>womemes can be histo.....

>>3180747
>/his/ is a high quality content bo---

>Diversity in the Roman empire
Italians, Greeks, Germanics, Celts, North Africans, Semites?

>>3180747
She's annoying. She claimed the Romans had no police force of any sorts.

File: 1500755561995.jpg (58KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x405px

Do I trust Anon, posting tweets that made him butthurt or do I trust a qualified historian?
>>3180752
Probably what she meant anyway.

>>3180752
>>3180759
Ah yes and the occasional nigerian
sure thing fampai
>qualified historian

>>3180747
I'm not an expert in this topic so I'm just going to have to go with the internationally renowned and award winning professional historian, who is a professor in a relevant field at arguably the world's top university and not the crazy, completely unqualified Youtuber and conspiracy theorist.

>>3180771
Well the nigerians sure as shit wouldn't be in roman Britain. That would have been mostly mixed race Italian/Germanics and Celts

>>3180777
These faggots got BTFO by Paul fucking Joseph Watson. They are clearly retarded

>>3180771

>
>
Whoah
You sure convinced me.

>>3180781
I didn't know mixed race Italian/Germanics and Celts had black skin.

>>3180784
>this is real in my mind

Sure thing, anon.

>>3180789
Where was I implying that blacks were common in Roman Britain? Clearly I was arguing against that. I think you missed the comment section of pseudo-intellectual youtube channels.

>>3180747
except they also put black celts, back normans, black norman noblity, black anglo saxons...

Now yes, there was the occasional black man who found his way to the shores of Briton over the course of two thousand years. but especially after the roman period they were never a significant part of the population in comparison to today. A look at the ethnic make up of Briton then vs now makes it clear that the genetic make up of the average British man has hardly changed since ancient times, even with multiple invasions.

The people who made this were clearly motivated by something other than historical accuracy.

>>3180752
No she was clearly trying to say that Britain was majority black until evil whitey crackas exterminated them all and invented slavery.

>>3180789

Are you new here?
Italians are black!

this board is dead

>>3180747

ITT: people actually arguing Roman history with Mary Beard

So which university are you all professors of classics at?

>>3180876
such a sad post
/his/ should be deleted

>>3180876

>appeal to authority

>>3180898

A perfect way to answer an ad hominen.

>skin color is the only thing that determines ethnicity
can /pol/ fuck off already and stop talking about shit they know nothing about???

>there were North Africans in Britain
>THIS MEANS THERE WERE SUB-SAHARANS THERE AS WELL

And so did the cuckolds of /his/ cheer, while making an espresso for post-coital snacking for their bulls

>>3180898

>e a world expert in a subject, teaching the subject at one of the most prestigious places in the world, having spent a lifetime studying and researching the subject
>a bunch of contrarian memelords

Sorry for taking the position of one over the other.

>>3180876
Give me one reason why I should take Anglo and American universities seriously.

>>3180927
Then tell your butt buddies to stop shoehorning niggers into every aspect of European history.

>>3180929

>/pol/ gets BTFO by one of the world's top classicists
>starts whining about their weird fascination with cuckold porn again

>>3180939

Because they're regarded as the best in the world and have been for centuries?

>>3180929

The funniest part is that you keep using all that words... Someone would call it projection.

>>3180951
Swing and a miss.

You'll see in my post (if you paid attention, which considering your intelligence might be too optimistic of me) that I acknowledge that there WERE indeed North Africans there.

But, and this is a crucial point, the legate/tribune in the video is Sub-Saharan.

Now shoo, Jamal needs to get prepped again.

>>3180817
they were white back then
they become black when the Turks conquered Southern and Center Italy

/r9k/ and /pol/ posters should be permanently IP banned from this board

>>3180876

Post any proof at all that roman Britain was full of black people

>>3180957
>regarded as the best in the world
By Anglos and Americans themselves. Kind of a useless point.

>>3180966
Women should, not even memeing.

>>3180967

Why don't you ask Mary Beard?

File: Hag.png (370KB, 492x406px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 492x406px

CRIKEY, RACISTS IN MY HAUNTED WOODS? NOT TA WORRY LOVES, I'LL BE ON BROOM RIGHT AWAY

>>3180951
>Niggers automatically assume diversity means more niggers

>>3180971

Yes, because no one from outside Britain or the US sends their kids to Oxbridge or Harvard, right?

>>3180962
>Swing and a miss.

Nope. You were gibbering away about cuckold porn once again. That guy doesn't look anywhere near dark enough to be Sub-Saharan BTW.

>>3180977
In other words, you have none and neither does she.

How does it feel knowing Paul Joseph Watson is smarter than you?

Nubian warriors were common and highly regarded in Rome

>>3180971
Aren`t American Universitys a meme for having the people who teach in them create propaganda for their own world view in class.

File: file.png (152KB, 228x415px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 228x415px

>>3180996
You're right friend, this right here is a defender of the Aryan Race.

Might want to get that eyesight checked out, big boy.

>>3180964

Nupo!

>>3180988
You're not providing a coherent argument. British historians have been regarded as remarkably shitty and biased, so how is an Anglo teaching at Anglo university supposed to be an unquestionable authority on anything?

How is a black African in any way a "typical family" (BBC's words) in Roman Britain? Sure, there would have been a few black Africans in the Roman Army, but certainly not the majority, and moreover, the Roman occupying force itself was small in proportion to the extant Celtic population of Britain. So no, not typical.

I hate the alt right as much as the next guy, but this is clearly just not correct.

>>3180747
Just another example of white genocide in action. Fucking (((SJWs)))

File: file.png (486KB, 1282x609px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1282x609px

WE WUZ RETARDZ N SHIEEEET

>>3181015
Shut up nazi

"Pretty accurate", "plenty"? They muddy the water. The only evidence I've ever heard of was a few skeletons of probable Roman auxiliaries, and like one upper class girl. And even then it wasn't skeletons of subsaharan Africans, it was North Africans/Syrians. Most of the auxiliaries would have been Gallic/Germanic.

If there was a consistent presence of such remains in Roman settlements, then, sure, that would be firm evidence of ethnic diversity (in the 21st century sense, of course). The only thing these skeletons prove is some soldiers died in Britain.

Is it possible that maybe, one Syrian soldier settled in Britain and took a native wife ? That a North African merchant settled there to import ressources ? Sure. But that's not proof of diversity. That's an anomaly. Expections that proves the rule. And I think don't exceptions should be the way to teach kids about History.

And these historians fucking know this, they're too intelligent not to, and that's what drives me nuts. Just because they agree with the political message, they throw principles out of the window. Cite your fucking sources, you old cheese-toothed loony witch.

>>3180771
>let me intentionally misinterpret what she said to make my point
What's it like being retarded?

>>3181022
DELET THIS

>>3181005
Still looks like a Berber rather than Sub-Saharan, not even dark enough to be a Nubian, both of which would be found in Roman Britain.

>>3181025
She just said ethnic diversity, which as >>3180752 said probably just means all the constituent peoples of the empire.

>>3180997

>neither does she

Have you asked her? What did she say?

>>3181007

>British historians have been regarded as remarkably shitty and biased,

<citation needed>

>>3181039
She's a retard who shilled retarded revisionist history and deserves to be mocked for it.

>>3181035
Mate he's full on Bantu tier, get your eyes checked.

>>3181043
See>>3181022

>>3180747
It seems to me that she agrees with the idea of a black legionnaire. This is not impossible and so it makes sense why she'd agree. It seems like she didn't watch the entire thing though, because I doubt that she'd agree to black Celts and even a black signer of the Magna Carta. Looks like this was just a one off remark based only on the picture.

>>3181042
Nice weaseling senpai.

She knows damn well what PJW meant by it

>>3181015
Why would "typical" necessarily be referring to skin colour unless you were obsessed by race? I don't suppose the families of Roman officers are necessarily "typical" either.

And why make such fuss over the description given to the video by the 18 year old intern that uploaded it onto Youtube, unless you are looking for something to be butthurt about? There isn't even any claims in the video itself that it represents a "typical" family.

>>3181051

Funny, that isn't attributed to Mary Beard. What did she say to you when youbasked her?

>>3181055
It's literally an accurate statement. At no point does she specify she's talking about black people

>>3181049
Rubbish, not even close, in fact he could be a dark Jew or Arab.

>>3181055
Watson said that Roman Britain wasn't ethnically diverse, which is just wrong. Obviously the BBC greatly exaggerated the extent of the diversity and if Beard had looked into it closely she would've disagreed with the BBC's depiction as well, but Watson himself was just wrong.

>>3181058

They're also clearly rich and own multiple slaves. They're certainly not portrayed as typical in any way.

>>3181058
Because the video, and other videos in that series, proceed to have black celts, black normans, and fucking black Iron age inhabitants of britain.

The agenda is clear.

>>3181022
How is that even relevant given the video is about a Roman officer's family not the general British population?

>>3180804
Look at the thing she was talking about.

Its a black as coal roman soldier talking to kids while their vaguely tanned mother looks lustfully at him

>>3181064
You're a really stupid person anon

>>3181084
t. retard.

Please pay attention to OP's image. Wicked Witch here claims that Roman Britain was ethnically diverse, yet here it says that Roman Britain was overwhelmingly indigenous.

File: ziV096D.png (2MB, 800x3857px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x3857px

WE

>>3181103
Damn, that Idris Elba sure gets around

>>3181069
>dark Jew or Arab
haha or "tanned german" amirite?

>>3181094

Why? Because you said Mary Beard doesn't have any proof, but you have yet to say how she responded when you asked her for proof?

File: IMG_3742.jpg (21KB, 620x430px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 620x430px

>>3181035
>dark enough to be a berber

Here's the most famous Berber that I could think of. Dark indeed. You're probably thinking of the Tuaregs. They are a Berber-speaking people, that's true, and they do have dark, African people among them. Some look mixed. But these people are descendants of slaves and metal workers, and Tuareg society has such a rigid caste system that most of them wouldn't consider the darker-skinned ones to be real Tuaregs. Upper castes look simply Berber.

Also, Nubians in Britain ? Why the fuck would the Romans go look that far for auxiliaries, when they had plenty of tribes fighting to fight for them right across the Channel ?

File: file.png (57KB, 168x211px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 168x211px

>>3181103
Was getting blacked part of your plan?

>>3181035
Are you fucking retarded?

>>3181121
How the fuck am I supposed to prove a negative? You're really stupid

File: 10_6_EgyptianRaces.jpg (288KB, 1600x793px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1600x793px

>>3181035
>berber
>this dark
Leave my board brainlet

>>3180747
You snowflakes get triggered so easily.

>>3181122
>cherrypicking

>>3181103
The Roman one I thought was fine because you could explain that away by Romans importing African legionaries but there were no black Celts or Arabic Normans. This is fucked.

File: based fat bald arab man.png (273KB, 748x931px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 748x931px

>>3180759
>>3180876
Your waifu's argument is "read my friend's blog"

This is your "qualified historian"

>>3181035
>he thinks Berbers are niggers
They're unironically much closer to Europeans than to blacks.

File: Zinedine_zidane.jpg (34KB, 320x603px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 320x603px

>>3181122

Depending on the lighting and whether he has been sunbathing recently Zidane could easily pass for the guy in the pic.

File: 1501098667776.png (22KB, 523x490px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 523x490px

>>3181122
This.
Also tuaregs and the other sahara tribes lived way south of the roman territory, they were not a part of the roman empire.

>>3181103
Oh man,I didn't know they put Black people in all these eras. I could defend the Roman ones, kinda, but fuck that.

>>3181148
just look at all the butthurt that paul watosn guy caused with one tweet.

>>3181166
Yep, confirmed blind

File: 1328203654825.jpg (11KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x300px

>tfw /his/ is currently the only place where obnoxious liberals and overworked /pol/tards collide in the most cringe worthy scene for any to witness
Between the "have you asked her?" faggot and the "REETAAARD" guy, I actually lost interest for history

>>3181044
>leyenda negra
>Gibbon
>Paul Johnson
>Kershaw

File: ioawge.png (263KB, 828x768px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 828x768px

>>3181150
Here's a page from "Sorcery, Totem, and Jihad in African Philosophy" by Christopher Wise

File: berber.jpg (56KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 333x500px

>>3181145
This isn't your board, you are just visiting from /pol/.

>>3181152

>"qualified historian"

t. someone with learned everything from Rome: Total War

>>3181174
The Roman one is a huge ass stretch as well

>>3181150
Look up "Kabyle people" or "Kabyle women" on google images and see for yourself whether they look like niggers then.

File: Untitled.png (217KB, 655x600px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 655x600px

>>3181183
>being able to type "berber" "into google images makes me an expert on North Africa

File: manifestation-kabyle-paris (1).jpg (271KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 960x540px

>>3181150
Here you go faggot

>>3181103
>Celtic niggers
All of my kek

>>3180749
Some dude spammed Rick and Morty porn earlier

>>3181102
Diverse isn't an empirical measurement anon, it can be diverse and overwhelmingly indigenous at the same time and the source quoted specifically said that there was migration from other parts of the empire and the video in question is about the family of a Roman officer.

You just sound stupid tbqh.

>>3181183
dudes not even as dark as the roman pic.

come on little monkey, you and i both know some tuareg from nigeria is not what typical berbers look like.

>>3181197

>I'm getting ready for the strawman of the year competition.

>>3181152
>when an actual Arab has to explain to a cretinous Anglo bitch that Arabs are not niggers

>>3181150
Here's another Berber then :^)

(Serious question, though, how come they have blondes among them ? Does the "We wuz Vandals" meme I've heard from Berber friends have any truth to it?)

File: mfw.png (79KB, 313x239px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 313x239px

>>3181212
>it can be diverse and overwhelmingly indigenous at the same time
These are the people who you share the board with.

Just a reminder.

File: image.jpg (336KB, 915x590px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 915x590px

>>3181183
>try to cherrypick
>post a saharan mixed berber
When will you learn?

>>3181216
He's darker and when did the character in question specifically become someone who is "what typical Berbers look like"?

>>3181179
>Not just hiding these threads
Pleb. There's plenty of interesting crap if you filter out the faggots from /pol/ and lefty/pol/

>>3181231
>only Germanics can be blonde!!!!
Stop this meme, seriously. It's below even /pol/.

>>3181152
>scientific evidence in fucking disdain quotes

>>3181232
Oh right, so you will be able to give me a specific widely accepted empirical definition of diverse that makes those two things mutually exclusive in 3,2,1........

>>3181179

>have you asked her

Why does this make you mad? The guy claims she has no evidence, but has clearly not looked to see what evidence she has produced.

>>3180971
>implying global reports from China (the only non-Euro-American country qualified to contest the intellectual superiority of Euro-American universities) don't also put Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge at the top
buttblasted Indian tech school graduate detected (or, more likely, just a trade school amerifat who thinks he's an auto didact)

>>3181258
I'm German.

>>3181217
Don't you get tired of being BTFO? A timeline of your arguments:

>it's perfectly acceptable to show the typical Roman legionnaire as black because there were Berbers in Rome sometimes
>I am convinced that all Berbers look exactly like the cartoon in the OP because of this picture I found on google
>I reject documentation of a clear race-based divide in Berbers and their slave castes because ??? also I said strawman so you lose

>>3181258
>Stanford
>literally SJW: the university
They might have great STEM departments but when it comes to humanities it's essentially a propaganda school.

>>3181234
lmao no he's not, you said he looked like a berber, or equally laughably, a dark jew or arab rather than a subsaharan. then you posted some tuareg with obvious sub saharan admixture to try and prove your point.

>when did the character in question specifically become someone who is "what typical Berbers look like"?
because berbers from roman africa weren't niggers.

stop denying it mate, they clearly put an obviously sub saharan bantu looking negro in their kids show.

Nubians only existed as slaves in Egypt.

There could have been some freed Nubians in the Empire but there was no way for freed slaves to join the army. It is not even a matter of hypothesis based on how Rome was ethnically diverse. There were no nubian Roman soldiers, and there was no other sub-saharan people that interacted with the Roman empire .

I wish these threads would stop as they are extremely obnoxious, and that liberals would stop defending ahistorical bullshit for brownie points.

>>3181252
You are adding literally nothing to an already clusterfuck
also
>mad
you just make things worse with these assumptions

>>3181271
None of your greentext remotely represents what I said in this thread.

File: berbers03.jpg (56KB, 625x794px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 625x794px

>>3181245
I even forgot my cherry picked pic :(

>>3181281
I said he could be a dark Jew or dark Arab or a dark Berber and I stand by that, more likely a Nubian, although he doesn't look quite dark enough for that.

File: file.png (114KB, 817x118px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 817x118px

>>3181251
OK, look at it this way, you gormless mong.

Japan is considered one of the most homogeneous countries in the world.

Japan's demographic makeup is pic related.

Here >>3181022 it states that 3% were foreign migrants.

>Japan's indigenous population makes up 98.5% of the total population
>homogeneous
>Roman Britain's indigenou populations makes up 97% of the total population
>ETHNICALLY DIVERSE

Do you see how retarded you are now, piece of shit?

>>3181282
They existed as soldiers/mercenaries as well. They still weren't native though.

>>3180747

The problem here is that everybody is assuming that the Roman soldier is "black" when in fact he's probably just darkened from being in the sun for weeks. In Roman art, men are often portrayed as having MUCH darker skin than women because of tanning from sun exposure.

>>3181296
He looks like mother fucking Idris Elba, not even remotely a Berber. Seriously stop embarrassing yourself, you have no idea what Berbers look like.

I fucking hate Anglos and Americans for their "Africa = BLACK" idiocy. It's an insult to actual north Africans.

File: C-QRKpxXoAE9Q-4.jpg (36KB, 731x341px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 731x341px

>>3181181
>>3181197
Damn, I want to learn about the Tuaregs and Berbers in general now. Are there good books/documentaries about them you'd recommend?

>>3181303

You mean to say no one actually knows anything about the topic they're whining about? I'm shocked.

File: 1501296232472.jpg (27KB, 600x418px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x418px

>>3181296

>>3181303
>darkened from being in the sun for weeks
Yeah because you can go from white to nubian just through tanning.

Do you ever hear yourself?

>>3181183

This guy is a Tuareg, which are basically culture group not an ethnic demonym. The Tuaregs lived and still do in the Sahara desert, in ancient times they were known as the Garamantes. They lived outside the borders of the Roman Empire, and were mostly hostile to it, acting as raiders and bandits.

>>3180964
>they become black when the Turks conquered Southern and Center Italy
When was this?

>>3181303
Ah yes, the infamous harsh British sun.

>>3181309
do you hate them for thinking of east asians when people say asian too? it's simply a colloquial definition, there's no need to get butt-hurt about the semantics of a short-hand phrase by taking it literally.

File: 367.jpg (38KB, 403x610px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 403x610px

>>3181296
Man, I encourage you to go to Morocco and Algeria and go tell the Berbers there that's what they look like. I'm sure they'll love it.

>>3181296
he's as black as an abo you mong. jesus just stop defending this shit.

>>3181297
So in other words you can't and have resorted to burbling irrelevancies about modern Japan while charmingly calling me a "gormless mong".

File: 1452264934235.png (29KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 420x420px

>>3181103
um ever heard of black gaels honey?
check and mate x

>>3181336
>do you hate them for thinking of east asians when people say asian too?
Actually yeah I do. Although Brits at least have enough brains to include Indians and Pakis as Asians.

>>3181035
You what? He looks like Antony Joshua

>>3181289
Looks like Samir Nasri.

>>3181339
He's nowhere near as black as an Abo and I have multiple times said Nubian or possibly a dark Berber only for countless of you shitposters to strawman

>he doesn't look like a typical Berber hur hur
>dribbles all over self and spits on computer screen

>>3181352
>he doesn't look like a typical Berber hur hur
Because he doesn't, faggot. He looks like a nigger from Senegal.

>>3181347
What you mean a mixed race Brit? Thanks for your backing on this, anon.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point I take it?

File: WorldGenetics-Chart-1.jpg (93KB, 688x549px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 688x549px

>ITT liberals have no idea that Berbers aren't Moors, and neither Berbers or Moors were black but were in fact Caucasian
Moors as a group didn't exist until after the fall of the Roman Empire

>>3181336
Well they don't use arab actors to play chineses in movies.

>>3181345
>hating an entire nation for a short-hand phrase that isn't meant to be taken literally but instead to serve as a shorter and more convenient way to reference east-asians.

i suspect the real reason you hate americans isn't this, unless you really are this dumb. I'm guessing you actually hate americans because you're muslim or an arab sympathizer.

>>3181357
Try reading the post again, anon.

File: durr hurr DURRRRR.png (33KB, 917x287px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 917x287px

>>3181342
I can imagine you, you stupid fuck, sitting at your computer with spittle flying from your gaping maw, justifying eugenics with every keystroke, thinking how clever you are, and it makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

>>3181212
I believe the video depicts the black man as a Legate overseeing the construction of Hardian's Wall. I would suggest that we actually would know who the legate in question was and possibly where he was from. There would definitely be epigraphic or historical records of the man.

File: 1304376955947.png (457KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 600x450px

>>3181212
>, it can be diverse and overwhelmingly indigenous

>>3181383
You're wasting your time responding to that snide faggot lad he's just baiting you at this point.

>>3181381
Americans unironically flip out when they see an Arab labeled as "Asian". So it's not just a matter of convenience, they actually are that stupid.

>>3181383
If you engaged with what I said to you instead of constantly arguing with your own imagination and things I didn't say then you wouldn't get so mad and "sick to your stomach".

File: 1491378527262.jpg (69KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x1024px

>>3181212
>it can be diverse and overwhelmingly indigenous at the same time

>>3181370
then how did moors turn Italy black if they weren't black themselves

File: 1501524813018.jpg (218KB, 1103x841px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1103x841px

>>3181381
Not him but,
>understand that some phrases are not to be taken litteraly
>still take litteraly "i hate such people for doing such and such"

>>3181212
>niggers and Romans are indigenous to Britain

>>3181361
Joshua is 3/4 Nigerian and looks, surpruse surprise, Nigerian. His skin tone is not mixed race at all, he's just not totally coal black

>>3181395
they don't, and when referring to groups of people why would you intentionally use a less specific description i.e. asians instead of arabs unless it was shorthand for exactly what you meant? that just makes no sense.

also i find it ironic that people like you refer to americans as stupid when you literally live in shithole countries which are the physical embodiment of the collective intelligence of your country and ability to create a nice place to live.

>>3181417
How on Earth did you get this greentext from the post you just replied to?

>>3181411
Is this from this tarantino movie?

>>3181415
>not realizing that north africans unironically hate americans
>not realizing I was asking rhetorical questions etc.

he obviously doesn't hate americans for this, he's just an muslim/arab sympathizer and uses stupid shit like this to further justify his hate and perpetuate the 'stupid, evil american' meme in his head.

>>3181411
They wouldn't turn italy black, they would turn italy semitic because the Moors were a mix of Arab and Berber

>>3181326

>go from white

Who suggested he was write?

>>3181421
>they don't
Yes they do.

>>3181352
Yes he is and now you're doing all of these mental gymnastics to try and justify the bbc shoehorning an obvious sub saharan negroid into their kids show by maintaining that he could've been some mysterious tuareg berber from a non roman area or a black jew or arab.

>posts some nigger from mali or nigeria
>hurr durr see niggers was in britain whitey btfo

>>3181440
what do you want me to say? we've obviously had different experiences then.

ITT Anglos doing mental gymnastics to conceal the fact they pay taxes for their state TV to tell them their ancestors were niggers

>>3181448

>he thinks there's a TV tax

>>3180747
You're right, Rome, one of the largest empires in the entire world, would not have had a lot of movement of different ethnic groups within it's borders.

>>3181431
>americans think all muslims hate them
>being this brainwashed by your (((medias)))
Most maghrebis love american culture, and they don't think less of americans than any other non-muslim people.

File: typical american.png (153KB, 1810x650px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1810x650px

>>3181447

>>3181408
>Roman Britain
if you define Roman Britain in a historically contingent way, you have to acknowledge that all the Britons weren't given citizenship cards or something. there weren't firm borders drawn around the island of Britain. Roman Britain instead should be understood as the world system that Roman influence brought to Britain. thus, Roman Britain can be reasonably defined as the outposts and cities built by Romans to manage populations and extract tribute. not all 4 million indigenous Britons would have been integrated into this system to the same extent. a comparison in the modern world (though harder since we're globalized, have globally recognized borders and international law, etc.) might be the Syrian or Iraqi states - institutions whose borders in real politik terms are defined by day-to-day ability to exert influence on the region rather than broad borders.

in this sense, you need to look at population for ROMAN Britain, and you can assess diversity in ROMAN Britain much better through Roman epigraphy and skeletal remains from Roman Britain sites than you can from broad population measures of the entire island. also, if you took the time to research a contrasting view to your own, you'd see the critiques of, say, Taleb's beloved DNA data, mainly that if you were to take that DNA data at face value, it would disprove the invasions and occupations of Vikings and Normans in Britain, as well.

i think the real problem here is that you have someone like PJW and the vast majority of /pol/ invaders of /his/ (and tons of native /his/ people) who aren't fluent in the historical method or haven't mentally developed past thinking of history as a series of great men and battles. their resistance to (or lack of exposure to) the contemporary literature is largely based in weird arguments that give away that they think history has to be a hard science or else have no validity at all.

>>3181463
see
>>3181022

>>3181457
>it's called a license so it's not a tax, checkmate atheists

>>3181084
>post a source literally directly addressing the topic of this thread

>how is this relevant

Leftypol has completely lost the plot at this point lol. This is like their denier shit

>>3181489

Is a fishing licence also a fishing tax then?

>>3181494
The thread is about whether the video is accurate, half-wit.

>>3181468
i was simply responding in kind to your 'all americans are dumb' comments, generalizing is bound to piss people off because if you generalize large groups of people you are guaranteed to be wrong about at least 1 of them.

>>3181475
what's your point, arguing about the semantics of group naming is useless if you know who I'm talking about.

>>3181495
Yes

>>3181500
The thread is actually about Mary Beard's retardation.

>>3181495
Actually it is.

File: IMG_8944.jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

How do you do, fellow Romans?

File: american1.png (114KB, 1034x573px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1034x573px

>>3181501
My point is that the average American thinks you literally can't be Asian if you're not East Asian.

>>3181476

A lot of words that say nothing.

There is no need for proof , there were not sub-saharans living as citizens in Rome.

And there was ONE, fcuking ONE skeletal remain of an egyptian/north african woman found. Correlation does not equate causation, retard.

>>3181525
The Indians I know get mad when I call them Asian, and the Middle East is so much closer to North Africa in ethnicity that I consider it Africa in my head. I'm not ashamed of these things

Saying Roman Britain was ethnically diverse is like saying Korea is diverse because there's American troops stationed there.

>>3181495
are you retarded?

File: 1499977771290.png (114KB, 511x511px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 511x511px

>>3181501
>getting pissed off by a generalization about a group
>on 4chan

>>3181540
So you went from "it's not true" to "it's true but I'm not ashamed of it", nice.

>>3181553
No, I'm not the guy you were replying to, just another American weighing in

>>3181500
Which is what that image addresses, showing that it isn't, while you continue to bash your head against a wall pretending otherwise

File: americans.png (1MB, 989x1022px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 989x1022px

>>3181540
>I consider Middle East to be Africa

File: man_thinking visualize.jpg (219KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 800x600px

>>3181517
>>3181517

>Mary Beard says that Roman Britain was ethnically diverse
>Random anon says otherwise

Hmmmmmmm.......who should I trust on this one?

>>3181571
Probably whoever provides sources

>>3181571
The one with a penis.

At this rate mainstream media will just parrot Nation of Islam propaganda. Every nation everywhere were all sub-Saharan black people, white people are evil devils created by Yakub.

>>3181557
So you haven't watched the video then and yet you try and argue about it? Why?

File: 1442945385396.png (668KB, 979x802px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 979x802px

>>3181571
>trusting Beard with anything even remotely political

>>3181587
The West is dead.

>>3181587

It's only political if you're an obsessed stormnigger.

>>3181603
Well, that's just untrue

>>3181587
Does that picture imply completely replacing the host nation's population is the best way to go?

>>3181618
Only if they're boring, gray dots, obviously

>>3181525
>posts anecdote as evidence

I don't know what to tell you because you're intentionally being obtuse, the guy in the posts you're describing is obviously referring to the colloquial definition of 'asian' in america, which refers to east asian. the american in your post is too dumb or stubborn to realize that and is stubbornly sticking to his definition of asian, which is the colloquial american definition.

the brit in your picture is too busy jerking off over the fact that he's technically correct (thereby justifying his superiority complex over americans) to realize that the american is referring to the colloquial definition of asian in america. I'll give the brit the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't know the american he's talking to is referring to the colloquial american definition of asian and not the literal one since if he did that would mean he's intentionally not resolving the obvious misunderstanding in order to maintain the false veil of supremacy.

also cherrypicking a screenshot from twitter as an example of an average american makes for a very unconvincing argument, you could find any idiot on twitter from any country with ease, although if cherrypicking screenshots like this makes you feel better/superior by confirming the 'muh dumb american' meme in your head then by all means go ahead.

>>3181537
>there is no need for proof
okay, well then i guess we can't really argue if you don't believe in evidence
>correlation does not equal causation
i don't think you have any idea what that means, anon, since it doesn't relate to the rest of that sentence
>le one skeleton
absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, and there's plenty of present evidence from Roman epigraphy on the ethnic diversity of Roman legions.

there is literally no positive evidence for a monoracial (or almost monoracial) Roman Britain being presented in this thread, just goalpost moving to get us to focus on the majority population of an island that wasn't fully colonized but rather integrated into an economic system via outposts. to put this in hypothetical terms, "Roman Britain" (the Roman apparatuses in Britain and their citizens) probably constituted a very small percentage of the overall British population. thus, you have to instead of looking at 5% of the overall population being black, you need to see how many of that percentage were in the smaller slice of pie that was Roman Britain.

all of this completely evades the other, more obvious argument that phenotypes vary within ethnic populations and that Roman times didn't have the same racial associations as today. if a phenotypically dark skinned person was attempting to ascend in the Roman hierarchy, color would not have been an inhibiting factor because modern racial formulations on skin color emerged and developed from the 15th century onward

>>3180747

The sad part is that they could have made the Roman soldier almost any ethnicity other than sub-Saharan African and it would have been completely justifiable.

>>3181551
I'm just sick of the dumb american meme, it's inaccurate and annoying to see everywhere, just like you were sick of the all muslims hate america meme.

>>3181638
>there is literally no positive evidence for a monoracial (or almost monoracial) Roman Britain being presented in this thread
You fucking wanker
>>3181022

>>3181571
>using an appeal to authority with no actual sauce to back up your retarded claim

>>3181651

>a sentence in a book about the saxons

>>3181629
America received most of their Asian immigrants from China and Japan in the 1880s so while initially being a colloquialism, it later became a term only for East Asians. You're an American, so ask people around you to list Asian peoples. Then tell me how many of them listed Arabs.
It's the same with Africa as well:
>only Africans who live in America are black Africans
>over time, "African" becomes a synonym of "black"
>200 years later
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN EGYPT WASN'T BLACK? EGYPT IS IN AFRICA, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE MAP???

Why does the presence of a few black people in Roman Britain matter to anybody?

>>3181652

>sauce

>>3181664
As opposed to

>a fucking tweet

Really jogs the ol' noggin'.

>>3181670

Because they're obsessed stormniggers?

>>3181652
Britain's top classicist professor counts as a pretty damn good source when it comes to discussion of Roman Britain, anon. The citation is in OP.

>>3181670
Because it's a revisionist lie made to shill modern diversity. Rewriting of history for political reasons is Orwellian dog shit and so are you for defending it.

>>3181618
Yes. Don't you want to be a hip, warm colored dot, anon? What are you, some kind of boring, colorist grey dot? And don't you see, even in inclusion you still have some of these boring dots like you, there's nothing to worry about!

>>3181679

>a fucking tweet from an expert in the field

>>3181681
And yet, there's literally no evidence at all posted to defend that claim. In this whole thread.

>>3181651
again, refer to the literal two paragraphs i wrote about how we should define Roman Britain. if you would like to give me evidence about ROMAN Britain, please go ahead.

to flip this around, if someone made a movie about Casablanca during the early twentieth century, it would be pretty fucking cheeky to not include white people in it, wouldn't it? or to argue that Casablanca had almost no white people in it because the broader demography of Morocco is black, right?

>>3181684
>I get my history from tweets and believe YouTube cartoons that romans were black

Lol

>>3181681
Professor carries very little weight nowadays when we have people with that title literally advocating for white genocide.

>>3181681
I sure am glad academics are never wrong, and we can trust them implicitly even though absolutely no evidence to support their claim has been provided

>>3181684
>a tweet from is worth more than a book with citations which has to pass editor's approval

>>3181696

>I get my history from a Cambridge professor

You say this like it's a bad thing?

>>3181688
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21104/abstract

>>3181694
Sorry, you aren't actually stupid or malicious, you just misunderstood.

Roman Britain does not mean Romans IN Britain, but rather Britain under roman rule.

>>3181706
>still not one mention of sub-saharans
lol

>>3181684
>Beard
>an expert in the field

>>3181717

>Professor of Classics at Cambridge
>not an expert

Do you actually hear yourself?

>>3181698
>>3181699

Sure anons, professors are always wrong and Youtube conspiracy theorists are always right. I see where you are coming from now.

I'm not taking sides in this but the nonstop appeal to authority on this board is absurd especially considering humanities are not hard sciences.

>>3181665
you're just proving my point, no one would get mad if you said arabs were asian, they would just say you're autistic for saying that when you could have just said arab without causing potential confusion with the colloquial definition

>>3181714
There's a reconstruction in the article.

>>3181712
i understand exactly what Roman Britain means. my point that i articulated is that you can't think of Britain in the fucking first millennium AD as a unified nation (or even a few unified nations). the demography of "people on the island of Britain" is irrelevant. we need to be looking at the parts of Britain that actually WERE integrated into Roman rule, which is a much smaller slice of the pie. again, refer to my examples about Syria and Iraq. if you were showing life in modern revolutionary Kurdistan, you'd have a lot larger Kurdish population than the general demography of Syria would show.

again, this isn't a perfect correlation because in the modern world we have a much stronger concept of borders and sovereignty, where Roman rule was much patchier and less formally defined

What exactly is the argument here. I'm sure we can all generally accept that a few Romans Citizens of African descent settled in Roman Britain. It most likely happened at least once in the 400 years of Roman rule there.

>>3181732
How did I prove your point?

>>3181681
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
>Top tier professor says 2+2=5
>Well it's a top tier professor, xir can't be wrong!

>>3181730

>someone who has spent their entire life studying a subject

Vs

>a 20 something who played a video game vaguely about a subject

Yes, clearly they should both be treated equally. After all, it's not a science!

>>3181729
The assumption in an reasonable discussion is that everyone is wrong until they provide evidence otherwise. You can appeal to authority if you like, but it will never be convincing.

>>3181670
ask the people who insist on shoehorning niggers into everything and acting as if it were the norm.

>>3181729
There has never been a time in history where academia is as low as it is now. These are the same people who want to replace the founders of modern western thought in the curriculum with blacks because western history is too "white".

>>3181752
If Beard is so clearly right, you should be able to point to the evidence that she uses to form her opinions on this matter.

File: 1459627548301.jpg (55KB, 272x272px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 272x272px

>>3181706
God, that fucking study.

>11%
>of a sample of 43
>Four people (4)
>in a major town
>representative of the ethnic makeup of the whole occupied Britain
>not even subsaharan African
>the conclusion of the study is "lol heterogenous population"

>>3181752
Argumentum ad verecundium is a logical fallacy. All she said was there was ethnic diversity in Roman Britain, if she means blacks then she is wrong because Rome had almost no contact with actual Africans. Berbers were Caucasian

>>3181752
>expert who when asked for evidence links to a fucking blog

Real fucking (((expert))) you got there

>>3181752
I'm 30 something if you're referring to me. And yes, they're not hard sciences. You can read actual feminist propaganda/interpretation of history from the feminist perspective being published in what we consider serious historical journals. You wouldn't be able to do that in physics or chemistry, but in humanities it's all fair game.

File: africani.jpg (128KB, 642x580px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 642x580px

>>3181767
>actual Africans
Here we go again. North Africans are THE actual Africans.

>>3181772

>it's a blog so it's wrong

>>3181751

History is based on sources, this is not an abstract philosophical discussion.

>>3181789
Awesome, so what are her sources?

>>3181761

>this argument again

Her twitter account is right there. Why don't you ask her and tell us what evidence she presents?

File: 1446997004307.jpg (134KB, 639x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 639x720px

>>3181742
The problem it's these possible, hypothetical cases are used to teach kids that there has always been Blacks in Britain. It's misinformation, deformation of truth for inclusiveness, or possibly outright propaganda.

And they even have Black Celts, Black Normans for fuck's sake >>3181103

And historians, renowned historians even, are defending it for political reasons.

>>3181787
You could post anything to a fucking blog.

Why not link to a peer-reviewed journal?

>>3181789
>Sources
Except her sources are from a shit tier blog that claims that a Berber was a sub Saharan African ...

>>3180747

During the 20th century, Britain was almost completely white. So if there were so many black people in Roman Britain, then what happened to them? Did they just disappear or something?

>>3181787
No it's a shit tier study so it's wrong

>>3181800
Because professors rarely respond to nobodies on Twitter. You might as well ask why I don't get an official response from the Smithsonian on the issue

File: lel.jpg (60KB, 388x532px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 388x532px

>>3181762
You are tilting at strawmen. The video depicts a Roman officer with dark skin colour. You ranting on about Sub-Saharan Africans or the percentage of the general population of Britain is a complete irrelevance.

>>3181818

Except the video says it represents a "typical" couple.

>>3181818
Except the person in the video is clearly a sub Saharan African...

>>3181638
>absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence
bronze, iron and roman age british remains have been extensively studied so i don't know what you're expecting to find at this point.

>>3181818
It's not a strawman to suggest that the creators of the video intended to teach children that descendants of sub-saharans have always been a part of Britain

>>3181818
This is just getting ridiculous , you are fucking knee deep in a priori deductive logic that it's ceases to be funny. You seem to have a talk problem with egocentric thought

>>3181832
>extensively studied
do you realize that systematic data collection and interpretation of archaeological sites has only been going on for a little over a century? or that modern interpretive schema didn't find wide use until like 50 or 60 years ago? there is a FUCK TON more to discover and interpret my guy

but that's not even necessary for this argument at the moment, because you keep pretending epigraphy isn't evidence or just conveniently avoiding it

>>3181829

>clearly

I don't know how people can deny this is all for propaganda purposes. It's to teach children that "Britain has always been multiracial" and therefore blacks and Pakis are just as native and belonging to Britain as English people, inclusion dogma.
Now, you can disagree with me on whether multiculturalism/multiracialism is a good thing or not, but you can't argue that this is BBC's agenda. There objectively were *some* white people in China in the 1600s but if you made a series about the history of China and every scene would have a token white person in it, you could argue it's not a very accurate series.

>>3181829
Where does it say that?

>>3181828
Why would "typical" refer to skin colour unless you are obsessed with race? Not to mention the actual video itself doesn't say anything about "typical" just the Youtube description from whoever uploaded it.

It's a video about a Roman officer and his family, which you would know if you actually watched the video rather than arguing about tweets about something you have not even watched.

>>3181818
It's extremely obvious that BBC intended that to be a sub-Saharan African you retard just look at all the other slides. >>3181103
But you know that, you are just being willfully obtuse

>>3181851
Yes. This is a Berber north African. The person in the BBC video is a sub Saharan African

File: 5d1f6f52480222163e955aa50c6a7ce2.jpg (103KB, 582x800px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 582x800px

>>3181851
Forgot pic

>>3181871
>More cherrypicked bullshit
It's amazing how far you leftists nutjobs will go.

>>3181859
>say
Use your eyes

>>3181211

I fucking hate this place

File: movieposter.jpg (29KB, 279x402px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 279x402px

>>3181858

Token white guy eh?

>>3181849
no, i mean at this point we have a very good idea of what population structure was during that era and beyond. you're not going to find some hidden cache of niggers that proves the celts were half black, or that every foreigner in roman britain was some sub saharan bantu.

>>3181873
>Cherrpicking
No, this is what the Berbers looked like before they were largely conquered by Arabs and became Moors.

>>3181881
I don't think even /his/ would defend The Great Wall as historically accurate

>>3181858
Even if you are for multiculturalism you shouldn't be okay with this obvious revision of history for political ideology. But I guess we've completely thrown away any principles as a society. Literally anything and everything is political now.

>>3181881
Never even heard of that movie.

>>3181883
that population structure is scientifically based on DNA studies of modern Britons that, again, would contribute to the conclusion that the Vikings and Normans never invaded

>>3181881
Yep.

But I don't see /his/trionic faggots defending it

>>3181881
That's a fantasy film with dragons and magic in it and created specifically to attract white audiences. It's not supposed to be historically accurate.

>>3181152
mary utterly btfo

feels good man

File: ovmqjowtxxdx.png (614KB, 735x1021px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 735x1021px

>>3181818
Oh, come the fuck on. This other anon said this was proof there were Blacks in Britain, possibly implying that this was all the proof needed for Beard to make this claim of diversity. It's a meh study, with a terrible conclusion, that has been picked up for political reasons by medias and academics alike.

The conclusion of this study should have been: "Eh, that's the remains of some North Africans in York at the time, neat. What do you think, guys, merchants, soldiers?", not "There were totally like 13% of Africans in Britain at the time"

>>3181638

I cannot beleive I share this board with retards on the level of brain damage you have.

There is no need for evidence, because there weren't any nubian Roman citizens.

Second, it is you who is moving the goal post,no here is arguing whether the roman army was ethnically diverse i.e. this >>3180752
, (of course minus the Jews), what is being argued is that the BBC is posting literal propaganda and Mary Beards retardation in justifying it. Even if the pie was smaller and the integrated areas were 50 people living in hamlet in chiswick, there is still no proof for sub-saharans living there. Of course retards like you like to point out that hypothetically everything is possible, but the burden of evidence lies in YOUR court, not in the ones who has already established an already accepted fact, namely that Roman Britain was 99% homogeneous. The sheer retardation of trying to prove otherwise is in 1000 years future time, finding a American skeleton in Korea or Japan and saying they were multicultural and ethnically diverse societies.

>>3181887
Even if you are for multiculturalism and even if you think BBC should push out multiculturalist ideological propaganda, you should at least admit that it's based on propaganda and not on historical accuracy.

>>3181476
Why did you have to write this ling paragraph when you could've just said
>>>/pol/
My God leftists are such rambling morons, in this entire comment you don't say shit about sub Saharan Africans being overwhelmingly present in Great Britain

>>3181858
BBC's bullshit is completely separate from Beard pointing out Watson's bullshit that there was no ethnic diversity in Roman Britain whatsoever.

File: smug.png (223KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 400x396px

>>3181152
/ourguy/

>>3181873
Why would it matter if it is cherry picked? All that needs to be shown is that it is reasonable that the character depicted in the video is that skin colour.

>>3181891
>would contribute to the conclusion that the Vikings and Normans never invaded
Except it would? Holy shit the sheer level or stupidity expressed in one anon

File: 1501090949641.png (183KB, 1225x850px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1225x850px

>>3181871
>implying saharan berbers have not a heavy subsaharan admixture racemixing with black grills for hundreds of years
>implying there were part of the roman empire
>implying you didn't already got btfo when you first used the argument
Is it hard to be autist AND to have a low iq?

>>3181221
One thing I do love about MENA is they absolutely hate western liberal faggots portraying them as niggers and proceed to BTFO them.

>>3181925
What is this alphabet called?
It's amazing, like alien runes.

>>3181902
>There were totally like 13% of Africans in Britain at the time"

But this is you tilting at strawmen again, neither I, nor Beard, nor anyone else made any sort of similar claim to that. You are just randomly attacking claims you made up in your own imagination.

>>3181912
Don't really care for Beard, she didn't really provide any argument or proof. I was talking mostly about BBC.

File: roman-empire.gif (45KB, 480x319px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x319px

>>3181925
implying saharan berbers have not a heavy subsaharan admixture racemixing with black grills for hundreds of years
Except at the time of the Roman they didnt...
>implying there were part of the roman empire
Pic related

An hero

>>3181891
no we have plenty of samples all going back to the mesolithic and there is no evidence the celts or romans were predominantly black like this show seems to be suggesting.

>would contribute to the conclusion that the Vikings and Normans never invaded
no it wouldn't since Scandinavian admixture is still found in the north as are nordic influenced placenames and norman is found in the south. invaders of the isles have left a relatively small genetic imprint on the indigenous population, even the english outside of areas like east anglia have retained most of their pre roman, pre anglo saxon ancestry.

File: 220px-Juba_denarius_in_support_of_Pompey_against_Cesar_60_46_BCE.jpg (18KB, 220x215px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x215px

>>3181884
Yes, that's why egyptians represented berbers as caucasians, that's why romans did the same, that's why arabs did the same, that's why spaniards did the same.

What's your next move retard, some painting from the 19th century of a black slave trader with a white slave in the desert?

>>3181725
Classic what?

File: kabyle.jpg (134KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 640x426px

>>3181946
He was talking about Saharan Berbers not north African berbers. Saharan berbers are basically racemixed and yes they were never part of the Roman empire. The "berber" you posted here: >>3181871 obviously has nigger blood in him and isn't representative of an actual berber who looks like pic related.

>>3181954
I assume you're replying to the wrong person, I've been saying that they are Caucasian , and the picture I gave you was of a non mixed Berber

>>3181891
But this is proof that the Norman and Norse invasions had little impact on the genetic makeup of the population later, implying that there were few in numbers/that they immediately intermarried with locals.

However, we do have scientific, physical proof of both invasions. Archeological proof, remains, tombs. There is little proof of even presence at any time of North Africans/Arabs, and zero proof of large scale "diverse" population.

>>3181958

Classics you silly twit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics

>>3181963
>Saharan berbers are basically racemixed
A Berber is a Berber, there is no race mixed Berber. Again, Berbers didn't become so mixed until after the fall of the Roman empire.

File: 1500471645246.jpg (284KB, 1538x1040px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1538x1040px

>>3181958

>>3181742
It's also possible that some Vikings settled in the Americas but if you made a film where Dolph Lundgren plays Chief Powhatan I would call you a fucking retard.

>>3181934
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tifinagh

>>3181963
>obviously has nigger blood in him
No

>>3181980
>there is no race mixed Berber
>but Berbers became mixed after Rome

>>3181987
Yes. Real berbers are not shitskins.

>>3181915
north africans are getting tired of western yuppies telling them they're black so that their worldview of a forever "diverse" europe can be sold. Probably because "diverse" has grown to become an open-ended buzzword without much meaning anymore. Diverse yes but in what way? That's the part which is never defined.

>>3181935

The BBC very clearly made such a claim and Beard is defending rather than providing nuance to the claim.

File: 1500073226215.jpg (34KB, 489x488px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 489x488px

>>3181966
>tuareg
>non-mixed
Good one fag.

>>3181998
No they didn't. You are attacking your own fantasies.

>>3181991
And became Moors...like I said already

File: Sans titre.png (4MB, 1879x902px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1879x902px

>>3181851
>>3181871
Here's a bunch of pictures of Berbers. You have clearly ikelan/bellah Tuaregs in the lot, but can you honestly say to me that any of these people are as dark as that "roman officer".

And if you seriously think that man you posted is as dark, then I have bad news regarding your eyesight.

>film about 1500s Japan
>30% of the actors are European
>people complain
>ACKSHUALLY WE HAVE RECORDS THAT RODRIGO DA SILVA THE PORTUGUESE TRADER SETTLED IN JAPAN IN 1499 SO JAPAN WAS ALWAYS RACIALLY DIVERSE
99% of the people condoning this BBC fuckery would be appalled by something like this.

>>3182010
You are talking out of you ass, you don't know the subject, you don't even know the sens of the world you are using.
You are too stupid for this site, which is saying something.
try twitter

>>3182012
Except the definition of a Berber has become akin to the definition of "white" in the US where people who are obviously non Caucasian and have a disproportianate amount of amerindian are "white"

>>3181151
>African legionaries
>existing
[citation needed]

>>3182053
No I do, it's clear you dont however and think too highly of yourself as it seems you've run out of arguments and are about to switch into ad hominem

>>3182009

You are denying reality

>>3182064
You do not anwser to any argument you fucking faggot, and you don't give argument yourself.

You just claim bullshit with no source whatsoever and of course you don't have source because you just invent stuffs.

>>3182084
>Moors aren't arabized Berbers
Wew lad at least Google it and get a TLDR
>Moor
>a member of a northwestern African Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent. In the 8th century they conquered the Iberian peninsula, but were finally driven out of their last stronghold in Granada at the end of the 15th century.

>>3182081
You are making up bullshit. They made a video depicting a Roman officer with dark skin. How the fuck you are extrapolating that to "hurrr they claimed 13% of Roman Britain was African" and then cheekily accusing me of "denying reality" I do not know.

Maybe you could explain yourself.

>>3182108
Not him, but the way the BBC wants children to learn about Roman Britain was that half of the population was black just by watching the video m8. There are people stupid enough to think that and the BBC knows it

>>3180936
I’d choose the memelords any day.

>>3180747
Well, she didn't exactly say that there were niggers in Britain. She just said that Britain was diverse as in there were likely Romans from several European backgrounds occupying it.

>>3182137
Then why aren't half the people in the video or the others in the series black?

>>3182160
But they are. Have you not seen the videos m8? All of Britain has been like London since the beginning , obviously!

>>33182105
Listen you little shit.

Berbers didn't "became" moors as you said you fucking retard, moor is just how west europeans called muslims from the maghreb.
They didn't called themselves moors, they called themselves arabs or berbers.
And the very article you cite btfo your position, you illiterate moron
>Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people,[3] and mainstream scholars observed in 1911 that "The term 'Moors' has no real ethnological value."[4] Medieval and early modern Europeans variously applied the name to Arabs, North African Berbers, and Muslim Europeans.[5]

Then, on the racemixing
Yes maghrebis have arab admixture, how the fuck does that mean that they looked like black saharan berbers before that?
You fuckin imbecile.

>>3182108
I think you're talking to different people, but anyway:

>BBC made a youtube series destined to kids depicting Blacks in all eras of British History.

Why? What is the point? It's simply not factual. From then on, we can only speculate. Cui bono? Who would benefit from children believing that the immigrants in their country have always been an integral part of it? Possibly, and considering the recent history of British media, people who are pro-immigration, pro-diversity.

>people opposed to this are upset that children are taught such falsehood for political reasons
>people on the opposite side of the political spectrum support this, claiming that these videos are accurate and that only racists are upset by them
>a prominent left-wing historian backs them up on this, in vague terms
>people are upset by this, as she has no real evidence and is using her position of authority for political gains
>in this thread, anons uses a bad study as proof for the claim that she made
>this study claims that British society was heterogeneous, but bases this conclusion on a small sample, and uses percentages to hide the tiny number of possibly foreign skeletons in one location

>>3181970
They need to hire someone else then.

>>3182199
I'm sure you are a great expert on the Classics to make that sort of judgement. Assuming you are the same anon you didn't even know what the Classics were.

>>3182179
The vast majority of people in the series are white, it is actually quite racist.