how the latins tell other ppl

Post Reply
User avatar
Sofronios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

how the latins tell other ppl

Post by Sofronios »

I always wonder how the romans, especially the latins, differentiate other people of ethnicity.. even though I myself believe that etnicity or nationality does not mean anything, but if allowed to be curious, approaching a people with a fairer skin than me I will ask whether he is from europe/ america/australia.. likewise if he has an african complexion I would be equally interested..
what will be a factor for the ancients to tell other group?
his language was obvious, but is there any other that can prove that he was not latin?
thx you in advvance for those who are willing to share his thought with this trivial questions of mine
ὁ δὲ εἶπε· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με;
Qui ait : Et quomodo possum, si non aliquis ostenderit mihi ?

User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by swtwentyman »

(short answer: like anyone else)

I don't know this particukarly, but humans have always been able to tell the difference between people like and unlike them, however slight it may be. I've thought -- though this is complete conjecture -- that racism or at least prejudice or discrimination is hardwired into instinct as a survival tactic to tell in an instant one's band from another, possibly hostile one. The human ear is remarkably sensitive to accents.

Also distinctions that seem trivial to us, or those we can have a hard time of noticing, are very much non-trivial and very noticeable to the ethnic groups that are sensitive to them. I can't tell Irish features from other whites'(*), yet when there was widespread discrimination against them people obviously had no problem seeing it; similarly, how many Americans can tell a Hutu from a Tutsi(**), or tell apart the various ethnicities in Yugoslavia? Language and accent probably have a lot to do with this but there have been genocides over things that we're not sensitive to.

(*) some of this is obviously due to homogenization but the full Irish in Ireland look the same as anyone else to me
(**) this may be a bad example, as i found a picture on Google comparing the archetypical Hutu and Tutsi, but they would look the same to an everyday American.

I hope I'm wrong about all of this. I have a somewhat bleak view of it; when I was in the first grade I wouldn't drink water after an Asian kid or some Hispanics, because I had a thing against flat faces. I grew out of it but it's hogwash that racism is purely a learned thing (this isn't a defense of it).

daivid
Administrator
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe
Contact:

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by daivid »

swtwentyman wrote: I can't tell Irish features from other whites'(*), yet when there was widespread discrimination against them people obviously had no problem seeing it; similarly, how many Americans can tell a Hutu from a Tutsi(**), or tell apart the various ethnicities in Yugoslavia? Language and accent probably have a lot to do with this but there have been genocides over things that we're not sensitive to.
.
In former Yugoslavia you are Serb, Croat or Boshnijak due to your religion or to the religion of your most recent ancestor who had religious beliefs. However, really it is a political stance on the national question and people have been free to redefine themselves. (Exception: Bosnia - at the height of ethnic cleansing - some who had declared themselves to be Serbs were deemed non Serb by the Serb nationalists and excluded.) There is a big thing made about the language issue but the small differences are blown up because of the ethnic divisions and were not a cause of the divisions. As my neighbor once explained to me, the reason that there was a Croat language and a Serbian one instead of one language was "because of the war".

In the early days of the Latin League, you would have had the status of Latin because of your parents and it would be known because everyone in the village would have known that they had been a Latin. As Rome grew more powerful the status of Latin was granted to other communities and so it would have little relation to accent or how you looked. The way that Romans were ready to grant the legal status of Latin and that of full Roman citizen makes it possible to argue that the Romans were not racist. However, the way essentially non racial divisions such as existed in Yugoslavia were exploited means that should not be taken at face value.

There must have been some way of Roman citizens or those with Latin status to prove it when they traveled to areas where they were not well known - anyone know what?
λονδον

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by Markos »

ὦ χαῖρε, φίλε Δαυίδ. I miss chatting with you in Greek. We need to schedule another round of 20 questions in Ancient Greek.
daivid wrote:There must have been some way of Roman citizens or those with Latin status to prove it when they traveled to areas where they were not well known - anyone know what?
Maybe one's level of Greek?
Acts 22:25ff: ὡς δὲ προέτειναν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν, εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἑστῶτα ἑκατόνταρχον ὁ Παῦλος· Εἰ ἄνθρωπον Ρωμαῖον καὶ ἀκατάκριτον ἔξεστιν ὑμῖν μαστίζειν; 26ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος προσελθὼν ἀπήγγειλε τῷ χιλιάρχῳ λέγων· ὅρα τί μέλλεις ποιεῖν· ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ρωμαῖός ἐστι. 27προσελθὼν δὲ ὁ χιλίαρχος εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Λέγε μοι, εἰ σὺ Ρωμαῖος εἶ. ὁ δὲ ἔφη· Ναί. 28ἀπεκρίθη τε ὁ χιλίαρχος· Ἐγὼ πολλοῦ κεφαλαίου τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην ἐκτησάμην. ὁ δὲ Παῦλος ἔφη· Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγέννημαι. 29εὐθέως οὖν ἀπέστησαν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ οἱ μέλλοντες αὐτὸν ἀνετάζειν· καὶ ὁ χιλίαρχος δὲ ἐφοβήθη ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι Ρωμαῖός ἐστι, καὶ ὅτι ἦν αὐτὸν δεδεκώς.
I think it was Paul's use of the intensive καί that proved it. :lol:

ἔρρωσο, φίλτατε.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.

daivid
Administrator
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe
Contact:

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by daivid »

Markos wrote:ὦ χαῖρε, φίλε Δαυίδ. I miss chatting with you in Greek. We need to schedule another round of 20 questions in Ancient Greek.
Yes lets.

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 12&t=65757
λονδον

User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by swtwentyman »

Thanks, daivid. That's not the kind of thing you can easily learn from internet articles. I also looked up the Rwandan genocide and saw that in more heavily-mixed areas they set up checkpoints where people had to show ID showing their ethnicity and were slaughtered if they were Tutsi. Makes it all seem like such a waste (more than it already was) -- and awfully arbitrary.
Last edited by swtwentyman on Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sofronios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by Sofronios »

This is so interesting..
how this instinct encoded as part of our humane survival, if it is put on the extreme level it will be excalated as the term 'racism'.
the Serbs are Orthodox and the Croats are Catholics, while the Bosnians are Moslems, It is very likely the Romans also classified people on the basis of which divinity or pantheons they followed?
and i always wonder if All free Roman-Latin citizen were wearing toga? while the Greeks Himation? while the other non-Latin or non-Greek is wearing pants or other distinguished attire? or is it just a too much simplification?
ὁ δὲ εἶπε· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με;
Qui ait : Et quomodo possum, si non aliquis ostenderit mihi ?

User avatar
swtwentyman
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 am

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by swtwentyman »

To be clear, that part of my post is conjecture based on thinking I did years ago, when I couldn't afford internet and the only information I had was from the newspaper and the local library. I could be greatly mistaken.

About religion (this is from an old professor of mine so it's more reliable): people certainly distinguished by the gods they worshipped but as they were pagan it didn't really matter if there were or weren't others; it wasn't as much a basis for hatred as it is now. Religious intolerance is much more natural to monotheistic faiths.

ed:
Edward Gibbon wrote:The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.
The superstition of the people was not embittered by any mixture of theological rancour; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the Pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not discordant materials.

User avatar
Sofronios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: how the latins tell other ppl

Post by Sofronios »

swtwentyman wrote:To be clear, that part of my post is conjecture based on thinking I did years ago, when I couldn't afford internet and the only information I had was from the newspaper and the local library. I could be greatly mistaken.

About religion (this is from an old professor of mine so it's more reliable): people certainly distinguished by the gods they worshipped but as they were pagan it didn't really matter if there were or weren't others; it wasn't as much a basis for hatred as it is now. Religious intolerance is much more natural to monotheistic faiths.

ed:
Edward Gibbon wrote:The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.
The superstition of the people was not embittered by any mixture of theological rancour; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the Pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not discordant materials.
really interesting.. much we can learn from the old-pagan, they were not racist and tolerate other faith.. so much wisdom.. thx you
ὁ δὲ εἶπε· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με;
Qui ait : Et quomodo possum, si non aliquis ostenderit mihi ?

Post Reply