRUM"? Dating the start of time to the foundation of your Urbi? Calling one of your leader all kind of names because he dared love rather than just rape a foreign princess? Being able to justify a war on him because he's "un-roman"? Give me a break!

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Sure. It's just one of the marker. Humans are pretty good at inventing many more.

Indeed. So claiming that race is a big deal just isn't true.

Quote:

Seriously? Calling everyone else 'barbarians'? According Roman citizenship only to the most favoured and blessed of your conquered population? Stating "Mare NOSTRUM"? Dating the start of time to the foundation of your Urbi? Calling one of your leader all kind of names because he dared love rather than just rape a foreign princess? Being able to justify a war on him because he's "un-roman"? Give me a break!

But "unRoman" is not he same as being a different race. Romanised Gauls were just as valid as Romans as any Latin. A Roman citizen could have any combination of ethnic features and still be a Roman citizen with full rights. Rome was certainly belligerent, and self-regarding, but it wasn't racist.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Indeed. So claiming that race is a big deal just isn't true.

Huh? That's like saying religion or football team isn't a big deal because race is another common marker for in/out grouping...

Quote:

But "unRoman" is not he same as being a different race.

How in the hell do you define racism? They certainly did not consider foreigners like being the same as Roman. That's just racism, outright. Looking down on Marcus Anthony for loving Cleopatra is racism.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Huh? That's like saying religion or football team isn't a big deal because race is another common marker for in/out grouping...

No. The point is they are all expressions of the in/out groupiong. Tat doesn;t mean they don't matter, it means all of them are local expressions of something larger. To elevate one of them to universality is false.

Quote:

How in the hell do you define racism? They certainly did not consider foreigners like being the same as Roman. That's just racism, outright. Looking down on Marcus Anthony for loving Cleopatra is racism.

It wasn't racism, it was more like hatred for Lord Haw Haw. Cleopatra was a foreign potentate and he was presented as betraying the state, he was not accused of, for example, "diluting the purity of the race" or anything like that.

The definition I use is the same one I always use: the taking of race into account in circumstances in which it is otherwise irrelevant.

And as I said, in Rome ethnicity was irrelevant. A Syrian was treated with the same hostility as any non-Roman from Italy itself, like an Umbrian. They did not distinguish between people on the basis of their skin or hair or whatever.