If you disagree with the essay then you could at least offer a counterpoint. Because Roman history does seem to be pretty damn white-washed, especially in far-right circles.
It does not make sense trying to discuss an article which is based on a false racist premise - "white equals bad" - packed inside a retelling of history using mostly correct or innocuously false facts, a practice which goes by the name of the motte and bailey tactic [1,2]. Would you suggest discussing an article which started with Black supremacists fetishise..., went on to link the natural dark colour of the stone used to make statues to black skin while those statues were painted white by their creators and drew conclusions from this mix, knowing that the writer and publisher are full aware of this false premise and actively use it to create division? If anything needs to be discussed it is the critical theory which lies at the base of this type of writing. This is a political discussion which should be had out in the open, exposing the motte without allowing a retreat to the bailey.
The premise of the article clearly isn't "white equals bad" though, it's "ancient Rome wasn't as white as white supremacists make it out to be". That's a pretty uncontroversial take imo.
That part - "Rome was not only white" is the motte from which the author is pushing his ideas about "whiteness", "colonial bias", "diversity in classics" and more such things. In short, he is trying to inject critical theory into the classics by attempting to racialise the subject area. The fact of Rome being "white" is also inconsequential since the classics tend not to be seen in a racialised light other than by people like this author and other racially focused individuals. Should they - he is not the only author who attempts this - succeed in racialising the classics they'll use these as yet another weapon in their attempt to deconstruct western culture.
"Rome was note only white" is not motte, it is a counterargument to the white supremacists who have fetishised ancient Rome as some racially homogeneous utopia over the years.
> the classics tend not to be seen in a racialised light other than by people like this author and other racially focused individuals.
The point you're making here was made by the author in the article itself:
"I want to focus on two lesser-known arguments that are particularly relevant for our own postcolonial times: firstly, that the Romans didn’t have a sense of race in the modern sense of that word."
The author is not trying to racialise the subject area, they're trying to de-racialise it by pointing out that the, rather white-focused, way that ancient Rome has been presented in modern times isn't accurate.
The point is the almost nobody thinks of the classics in racialised terms. Those white supremacists which the author is talking about are notably absent from the public discourse [1], they seem to be an incredibly rare species which gets an inordinate amount of attention given their rarity. That means that this author and others like him are the ones who are attempting to racialise the classics in the public discourse even if they claim to bring race into the discussion "to keep others from doing so" [2]. For most people the Romans are either the opponents of Asterix, something related to Julius Caesar or the predecessor to the Roman Catholic church.
So, yes, this is the motte from which he launches his missives.
[1] Do mind that white supremacist is a term which has an actual meaning, it is not just a label which can be stuck to people who you happen to disagree with. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, Donald Trump is not a white supremacist - even if you do not agree with him.
[2] This is a well-worn tactic, used by "anti-racists" like Ibram Henry Rogers (who calls himself "Ibram X Kendi") who profess racism in order to fight racism, by groups like Antifa who look and act like blackshirts while claiming to be anti-fascists and by other activists.
Isn't Richard Spencer a racial nationalist, not a racial supremacist?
I could be mistaken but that was the vibe I've gotten from the very little I've heard directly from him (in contrast to the much larger quantity I've heard about him from others)
Critical theorists constantly refer to these very few white supremacists in the exact same way, with the exact same tone and exact same language that Hitler talked about Jews.
Sure there are a few out there, but hyperbolizing, drawing up massive conspiracy theories about the ever encroaching threat they pose to the fabric of society and the conspiracy theory that white supremacists are trying to take over the world, then making everything focus on that is typical tactic for propagandists.
This article is yet another drop in the racial divisiveness bucket of CRT which seeks to undermine racial cohesion in the melting pot experiment of the United States of America and create a hard dividing line between people of different skin colors.
Like Morgan Freeman said: (paraphrase) you want racism to end, stop talking about race. You stop calling me a black man and I'll stop calling you a white man.
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] thread[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
[2] https://romesentinel.com/stories/thoughts-on-motte-and-baile...
> the classics tend not to be seen in a racialised light other than by people like this author and other racially focused individuals.
The point you're making here was made by the author in the article itself:
"I want to focus on two lesser-known arguments that are particularly relevant for our own postcolonial times: firstly, that the Romans didn’t have a sense of race in the modern sense of that word."
The author is not trying to racialise the subject area, they're trying to de-racialise it by pointing out that the, rather white-focused, way that ancient Rome has been presented in modern times isn't accurate.
So, yes, this is the motte from which he launches his missives.
[1] Do mind that white supremacist is a term which has an actual meaning, it is not just a label which can be stuck to people who you happen to disagree with. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, Donald Trump is not a white supremacist - even if you do not agree with him.
[2] This is a well-worn tactic, used by "anti-racists" like Ibram Henry Rogers (who calls himself "Ibram X Kendi") who profess racism in order to fight racism, by groups like Antifa who look and act like blackshirts while claiming to be anti-fascists and by other activists.
I could be mistaken but that was the vibe I've gotten from the very little I've heard directly from him (in contrast to the much larger quantity I've heard about him from others)
Sure there are a few out there, but hyperbolizing, drawing up massive conspiracy theories about the ever encroaching threat they pose to the fabric of society and the conspiracy theory that white supremacists are trying to take over the world, then making everything focus on that is typical tactic for propagandists.
This article is yet another drop in the racial divisiveness bucket of CRT which seeks to undermine racial cohesion in the melting pot experiment of the United States of America and create a hard dividing line between people of different skin colors.
Like Morgan Freeman said: (paraphrase) you want racism to end, stop talking about race. You stop calling me a black man and I'll stop calling you a white man.