BBC changing history

[Berzerker]

I doubt a Roman commander would marry a Brit, they share an island with barbarians

 

[warpus]

All I know is I support the BBC because they are annoying racists and edgelords.

People keep saying that, but it's a rather daft argument. I mean we can annoy homophobes by hacking into the BBC and changing their stream to hardcore gay porn, but so what. Doesn't affect the initial point in any way in either direction, so in the end it's a useless statement. Probably something somebody said on twitter or tumblr somewhere and people are repeating it for fun?

It's also implying that some people in this thread are racist and/or edgy which is not nice.

 

[Ajidica]

People keep saying that, but it's a rather daft argument. I mean we can annoy homophobes by hacking into the BBC and changing their stream to hardcore gay porn, but so what. Doesn't affect the initial point in any way in either direction, so in the end it's a useless statement. Probably something somebody said on twitter or tumblr somewhere and people are repeating it for fun?

Given I don't go on Twitter and try to have as little to do with Tumblr as humanly possible, I can confirm I'm not just repeating "something somebody said on twitter or tumblr".
The thing is, pointing out however blatantly, that the Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic state encompassing multiple ethnic, religious, and cultural groups coexisting in (relative) harmony with (relatively)* strong integration goes directly counter to the narrative pushed by so called "race realists" or "white nationalists"; which I think we can both agree is something probably worth doing. Plus, anything that dismantles the discredited and borderline racist narrative that the Roman Empire was brought down by "immigrants" earns a hearty approval in my book.

*Spain is full of Roman monuments bearing inscriptions like "Established by Flavius Gaius Julius, son of Balagus". It shows that at minimum the local Gallic nobility was at least confident that by adopting Roman habits they would be Romans.

It's also implying that some people in this thread are racist and/or edgy which is not nice.

I'm not the one getting butthurt over a bargain basement educational cartoon. I mean, if these people are so up in arms over the "historical accuracy" of having a non-lily white family depicted in Roman Britain, I fully expect to see them complaining about the Ridley Scott war epic Kingdom of Heaven because the real Balien de Ibelin didn't look like Orlando Bloom.

 

[Kyriakos]

^No, you are repeating yourself. But your initial statement was rather crude and trolling, no? Repent and sin no more.

Btw, Jesus should not have a beard. It gives him a marxist vibe.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The thing is, pointing out however blatantly, that the Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic state encompassing multiple ethnic, religious, and cultural groups coexisting in (relative) harmony with (relatively)* strong integration goes directly counter to the narrative pushed by so called "race realists" or "white nationalists"; which I think we can both agree is something probably worth doing. Plus, anything that dismantles the discredited and borderline racist narrative that the Roman Empire was brought down by "immigrants" earns a hearty approval in my book.

*Spain is full of Roman monuments bearing inscriptions like "Established by Flavius Gaius Julius, son of Balagus". It shows that at minimum the local Gallic nobility was at least confident that by adopting Roman habits they would be Romans.

WTH are you freaking talking about, man?! NONE of the things you mention as historic fact would have steered about anyone.
Go freaking figure. I mean I am sure all kind of deplorable folks are about, but you are not even engaging them on the ground of their grievances. You are engaging them on grounds not objected to by them all, and do so by labeling those grounds as "multi-cultural". The later not even outright, but entirely implicit, but all the more clear, to be sure.
So again: what are you freaking talking about, man?!
BECAUSE FREAKING CLEARLY YOU do NOT want to be clear about it. But rather enjoy the mantle of predominant obtuse savior cult. And I believe it to be proper to say this without any agenda but as actual fact.
As opposed to you who has all but given up to treat an agenda as an actual agenda, but naturally intermingles it with all areas of reasonable argument like it is opposing reason accused pf being unacceptable (which you may believe) but with no care for differentiating such a believe from freaking historical fact (which you may plainly not)
I mean can you be even freaking clear about what you are saying, at least?
In stead of going into a relativistic francy posing as honest history?
That would be nice. I do not care what you believe. But be fracking upfront, if possible, about what you are even saying. Because otherwise, you turn debate into a game of agenda-hide-and-seek. Whereas facts are hide. And yes facts can be that. Because facts are OF COURSE meaningless without context. Welcome to the grown up world, where fake news is not a relevant term. That is for the infertile would mass media.
And that is plainly disingenuous.

 

[bernie14]

it only seems natural that pasty whites with a superiority complex that where able to bully the rest of the world races and ethnic groups, now seeing their worthlessness, have developed self loathing guilt BUT STILL want to tell others how to think or act....opposites are so psychologically easy...political intolerance is now political correctness intolerance....pathetic really

 

[Leonel]

I don't see why a Roman Legionnaire recruited from Africa couldn't relocate to Britannia.

 

[Borachio]

1. The language barrier
2. The climate
3. The hostile natives
4. Immigration control
5. Stresses on the existing infrastructure

Fact is, they just don't assimilate well, these Roman African Legionnaires.

Mind you, it would be different if only they'd leave their swords at home. And learn the language. But they don't.

 

[Arakhor]

Legionnaires are French: legionaries were Roman.

 

[Borachio]

Coo.

That's me told. And no mistake.

 

[Arakhor]

Not just you, Borachio. It seems to be a rather common mistake.

 

[Lexicus]

It's also implying that some people in this thread are racist and/or edgy which is not nice.

But some people in this thread are manifestly racist. The only reason this thread exists at all is because the OP is racist, for example.

Moderator Action: Calling users racist is both flaming and trolling. Please don't do that. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Borachio]

I fully expect to see them complaining about the Ridley Scott war epic Kingdom of Heaven because the real Balien de Ibelin didn't look like Orlando Bloom.

And he wasn't a blacksmith either.

See? I can get all edgy on occasion, too.

 

[warpus]

The thing is, pointing out however blatantly, that the Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic state encompassing multiple ethnic, religious, and cultural groups coexisting in (relative) harmony with (relatively)* strong integration goes directly counter to the narrative pushed by so called "race realists" or "white nationalists"; which I think we can both agree is something probably worth doing. Plus, anything that dismantles the discredited and borderline racist narrative that the Roman Empire was brought down by "immigrants" earns a hearty approval in my book.

Where are these white nationalists in this thread? Where are the edgelords? WHO are you talking to when you make useless posts like that?

I mean dudes, keep your local audience in mind. Maybe go on stormfront if you want to annoy racists. We are trying to have actual conversations here (I think)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not sure if this has been posted, but it was linked on another forum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ator-gets-schooled-historian-diversity-roman/

 

[Arakhor]

So, apparently on the original video uploaded to YouTube, the description mentions that this is a typical family, so the description is indeed in error because the portrayed family is clearly wealthy and highly privileged, which even by Roman standards was not 'typical'.

"Typical family life" would have been more accurate, but wouldn't have stopped those with racist views crawling out of the woodwork.

 

[Arakhor]

As posted by MechanicalSalvation, which I stupidly managed to delete when attempting to merge the two posts:

So, apparently on the original video uploaded to YouTube, the description mentions that this is a typical family, so the description is indeed in error because the portrayed family is clearly wealthy and highly privileged, which even by Roman standards was not 'typical'.

"Typical family life" would have been more accurate, but wouldn't have stopped those with racist views crawling out of the woodwork.

If you can call others views racist without proper justification I am sure I can call yours nutty without much explanations either.

But some people in this thread are manifestly racist. The only reason this thread exists at all is because the OP is racist, for example.

So it has nothing to do with historicity/historic accuracy you would say?

 

[Lexicus]

So it has nothing to do with historicity/historic accuracy you would say?

@Mechanicalsalvation
Correct. These people don't know the first thing about history anyway.

 

[Arakhor]

If you can call others views racist without proper justification I am sure I can call yours nutty without much explanations either.

Well, you can, but given that I mentioned that said views (not their espousers) were racist and I didn't specify any names, that would be rather silly.

 

[civver_764]

"Typical family life" would have been more accurate, but wouldn't have stopped those with racist views crawling out of the woodwork.

If there was a South African kid's educational cartoon which depicted ancient Zulus as white, and black South Africans were upset about it, would you call them racist?