>ruins her reputation as an historian just to defend some

>>3304745

In whose eyes? /pol/? Who cares what they think?

>>3304745
t. Nassim Nicholas Taleb

>>3304757
>In whose eyes?

anyone whos not a leftypol shill

>>3304761

Give me names. Tell me the historians who have signed letters disowning her. Where are the articles published criticising her as a historian?

Neckbeards on /pol/ don't count.

Are you guys talking about those Roman cartoons Brits are forced to watch with black legionnaires and picts and Arabic picts and shit?

>>3304766

>getting this mad because beard got BTFO by fucking paul joseph watson on the one subject she spent years studying

lol

File: 1501264450545.png (2MB, 800x3857px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x3857px

>>3304776

yes.

Historians have no reputation, they're the biggest ideologues possible.

>>3304745
still harping on this weeks later lol

>>3304785

>retarded revisionist cartoon comes out
>Paul joseph watson of all people calls out the historical inaccuracies, mary beard flips out and actually defends the cartoon as accurate
>gets proven wrong
>cries about misogyny on twitter
>"YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO MOCK SHITTY HISTORIANS IF THEY SHILL MUH IDEOLOGY!"

>>3304778
>BTFO by fucking paul joseph watson

Who? Literally, who? Is this person a respected historian? Why should anyone care what this non-entity with ZERO published articles has to think?

>>3304745
She's seen as a hero for punching nazis through the internet and destroying their fantasy of an racially pure past

>>3304790
>Who? Literally, who?

Thats the point, this nobody completely #rekt Beard and you have NO actual argument other than "muh appeal to authority!" as if Beard is even a respected historian in the first place instead of the basic bitch europoor socialist hack she is.

>>3304790
>>3304778
>>3304798

The only "Paul Joseph Watson" I can find online is a blogger who writes for infowars. Is this SERIOUSLY, the person you claim "btfo" of a respected historian? Wow, even for a polturd you're a pathetic dope.

>>3304799

yes you fucking retard, thats the point. She lost to a guy from infowars, thats how retarded she is. Again, notice how you have no actual argument other than this tumblr tier "I cant even" shit

>>3304798
Except he was wrong and didn't rekt anything.

>>3304800

HAHAHA you really DID mean this literal idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

>>3304745

>its a "Mary Beard says america deserved 9/11 a week after it happens, yet continues to cry about internet trolls saying mean things to her on twitter every time she goes on tv to shill some retarded leftist political propaganda" episode

So wait, were the historical inaccuracies she was defending the multiracial medieval world? Or were there more grievous inaccuracies like Nero being an evil cunt

>>3304804
>Except he was wrong

how so?

>>3304800
I was just thinking that. I cant abide creepy right yt cekebs, but the distinct lack of 'look at all these black ancient britons' type comments kinda tells me they ve jumped off the deep end.

File: 3104217913_7f66978bd4.jpg (277KB, 492x500px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 492x500px

>>3304745

>Painting title
>A baker and his wife

B-but I thought that the Roman Empire was a racially pure white ethnostate?

>>3304820
>empire

t. poltard

>>3304820
They still just look like mediteraneans to me.

>>3304809

Her "sin" was in saying that, in fact, Roman Britain DID have diversity. You know, from all the non-Britons the Romans brought to the islands. But thankfully, /pol/ tells me some literal assclown conspiracy retard "btfo" of her by claiming that, in fact, her years of experience on the subject didn't match his fee-fees, and that he felt in his soul that there were NO non-Britons in Britain before 1987.

>>3304820

>Roman Britain
>an average family
>implying that guy is black

seriously, why are leftist shilling WEWUZIAN shit?

>>3304828

The video was about an average family in roman britain and had a black dude. This is not even close to what the average roman britain family would look like. Stop pretending to be retarded because we wuz not britain or romans anon.

again, notice how you have no actual argument and are just getting overly emotional?

>>3304790
>redditors care more about social appearance than thought
Typical herd mentality tools.
>>3304798
SHES RESPECTED THAT MEANS SHES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALWAYS RIGHT UNLESS SOMEBODY WITH MORE SOCIAL AUTHORITY SAYS OTHERWISE

>>3304836
>average family in roman britain

No, it wasn't. Wait was that your whole argument? Wow, you're a real moron.

>>3304828
>years of experience
Nobody cares about your appeal to authority

>>3304854
>>redditors care more about social appearance than thought

Yes because when I think "thought", my first impression is of a literal moron who writes for a literal conspiracy theory website. Clearly, the views of this dope should be taken at face value and the words of an actual academic should be dismissed.

>>3304855
>No, it wasn't.

yes it was. The video that all of this is about was about an average family in roman britain.

you really have no place to call anyone else a moron when you have done nothing but post "ugh, I cant even!" and are so stupid yourself, you dont even know what you are getting this angry defending. Seriously, why are you getting this mad because we wuzian history is wrong anon?

>>3304858
>HURR who cares that shes spent literally decades studying this shit? What a nerd lmao!
>DURR look, this halfwitted simpleton conspiracy retard disagrees with her! Wow, he has, like, ZERO knowledge of the subject, clearly we should take his views over hers because LOL APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and EWWW SMELLY VAGINA amirite gius???

>>3304860

Why do you keep shitposting instead of explaing what exactly Paul got factually wrong anon? Why do you keep avoiding this question and instead just keep throwing out the ad homs?

>>3304861

Show me where it describes them as an average family you cretinous faggot.

>>3304860
>HE DOESNT WRITE ON A WEBSITE THAT I APPROVE OF SO EEEEEVERYTHING HE SAYS IS WRONG
>actual academic
As if that has ever had any merit. Academics are fucking idiots. You're demanding that when a 'nobody' challenges an academic, that the academic's word be taken as 'fact', that is, at face value, without actually dealing with the argument at hand.

You're a fucking tool.

>>3304863

cool strawman, but this isnt an argument. Are you Mary Beard?

>>3304780
>Roman Britons

Farfetched but not completely impossible because of how many different races and peoples were under Roman rule.

>Celts

Yeah no. The best I could imagine is a swathy med since they settled as far as anatolia,

>English Noblemen

English? Sure, again farfetched, but not impossible. Nobleman? No way.

>Iron age blacksmiths

The most believable of the bunch, virtually all developed civilizations used iron.

>Norman priests

Lolwut.

>>3304865

Paul got NOTHING right, his lack of knowledge on the subject is absolute. But he believes in chemtrails and reptilian aliens secretly running the world, so clearly he's a smart, evidence-led guy who should just be given the benefit of the doubt at all times, no matter what he says.

>>3304867

in the description for the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtPZhDH4QU8

why do you keep avoiding my question of point out exactly what Paul got wrong anon? Why are you just getting mad over nothing and shitposting?

>>3304863
Strawman.
Is this what you INTELLIGENT AND LOGICAL academics call 'rigour'?
People can spend years studying and be wrong. Somebody can guess and be right. I doubt you believe in astrology despite that being a field that survived for millennia.

>>3304876
>Paul got NOTHING right

like what? What specifically did he get wrong anon? Try taking a few deep breaths before responding. Also, please form an actual argument instead of just shitposting.

>>3304876
>evidence
Doesn't exist, suckoff.

>>3304868
>HURR his moronic opinion is every bit as valid as all the academic research ever done in the field!
>DURR I hate those evildumb academics, this actual idiot who writes for infowars is obviously much better informed than those evildumb academics!

Wow you're so smart, you must eat lead EVERY DAY!

>>3304887
>academic research is right because i sed so
Stop strawmanning, undergrad.

>>3304868
Not him, but an academic's word is much more valuable at face value than a journalist's, the academic has universities that can vouch for their education and competence on the subject.

Just saying that you stating that academics are idiots is silly.

>>3304877

Holy shit you're dumb. Yes, I'm sure your moron made this claim, I was asking where the BBC made this claim. Or, you know, don't bother, because it's painfully obvious what a moron you are. Look, it says you're a moron right here in my post! That proves it, right?

>>3304888
>academic research is wrong because a moron on the internet says so!

Good goy. How about you buy some water filters?

>>3304893
>I was asking where the BBC made this claim.

its literally in the first 10 seconds of the video. Its hilarious that you are getting THIS mad over something you clearly know nothing about. Also, please stop shitposting

>>3304892
Why?
>universities are correct becuz i sed so
Consensus isn't always, or even ever, correct or relevant or accurate, you idiot democrat.

File: 1290804900810.jpg (22KB, 407x428px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 407x428px

>>3304877

>how are you going to own me when you cant accept the fact their your hairline has receded back to roman times

File: wewuzsmiths.png (322KB, 845x637px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 845x637px

Today I will remind them

>>3304776
>Brits are forced to watch
It's on an obscure corner of the internet, fuck off.

>>3304902
I never said that universities are the truth of the world, but universities have access to historical texts you can't just get at your local library, and academics devote their work to furthering their knowledge on these subjects. For fucks sake, she's a professor of Classics and Ancient Literature, the second half life went entirely to studying, why wouldn't her word be taken more seriously than some literal who who's job is to write for a political news outlet?


also

>idiot democrat

ad hominem, the go to defense mechanism of the /pol/ack when losing an argument. Im not even a democrat.

>>3304902
>dopey conspiracy theorists are right because i sed so

This is literally your argument you retard.

>>3304931
>why wouldn't her word be taken more seriously than some literal who who's job is to write for a political news outlet?

because you have NO argument other than this. Who gives a shit about anything other than the argument itself?

>>3304931
>historical texts
Not reliable.
>s-s-s-s-she spent her ENTIRE life on it! It MUST be true!

I'm not from /pol/, that is the actual adhom you fucking tool. I call you a democrat because you believe in democratic principles, including that of consensus.
>>3304934
I never said he was right. Consider reading a post before posting.
>>3304935
Academicbabblers like him do, because they care about social image, not actual merit.
People like them are why slapping a made-up, ridiculous quote on an image of Confucius gives that quote merit.

>>3304948
>facts don't count, what about my fee-fees?
>idiots who write for a literal conspiracy theory website are more reliable sources about the past than evildumb academics who actually study the past!
>why are you so close-minded bro? Academics are wrong literally all the time, but who ever heard of a moron blogger who writes for infowars being wrong?

>>3304935
I'm not saying she's right. In fact I disagree with her, her claims grasp at straws, what I am saying is that it isn't completely retarded to take her word for things, shes probably read more about history than most of /his/, and has more credibility than whatshisface

>>3304950
Facts don't exist.
You're the one obsessed with social image.
Can't you read? I never claimed the poltard was correct.
>study the past
There is no past to study.

>>3304953
>omg she dedicated her WHOLE life! she MUST be right!
History is a garbage field for STEM rejects. As if that bullshit factory could reject bullshitters.

so uhh, who is this lady and how did she rile you all up?

>>3304948
>not reliable

then according to you, nothing is reliable, and this conversation is pointless.

>It MUST be true!

I never said that, read my posts, I'm saying she's more credible than Paul Joseph.

>>3304966
>STEMspergs think a conclusion must be obtainable for there to be conversation
Cancer, once again.
Why is she more credible? How is credibility relevant? It's glorified social image.

>>3304959
>History is a garbage field for STEM rejects.
lol why are you so upset - did you get bullied in your undergrad studies

>>3304780
BBC did the same thing with this documentary.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4rhLlzmUTkc

>>3304950
You keep bringing up facts, yet you're such a coward that you won't even attempt to disprove PJW, instead using your fee fees to get yourself all butthurt over something you clearly know dick about

>>3304972
Once again, an appeal to social image.

>>3304971
Shes more credible because she has degrees from academic institutions that account to her credibility. The credibility is relevant because of the subject matter.

>It's glorified social image

SO i'm guessing you've never had to write a thesis for a masters. Becoming a professor in any field is taxing work, it takes intelligence and vast knowledge on the subject.

Another quality thread guys, good job.

>>3304985
>its hard work
Not an argument, still.
Yes, astrology was also very hard work. Still, I doubt you believe that before it became no more than vague statements.
Academic institutions are also a joke.
Again, all you care about is social image.

>>3304977

Why would I need to "disprove" this moron? What has he published? Blogs on a conspiracy website? Sounds like he's done a fine job debunking himself.

>>3304985
HOW

IS


PAUL

JOSEPH

WATSON

WRONG

>>3305003

Thanks for admitting you're a retard with no argument anon. Also, thanks for shitposting the thread into oblivion because you're butthurt over something you don't even know

>>3304978
the thing he's replying to is also an appeal to social image

>>3304745
>"However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think." Her argument was far from a vicious gloat, she has claimed, and she merely wanted to point out that bullies "even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price".
I hope a refugee gives her what she has coming.

>>3304745
I thought it was retarded of her to do but she is just a pop historian

But legitimately keep /pol/-threads in /pol/

>>3305027
Is this about 9/11?

>/his/ on countries they don't belong to
LOL GERMANY HAD IT COMING DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS RAPE THEM AGAIN RAPER GYORGY
>/his/ on countries they belong to
HOW DARE THAT FUCKING SLUT SAY WE DESERVE IT SHE MUST FUCK MUSLIMS OR SOMETHING OR BE A FUCKING SHILL TO THE JEW MEDIA

>>3305055
That's because Britain gave the world the Industrial Revolution and the Westminster parliamentary system, and Germany gave the world communism and two world wars.

>>3305078
Not an argument, burgerfat.
Industrialism and parliament are infinitely worse than communism and war.

>>3305038
Yes

>>3305080
Then go move to North Korea you square-headed vermin.

>>3305080

>Industrialism and parliament are infinitely worse than communism and war.

If not trolling, please consider suicide.

>>3304854
Jesus fuck contain your autism /pol/

>>3305088
Not an argument.
>>3305092
>anything i dont like is le fish meme

>>3305139
le pol boogieman

File: NUH UH NUH UH NUH UH.png (264KB, 580x300px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 580x300px

Huh. Learned something today. I too thought that Roman Briton was almost entirely if not entirely white, but turns out that wasn't true. After seeing this thread I thought "weird. I wonder what historical precident there is to corroborate this" so I used the internet to find scholarly articles unrelated to this lady or the schools shes affiliated with, and found studies that went into great detail about Roman skulls found in graves all over the UK, and how African or Arab people represented a significant minority of the Roman population there. Nuts!

See, that's what sane people do. When confronted with information that contradicts what they believe, they look for evidence that corroborates or discredits this information and are free to change their opinion should new information oblige them to do so. Pic related is about half of this thread

>>3305200
And since I'm sure I will be asked, here's one such source

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21104/full

>>3305186
shadilay fellow kekistani

>>3305200
Thanks for making a kindly, measured post here. About what % of the population appears to be of African or Arab origin, from what you've found?

>>3305200
>how African or Arab people represented a significant minority of the Roman population there
>significant minority
What did you mean by this?

>>3305224
>The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent.

>>3305207

>Previous anthropological investigations at Trentholme Drive, in Roman York identified an unusual amount of cranial variation amongst the inhabitants, with some individuals suggested as having originated from the Middle East or North Africa.

in other words, not black people

> The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent.

so 90% of the population was European, with about 10% being some middle easterners.

in other words, the cartoon was bullshit and PJW was right. This is literally what he argued.

>>3305200
guys there's a 14th century grave of an Italian woman in western China

this surely means that there were hundreds of Swedish and Irish commanders in the Chinese army deployed in Xinjiang

>>3305243
Isn't that only from a sampling of 43 people in a small area though?

>>3305200
Evidence doesn't exist.

>>3305265
It is. But the article talks about the rather small sample size as being indicative if not definitive of the norm in the area, because there was no evidence to suggest it was especially segregated or special.in other words, "it isn't perfect but it's the best we're likely to get"

>>3304876
He literally posted sources.

The demented wingbat didn't.

Kys cucky

>>3304745
I think some anon explained this well before.

Basically on one side you have the people being legitimately concerned by the overabundance of Blacks in Roman Britain, this is then taken up by /pol/tard racists who go to extremes, which is then transferred back to the left as racists trying to rewrite history. Historians such as herself then get involved, but all they see is some racist moron claiming that the Roman Empire was some Nordic haven, so they rightly react by claiming that the Roman Empire, as it was, was a multicultural empire.

Retards like OP then react further and claim she's proclaiming the Roman Empire was some WEWUZKANGS situation

>>3305233
What do the words significant and minority mean individually or what do they mean when you put them together? I don't understand your question

>>3305207
>>3305200
>sample size of 43
>some individuals suggested as having originated from the Middle East or North Africa
>diz means dey wuz blacks

Cranking out that white noise

>>3305307
Yes you are correct. It's amusing, albeit sad. I hate revisionism in all shapes and sizes.

>>3304780
All of these wrong, everyone knows we was kangs.

I enjoy seeing the British fight themselves :)

Why are people defending her exactly?
You really don't have to oppose /pol/ when they're correct, in this instance they deserve a pat on the head.

>>3304807

did she indeed state that the united states was deserving of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

if it is so then she's not sound of mind

>>3305200
10% is not really "typical" and that's a limited study.
Where are the genetic markers?

>>3304931
>Classics and Ancient Literature

What the fuck? She has as much authority as Paul Watson on the subject: Zero. Being a /lit/fag with an ideology to push is not the same as a historian of Rome or Britain. Sure she's probably a historian, but not of Roman Fucking Britain. Its like asking a Doctor of Philosophy to perform surgery because hes a "Doctor".

Shes a fucking hack.

>>3304931
Nasem Talab blew her out.

>>3304820
Is he fucking stabbing himself on the chin?

>>3305027
But she was right anon.

>>3304854
what the fuck do you think this thread is about
the OP literally says
>ruins her reputation as an historian just to defend some shitty cartoon
and the entire comment chain was arguing "no she didn't ruin her reputation because nobody called her out except some literal who"
so when the whole fucking thread is specifically about "social appearance" you can't fucking say "hurrrr u answered OPs question, typical tool durrrrrrr"
you really need to fucking kill yourself

>>3304807
But the US really did deserve 9/11

>>3304858
There is absolutely nothing wrong with appeal to authority

>>3304820
They look like wops.

>>3304820
>mfw the typical woman and slave knew how to read in the roman empire
Whoa nibba.

It doesn't matter. You are getting replaced already and you can't do anything to stop it.

File: images[1].jpg (5KB, 237x213px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 237x213px

>>3305186
Never occurred to you that it's just a invective? Something you call someone to insult them? If you actually visit /pol/ or not doesn't matter if you're accting like a /pol/tard.

>>3304858
That's not how Appeal to Authority works you retard.

>>3304745
'Me and my friends dislike you, your career is in ruins.'

That's literally believing that your sheer level of butthurt will alter reality. Right now, at this moment, she's a professor of classics at Cambridge who's book on ancient rome is the standard layman's introductory text for the contemporary western world.

You can't wish a woman away because she challenged unqualified YouTubers you like. That's retard thinking.

>still professor of classics at Cambridge
>still travelling the world giving talks
>ruined her reputation

Hmmm, looks like the only people who gives shit about twitter arguments are autistic retards.

>>3306148
You made me read what you said in poohs voice lol

File: cadian.jpg (110KB, 474x492px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 474x492px

>>3304902
>Consensus isn't always, or even ever, correct or relevant or accurate, you idiot democrat.

>Concensus might not ever be correct.

What? What the fuck? You think it might be the case that the concensus is not ever correct? What happens if most people agree on something true? Does the universe re-write itself? How do you even type that? Is this what it's coming to? Concensus might not even ever be correct? Who are you? How do you live being able to have that thought and let it through the filter? Are you a fish? Are you a man who thinks as a fish? Have you lost your shoal because you're a retarded fish? Jesus.

>>3306342
Just because the consensus says we have always been at war with eurasia does not make it true

>>3304800
How can she "lose" to someone without any credibility?

Perhaps it wasn't she who lost, but you? You got tricked by a no-named conspiracy theorist.

>>3305233
By African you mean North African which is well /not be pol here? white or brown or Subsaharan which is black?

>>3306417
The Roman Empire didn't actually happen. It was all just marketing for Russel Crowe's 'Gladiator' that got out of hand.

>>3306441
>still no arguments other than appeal to authority

Kek you libbies are pathetic

>>3304745
Anglo historians don't deserve to have good reputation.

File: African According to Nordtrash.jpg (125KB, 610x880px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 610x880px

>>3304745
P U R E I D E O L O G Y

>>3304898
Not that guy but he meant where in the BBC video did they mention the average part

File: State of Western Culture.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

It's fucking clear as day what BBC was intending with that cartoon that featured black sub-saharan celts. All you retards defending this shit because muh contrarianism, muh /pol/ need to stop being retarded just because /pol/ happens to have the same opinion.

Pic related, this is the kind of shit BBC is pushing out these days. You don't have to be a /pol/ack to find what they're trying to push disturbing and trying to rewrite history.

File: 1502272805698.png (400KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1920x1080px

>>3304807
>Beard's most controversial comments to date followed the 9/11 attacks when she wrote in the London Review of Books: "However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think." Her argument was far from a vicious gloat, she has claimed, and she merely wanted to point out that bullies "even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price". But Beard was vilified for her sentiments.

agree tbH

>>3304807
>meddle with Middle East for decades
>upset that one splinter group they used to support snapped back

In spain, we study religion in the schools, sometimes jesus was showed as a blonde anglo with blue eyes, sometimes he was darkhaired with blue eyes, sometimes he was dark haired, dark eyed, but never, never had brown or darkened skin.

I didnt realise that until I was ten or so, maybe even later..... I belive the bbc is doing this to try make the refugees and black more close to us, so they can feel more confortable in the young age around us. With time they may realise that a black in 4th century bc is batshit crazy

>>3306597
Jews did 9/11

File: ISIS TOW.jpg (107KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1366x768px

>>3306588

She's right you know.

File: 1498633166593.png (20KB, 282x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 282x326px

>>3306588
How is this controversial
The individuals did not deserve it sure, but the country itself sure did.

File: 1492547929484.jpg (98KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 692x960px

>>3306602
Estas fumado?
Las unicas imagenes que eh visto de Jesus en Catalunya son con el siendo moreno de cabello, ojos y olivaceo de piel, o incluso negro en Montserrat. Que clase de mierda es lo segundo que posteas? Mentir sobre la propia historia para hacer sentir bien a una parte infinitisimal de una poblacion nueva tiene que ser el colmo de la estupidez, no soluciona nada y causa un cacao mental en los niños, que cada vez tienen un nivel educativo peor, esten menos preparados para pensar de forma logica e independiente al estar confundidos cada dos por tres y perder interes.

>>3305183
You never presented an argument in the first place

>>3305303
Let's see an excerpt of her blog post, shall we?

> Several people objected to this criticism before me, notable Mike Stuchbery, who pointed out on Twitter quite a lot of the evidence for ethnic and cultural diversity in the province. I came in quite late to say that the video was ‘pretty accurate’. I think, for example, that the BBC character was loosely based (with a bit of a chronological shift) on Quintus Lollius Urbicus, a man from what is now Algeria, who became governor of Britain; you can still visit his grand tomb at Tiddis. If you want some more information on that accuracy, then try the blog of Neville Morley or of Matthew Nicholls; thanks to both for the support — and to the many others who have spoken up. I am really grateful.

How much more proof do you want if agreement from other Roman historians and an actual fucking tomb isn't good enough for you? And now that I've shared my own sources, could you please show what sources Paul cited in his 'argument'?

>>3305006
The burden of proof is on him and his ilk to prove years of documented research and uncovered physical evidence wrong. So let's flip this around; HOW IS HE RIGHT? What, exactly, is his proof against the proven Roman strategy of placing foreign governors in control of unruly territories? And why are you and others refusing to acknowledge the 'fact' that comparing the credibility of an academic with historical knowledge to a complete novice is false equivalency?

>>3305637
>Ha! Trying to decredentialize me w/"pop risk" nonsense will backfire: I get more academic citations per year than you got all your life!

>Nassim Nicholas Taleb is [an] essayist, scholar, statistician, former trader and risk analyst

Wow, you sure showed me. Why aren't the people crying about 'social image' complaining about this non-historian and his empty tweets? If anything, he should be the subject of >>3305597, not Beard.

>>3305597

... you do realise that "Classics" refers to the study of ancient history, not popular old books?

>>3306683
Ancient Algerians weren't black though.

Misplaced moralism

>>3306831
Well, they sure as hell weren't 'white' by any standards, old or new, and definitely not worth arguing with scholars about. Honestly, all this so-called 'debate' is really close-mindedness, because no one actually wants to learn anything outside of racial memes.

>>3306858
Nobody is claiming ancient north africans were white though.

>>3306740
Because he had a good point.

All Beard did was yell "IMMA TEACHER, UR NOT"

File: fantasy celt vs real celt.jpg (279KB, 1157x936px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1157x936px

>>3306858
>Well, they sure as hell weren't 'white' by any standards, old or new, and definitely not worth arguing with scholars about. Honestly, all this so-called 'debate' is really close-mindedness, because no one actually wants to learn anything outside of racial memes.
No one is saying they were white, just that they weren't dark as night africans. They had pale or light brown skin with black curly hair, they'd look pretty similar to Italians.

>>3306871
I am. If Ashkenazim are 50% middle eastern and are paler than most Europeans, they probably were.

>>3306880
Helmet on the right looks really similar to Roman one.

>>3306880

And the guy in the cartoon isn't "dark as night" either.

>>3306858
>>3306858
stop pretending to be retarded

File: PJW.png (234KB, 813x368px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 813x368px

>>3306683
Here you go lad. Note that this isn't just black Roman immigrants, but immigrants from ALL of the Roman provinces, so the % of blacks is even less.

Also
>1 (one) Algerian governor (so not even subsaharan as shown in the video)
>this means ALL of roman britain was racially diverse

File: bbc.jpg (234KB, 1200x1515px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1200x1515px

>>3306894
Well he's not North African
>>3306893
Well that famous Roman helmet isn't called the Gallic type for no reason.

>>3306874
>AFRICANS DIDN'T EXIST IN BRITAIN COS I DON'T BELIEVE IT
>IMMA POPULAR ACADEMIC UR NOT!!!XD

These are literally the entire point of his tweets, which you can dig up and find for yourself, which he wrote in response to Beard calling him out for his lack of expertise. Again, why are the people concerned with superficial 'social image' in this thread giving Taleb, a risk analyst and statistician, a free pass when he steps out of bounds to shitpost Beard, who is an actual Classical historian?

>>3306931
First, it was Beard who brought up the popular academic point and started getting snippy, Taleb just paid back in kind and buried her. So it seems the witch can dish it out but can't take it.

Second, Taleb reasonably asked her for evidence. Just because someone's an academic doesn't mean we have to take his word for it. So she replied with a fucking blog post, which was about >>3305207, and has already been explained to you why it's bullshit ITT.

Anything else, libby?

>>3306631
en los libros de religión de andalucía nos metian a jesucristo rubio los hijos de puta

>>3306910
Don't put words in my mouth. No one in this thread nor Beard was claiming that they formed a significant part of the population, but were merely arguing that there was historical evidence for the fellow in that video being dark-skinned. She was arguing to prove the exception existed, not that it was the rule, and her comment that such a family was 'unsurprising' (which Taleb gleefully sniped at) merely meant that there were just enough prominent Africans in society for them to be accepted as a distinct and familiar group (aka the 1% of society) and not outright aliens (see the case of the 'ivory bangle lady').

History is a lot more nuanced than laymen think it is, and one has to actually acknowledge sources in the general context of research before brandishing them.

File: file.png (8KB, 504x87px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 504x87px

>>3306979
No, she said that Roman Britain was "ethnically" diverse.

3% is NOT ethnically diverse.

>>3304875
>>Norman priests
>Lolwut.
Well priests are one of the more believable ones. One of the Archbishops of Canterbury came from Syria, though this was in Medieval times.

>>3306602
You study religion in public schools, or seminary schools and stuff like that? Seems insane that public schools have christian theology as curriculum

>>3306947
No, she pointed out that none of his popular books, and indeed his entire oeuvre, had much to do with classical history at all, to which he childishly started a dick-measuring contest for want of an actual argument. Is popularity your main priority when judging 'academic debates', if you could call a childish Twitter tirade one?

And please, recap the posts with evidence proving me wrong, because apart from >>3306910, which I don't even disagree with, all of them are attacks on Beard or strawmanning about 'blacks' despite no one using that indefinite term (hell, /pol/ can't even agree what it takes to be 'white').

>>3305307
This guy gets it. The inflammation of social media is spreading like a rash, and the best ointment for that is common sense and perspective.

>>3305200
yeah, youre right but as salves not as fucking Legionary soldiers or first class citizens

>>3307045
>No, she pointed out that none of his popular books, and indeed his entire oeuvre, had much to do with classical history at all
So nothing but an ad hom?

>>3307038
What's insane about that?

File: Indonesianreligion.jpg (29KB, 501x301px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 501x301px

>>3306992
By whose arbitrary standards? Yours? The proportion of Christians to Muslims in Indonesia is hilariously small, yet Indonesia is renowned for its religious tolerance and diversity. That's why the word 'minority' exists in the first place.

>>3307128
What a fucking idiot you are.

Japan is considered one of the most homogeneous countries in the world. Percent of population of non-Japanese birth? 1.5%.

So does adding 1.5% suddenly make it ethnically diverse?

>>3307045
This guy gets it. The inflammation of social media is spreading like a rash, and the best ointment for that is common sense and perspective.

twitter is a cancer.

>>3306588
>>3306613
>>3306624


Enjoy your muslim rape gangs and getting thrown in prison if you say they suck on Facebook :)

>>3306577
It's pretty hilarious watching these retards defend this WEWUZIAN shit, especially when they are playing dumb to the very obvious political motivations behind it, and even better, when they think this will work

>>3307062
>hang on a sec, a statistician who hasn't studied Classical History shouldn't be-
>WAAAAHHHH AD HOM AD HOM AD HOM AD HOM!

Pointing out someone's ignorance isn't a fallacy, and if it is then so is all of education, epistemology (which Taleb should stick to, period), and logic. Still, good to know that you rationalise everyone who disagrees with you as 'haters'.

>>3307128
Considering she's a Corbyn supporter, you know damn well she wouldn't consider that diverse. She also literally argued against a strawman because PJW was 100% right

>>3307161
You're a really stupid person anon and you operate from a place of pure emotion. Why do you continue to autistically harp on "muh reputation" as if that means anything to the points made, especially when you can't even articulate a counter argument. Beard isn't even that respected in the first place, she's just a basic bitch aging hippie who they drag out on question time to try and convince the peoples that the failed abortion that is multiculturalism is actually great

>>3304961
It seems she is a historian who defended a cartoon video put out to teach children about life for ordinary people at different timrs in Brittish history. People seem to be upset because the video depicts a quite improbably high number of people of color at different points of British history. I surmise the people who are upset view this video and the woman's defense of the video as evidence of a decline in the value of fidelity to historical fact and probable facts to champion the alleged value of diversity in media. I suspect the people arguing against the video's detractors place moderate to high values on increasing diversity in media, so while not admitting it outright, are quite willing to obfuscate the very likely historical probabilities of demographics at various points in Brittish history to support the alleged value of diversity in media.

>>3307161
I can tell you're a brainlet, so I'll go nice and slow.

Instead of a personal attack on the other guy's creds, she should have attacked his arguments.

>>3306683
>Quintus Lollius Urbicus
He was a North African Berber. Not black.

>>3306577
>taking doctor who seriously
>expecting anything moffat writes to not be retarded in a number of different ways

>>3307175
>as if that means anything to the points made

You and the others were the ones dragging 'reputation' into this by claiming her expertise in Classical History was nothing but empty 'social image', when anyone who attended a day of school knows that degrees are worth a hell of a lot more than bragging rights and talking points; they're proof that you've studied a subject at length and know what the hell you're doing. Yet, in a stunning display of cognitive dissonance, you completely fail to do the same for Taleb, who was well out of his element, made cheap shot after cheap shot, and even wilfully abused genetic data despite how inaccurate it is in the context of historical research (e.g. there is scant genetic evidence in the modern British population of the Roman, Viking and Norman invasions, but no one denies they happened for very good reasons).

I will admit, however, that Beard is REALLY reaching when she uses the term 'ethnically diverse', but so is everyone else claiming it wasn't because there's no absolute mathematical/statistical standard determining 'diversity'; it's merely comparative. All we can agree on is that there was a very small but still significant and influential population of migrants in Roman Britain, some of which were African or had African blood, thus fulfilling the definition in the most technical sense.

>>3307123
Schools ought to be reserved to the objective and verifiable. It's a place of learning. There are of course seminary schools and stuff, but teaching religion in a public school or any school that isn't religiously funded and focused seems criminal. It's like teaching kids about Merlin and the knights of the round table.

>>3307175

>Cambridge professor
>not even that respected

File: IMG_0345.jpg (1MB, 1321x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1321x1500px

>>3306858
These are Berbers. They range from swarthy meds to pale. Not black. This historian is obfuscating and she knows it deep down.

>>3307261
Were they actually Berbers than or Phoenicians?

>>3307264
The historical figure in question was a Berber according to google. Either way, phoenecians were like modern Lebanese so not black either way

>>3307252

>spent literally all this time and energy getting THIS upset just because you know that this well respected historian got utterly BTFO by some youtube fuck

reminder that youre such a coward and such an idiot, that you wont even try to prove him wrong. Keep shilling we wuzian socialist dogshit retard lol

>>3307128
>yet Indonesia is renowned for its religious tolerance and diversity.

Didn't some Christian governor get imprisoned for "blasphemy" because he read some passage from the Koran?

File: 1501760814200.png (223KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 400x396px

>ruins herself because of stupidity

Serves her right. She made her marxist bed now she can lie in it.

/our guy/ Taleb was right all along.

File: 1502453563596.png (48KB, 924x560px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 924x560px

>>3307259
You need at least basic knowledge of Christianity if you are to understand themes and events in history, literature and media

>>3306565

It was in the description of the video, "An exploration of life in Roman Britain shown through the eyes of a typical family." were the exact words I think.

There were very little black Africans in Roman Britain maybe a few hundred or couple thousand in total since the Roman empire had little contact with black Africans outside of the Abyssinian empire and most of the slaves the Romans sent to Britain would be North Africans and/or Middle Easterners.

In any case, the *average* British family was not black by any stretch of the imagination and saying so is simply historical revisionism.

>>3307205
I can go your speed too. Pray tell, what 'arguments' did he employ in his Twitter debate? I'm looking at the discussion thread right now, and the only semi-solid point he made was concerning sub-Saharan genes, which ultimately isn't relevant because of how crap genetics really is at reflecting historical population changes/migrations.

>>3307246
But I never used the term 'black', merely 'African', and was arguing about his origins, not his skin-tone. I really don't want to play with such indefinite terms when ethnicity is far more rigorous. If any 'race-realists' in this thread disagree, I'd like to see them agree that Giuseppi Verdi was 'white' as easily as they can agree that he was Italian.

>>3307324
His argument was poor and she could have attacked that, instead of trying to pull rank on him

>>3307324
>But I never used the term 'black', merely 'African', and was arguing about his origins, not his skin-tone.
Great then you agree that the video was inaccurate to depict him as black. Stop playing around with the word "African". The modern concept of "africa" didn't exist back then. "Africa" to the romans was modern day Tunisia . There were probably very few actual black people in Roman Britain if any. Certainly not the "average family" like the video depicts.

>>3304798
>as if Beard is even a respected historian in the first place

I'm pretty sure being a professor a frequently published professor of Ancient history for Cambridge means you are respected. She also frequently presents and writes documentaries.

She only defended the Roman one as far as I know, which is the most defensible.

Remind me again why people are still crying about this?

>>3307274
The gulf between your description of my post and the real deal is astonishing. Are you sure you were looking at your monitor and not your bedroom mirror when you banged that out? I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by compromising that Beard overreached with 'ethnically diverse'; it's not my problem you want a jerking-off instead of an actual debate.

Oh, and to whoever wrote >>3307205 and >>3307062, I sincerely hope you're feeling the irony, because this anon certainly didn't.

>>3307308

They're also rich enough to own multiple slaves, which makes them atypical.

Odd how noone complains about that part...

>>3307308
But see, that's the tricky thing; while you're right that Tunisian is a more accurate description of his origin (and thus I apologise for using such a broad and anachronistic term), he was most accurately described as a Numidian Berber, and I'd wager that the genetic makeup of Numidia then is pretty damn different to Tunisia/Libya now. Even today, there is a massive range of skin tones throughout Tunisia and North Africa (as 'Berber' is merely a ethnolinguistic group). Thus, ethnicity is better for categorising people, not race.

Thus, there is technically as much evidence for a dark-skinned Quintus as there is for a light skinned one. However, I agree with you wholeheartedly that his family was by no stretch of the imagination 'average' (though the fact he got that far in life shows Rome was indeed pretty multicultural), and the animator was probably being overzealous when he drew dark Romans and Celts.

>>3307261
>posting modern cumskin colonists larping as berbers instead of proper black berbers they committed a genocide against
>same with moors, egyptians, and other originally black north african ethic groups

This is what we wuzzers actually believe.

>>3307261
There are black Berbers, idiot. Most Tuaregs are black.

>>3307261
But anon, Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso also belong to the Berber ethnolinguistic (NOT racial) group as North African countries. Are you going to argue that they aren't 'black' too, according to your definition?

>>3307128

> its religious tolerance and diversity

No, it isn't you retard. Sectarian and ethnic conflicts break out all the time in the Moluccas, Aceh and New Guinea.

The main reasons it isn't as bad as it could be is that the government is secular and most minorities are literally seperated by virtue of having their own islands.

>>3307390
Something tells me the chance of any individual Roman family owning a slave was orders of magnitude higher than the chance that family was sub saharan. It seems the total slave population of the empire was 10% to 15%, with roughly half being owned by the too 1.5%. Putting the overall chance a family would own a slave or two at 5% seems fairly reasonable. In contrast what are the chances family was sub saharan black? A handful per 10,000? A handful per 100,000? You should remove the timber from your own eye before you remove the speck from another's.

>>3307276
Soon the Med people will rise again and conquer the whole world and rule it with an iron but fair fist.

>>3307436
There were also Black confederate soldiers during the US civil war.

>>3307465

So showing the atypical as typical is fine when it's your pet issue?

File: 1494939206829.png (442KB, 1205x827px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1205x827px

>>3306967
Andalucia was a mistake.

>>3304745
DESU she never had a spectacular reputation to ruin, pretty much everything she publishes is aimed at propagandizing physical or mental children rather than advancing scholarly understanding

>>3307475
False equivalence; you're talking about individual soldiers, we're talking about massive ethnic groups with a vast range in skin-tone. And again, why must you labor under the misapprehension that Berbers (Numidian Berbers, specifically) of antiquity look like modern Berbers now?

File: 1338630669970.jpg (139KB, 579x527px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 579x527px

>>3306683
>he was from north africa and was therefore black

>>3307260
i'm sorry you had to had to find out the way people around the world see britain these days anon i know its not easy

File: 1504017897906.png (295KB, 720x961px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 720x961px

What in the FUCK is wrong with british people?

>>3307370

oh look, ANOTHER post of you dodging the question like the coward and idiot you know you are.

>>3304780
Lmao

>>3307478
No I'm saying showing an example that makes up 5% if a population is qualitatively different than showing an example that may only make up .05% of the population. Thus especially true when that 5% example also includes a 10% to 15% possibility, namely that some people were slaves. The question of appropriateness does not hinge on possible versus impossible but rather probable versus improbable. A depiction of a family that owns slaves andctheir slaves represents around 20% of the population. This is probable. A depiction of a family as sub saharan black represents maybe only .05% of the population. This is improbable.

There is a tendency among all, especially children, when viewing examples to assume they are representative of the typical. Given that examples should be of the typical. And extraordinary occurrences should be highlighted as the atypical extraordinary examples they are, like a sub saharan black family in Roman Brittain would be.

I think both sides are in the wrong here but it is amusing to observe the struggle.

Revisionism is always a plague though

>>3307008
>One of the Archbishops of Canterbury came from Syria

this is nothing even close to being a KANG

>>3307565

Just a reminder that PJW was completely right and no one has even attempted to prove him wrong.

>>3307571
Might be I didn't see his video, I was speaking more in terms regarding the outrage against the videos but I just see them as an attempt to get the minorities to feel included in the history of the state while they were usually on the receiving end of the boot

>>3307560

But it's still showing only small segment of society as typical. If people truly cared about accuracy they'd be angry at both.

>>3307584

here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtPZhDH4QU8

Anybody read her book SPQR? thoughts?

>>3307520
I assume this is clickbait bullshit based on the website but what's the context here.

The magna carta and britan's unwritten constitution provide for freedom of movement which has been described by the courts as freedom to exist in your country.

Unless he was guilty of treason and exiled there is no way a court in a common law country could compel a citizen to leave said country.

>>3304780
>bbc
Really makes you think.

>>3307506
It is not a false equivalence to the original point of the thread, that it is incredibly improbable that any individual family in Roman Brittain would be black, so depicting one as typical is misleading to the audience. Just as it would be misleading to an audience to depict a confederate soldier as black without explanation as to how this was atypical from the norm.

>>3304807
>gigantic monument to shekels
>doesn't deserve to get blown up.

>>3307606
It is not good. If you want to read about rome try adrian goldsworthy.

>>3306597

Enjoy getting genocided by muslims in your own country anon

>>3307259
>objective and verifiable
Fuck off, ideologue.
First, objectivity doesn't exist. You'll be objective when you're dead. Guess what, only nonliving objects can be objective.
Verifiable, by what? STEMsperg standards? Oh fuck off.
You want to raise a population of even more positivists.

>>3307591
If there was an absolute requirement that only the most probable depiction of people could be done then essentially all depictions of people in history until very recently would have to be of farmers. But that is not the standard, nor should it be. Nor should the standard be any possibility is fair game. The standard is depicting what are the probable possibilities. And when discussing a very unlikely yet still possible occurence highlight it as such. Accuracy and fidelity to a broad look at any society should be the paramount virtues in historical study. Only featuring farmers or only featuring the the improbable serve neither of these virtues.

>>3307444
>>3307261

the moors /berbers who invaded europe were not from deep inland in the saharan desert.

the people you're talking about are.
The people who live near the north coast of africa have always been tanned rather than dark skinned like tuaregs

>>3307252
You're still arguing social image. Good lord are you knees deep in ideology.
>they're proof that you've studied a subject at length and know what the hell you're doing.
No, that's not how it works. You keep ignoring my point you fucking STEMsperg,
Do you believe in astrology? Because people used to dedicate their lives to astrology, for thousands of years. Every major civilization up until colonization had a huge basis in astrology. Cultures alien to those on Europe, like the native Americans, had a science of astrology. They had universities.

>>3307260
Cambridge is for idiots. Idiots might respect the idiot, sure.

>>3307161
>somebody didn't study muh history at a factory school with sytematic nonsense like this one bourg did so they must be ignorant!

>>3304757
it's a meme

>>3304778
Paul Joseph Watson didn't BTFO anyone, like always, he's a youtuber loser with 0 credibility and barely any education

>>3304875
virtually all developed civilizations used iron.


For iron age they clearly mean the period between the final bronze age (1000-800) bc, and the Roman conquest of the island (1st century AD.)

>>3307139
Actually, the 98.5% statistics is pretty well known to be incorrect. The Japanese government doesn't conduct surveys of its population's ethnicity.

But in addition to the native japanese (who crossed over from the Korean peninsula) there is also the Ainu in the north, the Ryukyuans in the South, Koreans stuck in Japan since the post-war, Southeast Asians brought in for cheap labor, and other miscellaneous immigrant groups.

Japan as homogenous is actually a modern late-war/ post-war trend that Japan started pushing in order rally the Japanese as they lost territory and later explain Japan's economic success

>>3307815
>But in addition to the native japanese (who crossed over from the Korean peninsula) there is also the Ainu in the north, the Ryukyuans in the South

No, all those are Japanese. Ainu / Jomon might even predate southern Japanese.

>>3304959
he said on /his. Stop being butthurt about other opinions, snowflake, you act like a liberal

>>3307836
Yeah I see what you mean by that but even by saying so you're saying at least part of Japan is a mix of two peoples who then later mixed with southern japanese

File: dvyfCd06.png (173KB, 383x383px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 383x383px

>>3304799
>>3304800
>Implying Infowars isn't the spearhead of the resistance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7a6e-y0nuw&t=292s

File: rani84jor354921.jpg (163KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 500x500px

>>3307498
Which part of Spain can I find a women like this?

>>3306223
That's exactly how an appeal to authority works.

File: a002120efa6d62b29a2455270fb31ed2--ainu-people-japanese-costume.jpg (18KB, 236x276px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x276px

>>3307836
>>3307874
Oh, oops. Sorry for misreading. Ignore my last post but Ainu and Ryukyuans weren't considered Japanese.

The Ainu were certainly anydifferent ethnic group by the time the Japanese tool Hokkaido and Ryukyu was talking own Smallville kingdom who had diplomatic tied to China and Satsuma (Japan) before the annexation of the island. I think it would be hard to reconcile both those groups as Japanese without calling those areas diverse in that they are populated by the Japanese and Ainu or Ryukyuans now.

>>3307885
The part where you're a billionaire.

File: IMG_1431.png (351KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 750x1334px

>>3307519
The absolute state: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/20/cambridge-university-press-censorship-exposes-xi-jinpings-authoritarian-shift

>>3307917
You have to be a billionaire to get a slightly above average girl in Spain?

File: Waitasec.jpg (18KB, 296x288px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 296x288px

>>3307917

File: Bignor_venus.jpg (237KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 750x1000px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C0UmtW2cl8

>>3307941
Someone who posts here?

Absolutely.

>>3307988
did you share this with your buddies on leftypol and /r/anarchism?

>>3304875
>Yeah no. The best I could imagine is a swathy med since they settled as far as anatolia,
Fairly dubious that the celts who were pushed out of Anatolia would bring the people who dispossessed the with them to France and the UK

>The most believable of the bunch, virtually all developed civilizations used iron.
It's extremely far fetched, as Romans did not recruit from Sub-Saharan Africa.


If any of these people were brought over, none of them would survive the local diseases

>>3304805
>identifying your own pride with the legitimacy of others

>>3304780
Its not that there weren't any non-whites, but its disingenuous to imply that they were any more than a fraction of the population.

>>3304780
The 'diversity' propaganda in full effect.

File: kangz3.png (50KB, 981x919px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 981x919px

With the possible exception of a few slaves and gladiators, there were virtually no sub-Saharans in the Roman Empire.
The only evidence I've seen for possible negroids in Britannia is a report that a few men with the surname Revis belong to haplogroup A1a, with no evidence of recent sub-Saharan admixture in the family. How this exactly ties in with the Romans I'm not sure. Even if it was a Roman citizen that brought that DNA to Britain. there's nothing to say it was even a phenotypically-black person. It could just as easily have been a Berber or Egyptian tradesman who was himself hundreds of generations removed from the 'black' antecedent.
People can claim this was a fact-based, apolitical cartoon, but the fact they have also made videos of blacks teaching Iron Age Britons metallurgy, and blacks in the camp of William the Conqueror, suggests otherwise.

I understand that this is only an issue because that mongoloid YouTuber, who looks like the anaemic lovechild of Andy Serkis, said it was historically inaccurate to portray Roman Britain as 'diverse'. He may have misspoken or he may have betrayed his own ignorance, but for all of his faults he is not trying to deceive people like 'Auntie' is.

The only reason this is happening is because the majority of immigrants to the UK are from West Africa, or West African-descended Caribbeans. The histories of Europe, Asia, North and East Africa are inextricably intertwined. It is folly to try and prove that one of those regions has ever been fully distinct and apart from the others. However, the people of West, Central and Southern Africa have been. They may have traded with them indirectly, but their kingdoms, empires, tribes, etc have made no contribution (positive or negative) to the development of European or Asian civilisation. They have thus had virtually no impact on 'our' world, bar acting as a form of currency in the 17th-19th centuries.

This is an attempt, at the expense of accuracy, that they 'belong'.

>>3306441
She can lose by being disproven by historical sources, DNA-testing, historical artwork, inconsistency in argument etc.

>>3306461
>By African you mean North African which is well /not be pol here? white or brown or Subsaharan which is black?
They mean black, this is all for the sake of creating a fake past for blacks to cling and to legitimize any absurd thing they push for.

>>3308018
*prove that they belong

>>3305078
Germany gave the world the automobile.

>>3306979
>Don't put words in my mouth. No one in this thread nor Beard was claiming that they formed a significant part of the population, but were merely arguing that there was historical evidence for the fellow in that video being dark-skinned.
We must put words in your mouth, because you don't say what you truly mean. You are defending a misrepresentation of Britains history. You will tolerate endless amount of left-wing lies, but can't stand to see them torn apart

>>3304820
>B-but I thought that the Roman Empire was a racially pure white ethnostate?

>you can't tell race from a DNA test
>you can from an ambiguous, shitty painting over a thousand years old
>but only in a way that fits muh narrative

>>3304820
Wasn't this found in Roman Egypt?

>>3308060

That was the French and British you disgusting lying sack of shit (aka, you G*rm).

File: ARoman68287419.jpg (71KB, 620x827px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 620x827px

>>3306979
The ivory bangle lady was found in York, a city whose finds include dozens of Romano-Egyptian sarcophagi (treated with imported materials from the Eastern Mediterranean) and numerous devotions to the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis. In at least one Roman cemetery in York, around 10% of the remains were of North Africans.

North Africans are not, and have never been, black Negroids.

File: master race.png (33KB, 779x705px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 779x705px

>>3304820
look like Meds to me

>>3306683
>The burden of proof is on him and his ilk to prove years of documented research and uncovered physical evidence wrong.
Point to the evidence.

>So let's flip this around; HOW IS HE RIGHT? What, exactly, is his proof against the proven Roman strategy of placing foreign governors in control of unruly territories?
There are virtually no genetic markers left from these people, there more genetic markers from Russian ethnicities with the native British population

>How much more proof do you want if agreement from other Roman historians and an actual fucking tomb isn't good enough for you?
Outliers and anecdotes must be dismissed when discussing trends which we are discussing now

>>3305078
You can just smell the shitty tea and see the yellow crooked teeth reading this post.

>>3307324
>But I never used the term 'black', merely 'African', and was arguing about his origins, not his skin-tone. I really don't want to play with such indefinite terms when ethnicity is far more rigorous. If any 'race-realists' in this thread disagree, I'd like to see them agree that Giuseppi Verdi was 'white' as easily as they can agree that he was Italian.
Are you jewish? This seems like pilpul

File: berbers.jpg (142KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 750x499px

>>3306683
Yeah those algerians sure are black

File: southern italian.jpg (83KB, 500x509px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x509px

>>3308146

Italians, for comparison

>>3307656
>My feels are more real than your reals

>>3308235
Reality doesn't exist. The meme of 'reality' is a projection onto existence.

>>3306683
>burden of proof
Reddit meme.
>documented research and physical evidence
Neither exist
>credibility
Irrelevant social statement. Academics are not to be trusted.

>>3307288
O, I actually thought you meant they taught you god is great and Jesus was your savior and all the stories of the Bible were historical fact. I agree a basic knowledge of christian beliefs is important to understand historical context

>>3308027
>disproven
Do redditors actually think this is possible
>historical sources
Some fuck writing something down is not a valid 'source'
>DNA testing
STEM meme
>historical artwork
Mate the convention for attic pottery was to paint all the guys black. I guess all the men wuz black and all the wimminz wuz white.
>inconsistency in argument
Dualist meme

>>3307885
She's an ugly old hag. Anywhere in Spain.

>>3307845
/his/ is a misnamed board. History belongs in the trash.
>Snowflake
Fuck off back to /pol/ you /b/tard

>>3304790
>>3304799
>>3307803
>muh appeal to status

File: abstractism.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>3308296
Excellent

>>3308312
What is it with people referring to STEM as derogatory? Is this a new joke or something?

>>3307436

Tuareg are not black, they are racist against blacks and historically enslaved them.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/what-do-tuareg-want-20141913923498438.html
>That she means is that the new borders of Mali divided the Tuareg of north-eastern Mali from the Arab and Berber dominated desert lands further north, with which they had deep economic, cultural and historical ties, and lumped them together with the sedentary black people of the south, with whom they had much less in common.

>Many Tuareg could not see why the Bambara, Soninké and Malinké people of the south should impose their language, culture and socialist ideas on them, especially as these ‘blacks’ had never actually vanquished the Tuareg in battle

https://www.cfr.org/blog/racism-mali
>It has a small but traditionally cohesive population of Tuaregs and Arabs (approximately 10 percent of Mali’s total population) who regard themselves as “white.” They regard other Malians as “black.”

File: 1456125792038.png (460KB, 479x668px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 479x668px

>Be north african
>Blacks wewuzzing as your ancestors and saying modern north africans descend from whites
>Whites wewuzzing as your ancestors and saying modern north africans descend from blacks/arabs

>>3308338
It is derogatory. Its a mental disease.

File: 1501961332135.jpg (38KB, 549x254px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 549x254px

Friendly reminder that anyone confusing north africans and blacks is either a baiter of a low iq faggot

>>3307324
>because of how crap genetics really is at reflecting historical population changes/migrations

You are a colossal retard. Genetics are a far more accurate at reflecting population changes than anything there is. If a large number of blacks moved into the U.K, their genetic imprint would be found throughout the entire population England within several generations.

>>3307008
Syria had a lot of Greeks at the time.

>>3308338
It is reactionary. Many people in STEM and in society at large elevate STEM in the academic fields over other studies, especially soft humanities like History. This makes some in humanities feel self conscious about their status and abilities. If you combine that with the present example where a respected Hustotian was very publicly challenged by a STEM person, and the STEM person seems to have the stronger argument, well that can cause some level of consternation among an already self conscious group of humanities scholars. Hence, the backtracking saying "oh she eas right because she never nor did the video ever allege this was a typical scenario." So somewhat miffed about being called out in the first place, and angry that the lofty credentials of a historian are unable to transform her mere declaratory statements into unassailable facts, they lash out at those that have struck a blow at their status and basic understanding of how truth is decided as STEMspergs.

This would have all been avoided if instead of flat out saying the video eas correct, it was supported eith more nuance and more caveats.

File: nordicucks.jpg (175KB, 938x844px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 938x844px

>>3304820

>>3306543
Authority on a subject means you studied it. Though I believe Beard is wrong, I'm much more willing to trust the PhD historian from Cambridge than the journalist from a fringe news-site.

>>3308781
>study is relevant
Stop obsessing over social image, pseud.

>>3308722
ummm Isaac Newton was pure nordic and superior to the romans

>>3307902
>a licensed medical doctor with a degree is equally as good with medicine as a chinese doctor with mental impairment and no degree or license to speak of
wew

>>3308781
>fringe news-site
Why do you hate alternative facts?

>>3304757
We're the majority.

>>3308822
That is correct.
Neither of their titles automatically indicate competence related to your specific problem.

>The Western doctor barely squeaked through med school and your medical problem isn't his specialization anyway.
>The Chinese medicine practitioner is a genius polymath and he passionately studies the specific field of Western medicine related to your health issue as a hobby.

Titles mean nothing in themselves. Appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason.

>>3304745
I'm sure the leftist academics don't care. It's not about the truth for them anymore.

>>3304820
those are whites.

>>3308853
>here's some random information pulled out of nowhere T-THAT MEANS TAKING RANDOM CHINESE MEDICINE FROM SOME RANDOM DIPSHIT IS BETTER THAN ACTUAL MEDICINE GOYIM

>>3308722
People who post this post it as a joke. Nobody seriously actually believes that. It's pretty factual to agree that the Romans were whites.

>>3308859
Nice strawman.
Now why don't you address my actual argument?

>>3308807
Is this bait? Studying a subject isn't about social image, it's how you construct a sound argument.

>>3308869
You mean your actual argument of make shit up and completely get argument from authority wrong?

>>3304789
MUH IDEOLOGY!

>This is the fucking definition of history. The fuck do you think it is? Pure visions directly from the all-knowing, all-seeing asshole of the prime unmoving shitstain at the center of the nothing you envision when you think of all the good you could have done with your life?

>>3308442
How is it a mental disease? Correct me if I'm wrong, but stem refers to the hard sciences, right?

>>3304745
>mary beard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvvPnEm_708

Cambridge professor talking about race in 2017 is like a Lomonosov University professor talking about communism in 1950. It's simply propaganda and British academics and historians are utter fucking joke as a whole.

>>3308878
What exactly am I making up anon?
Claiming this woman is correct because "she has years of experience" and Watson is wrong because he works for Infowars is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy.

Years of experience do not magically prevent someone from being wrong, nor does accreditation. It is entirely possible for a practitioner of Chinese medicine to make the correct diagnosis (even simply by pure chance!) while the accredited doctor makes the wrong one.

Reality doesn't care about credentials, and the truth doesn't cease to be true just because the "wrong" person said it instead of the "right" one.

>>3304919
Payed by the taxpayer

>>3308923
>here's a claim you never made
>a literal nobody giving you a random diagnosis without any sort of examimation is more reliable than a practiced doctor in that field because there is a 0.00000001 chance the former could be right
>studying a subject and understanding how it works and how to apply that knowledge means jack shit to reality, that's why I only take Chinese Homeopathic Snake Oil rather than actual Medicine
Why don't you go ingest bleach, its not deadly, all those medical studies and such saying it's lethal are just from authority with 'credentials'

>>3307498
Im just a bit whiter

The only people who cared were racists. No one complained because of historical accuracy because there are thousands of other things they would be raising their voices about on anything historical depiction.

>>3308951
MORE strawmen!
Just stop anon, you're only making yourself look bad.

>>3309008
>i-if i call your post a strawman i don't have to make an actual argument
You know, making yourself look like a retard who doesn't understand how Argument from Authority works isn't the best idea mate.

>>3309017
>An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam[note 1], is a form of defeasible[4] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion

>But thankfully, /pol/ tells me some literal assclown conspiracy retard "btfo" of her by claiming that, in fact, her years of experience on the subject didn't match his fee-fees, and that he felt in his soul that there were NO non-Britons in Britain before 1987.
Appeal to authority fallacy by definition. Not once does this statement present any actual evidence it rests entirely on the presumed authority granted by "years of experience".

Now do you have anything else do say or are you done making a fool of yourself?

>>3309044
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
>Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
And look, more shit I didn't say. You have any argument besides "YOU SAID THIS THING YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY"

>>3309073
It doesn't matter if you didn't say it, you argued in support if it, therefore it became your argument. Did you even bother to read the examples your website gave by the way?

>Example #1: My 5th-grade teacher once told me that girls would go crazy for boys if they learn how to dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies go crazy for you, learn to dance.
>Explanation: Even if the 5th-grade teacher were an expert on relationships, her belief about what makes girls “go crazy” for boys is speculative, or perhaps circumstantial, at best.

Perceived "expertise" is irrelevant as to whether or not the argument put forth by an "expert" has actual merit.

>>3309116
>it doesn't matter if it's a strawman my mental gymnastics say you support it
And actual expertise is relevant to the argument when the expert is actually an expert of the topic being discussed.

>>3308851
>We r leegun

lol

>>3309140
Expertise is demonstrated not claimed.
If an "expert" makes a statement and that statement is in fact incorrect, they're not actually an expert after all, are they?

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp anon.

>>3309184
And an expert in their field making a statement in their field is more likely to be correct than some random person, aren't they?
This sure seems hard for you to understand.

>>3308877
>sound argument
This is based on social image. The entire concept of a 'convincing argument' is an exercise in manipulation, focusing on social image.

>>3308902
>hard sciences
This meme is a part of the disease

>>3309191
"More likely" is not the same thing as correct. The universe doesn't care what you personally feel is "more likely", what is is, and what isn't isn't.

When the conclusion you support is supported strictly by "more likely", and not actual evidence what you are engaged in is GAMBLING, not logical debate.

>>3309191
No, experts are massive idiots.

>>3309214
And the person who is an expert of their field studies, understands, is knowledgable and can apply their field in an argument and thus it is more likely that they are correct than some random faggot.
And hey look, more strawmanning.

>>3309227
What exactly does "more likely" have to do with whether or not something is a logical fallacy anon?
What are you even trying to say?

>>3309073
There are no historical facts because there is no history.
You still have not answered my question. Do you fucking believe in astrology, because if you do, then surely all the experts on astrology (there are none now, just navel-gazers on the subject) surely have more authority than any say, astronomer. After all, astrology is a discipline that predates philosophy and countless men spent their entire lives, some in an academy, some unable to reach one and thus learning from others or from literature on the subject.

Yes, this is exactly your argument. The astrologer is an expert in the field, yet you do not trust them. The astrologer is one following in the most ancient of disciplines, yet you do not trust them. It seems that instead of caring for reputation as a consequence of education and comprehension, you care for it as a symbol of social power.
No, fortune telling is not astrology. No more strawmanning, pseud.

>>3309266
>more strawmanning
wew

>>3309211
You're really going to have to explain yourself

>>3309643
The notion that there is a 'hardness' to a method that is already epistemology cancer is itself a cancer.

>>3304780
This is Orwellian.

>>3309663
In what way is it epistemology cancer? Are you intentionally avoiding having to explain yourself?

>>3309890
It uses its epistemology to justify its epistemology.

>>3304757
Or anyone with an intelligent and unbiased opinion