I think I may end up wishing that I hadn't brought this up. Ethnicity tends to be a hot button topic these days. Oh well, here goes.
I believe that an Asatruar was in here, and said that Romans could take part in Asatru, because the Romans were a Germanic people. When he says "Roman" in a modern context, should I take that to mean the Romance speaking residents of Europe, and their relatives overseas? Of course, either way, this would be inaccurate. The ancient Romans most certainly were not a Germanic people, any more than the Irish are a Slavic people. This, if I remember correctly, he defended by saying that the Romans and Germans were both "Indo-European". This argument confuses the order of inclusion : all Germanic languages are Indo-European languages, but not all Indo-European languages are Germanic. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. A more basic point is being missed here, however.
Language is not ethnicity. The majority of the early 21st century population of Mexico speaks an Indo-European language: Spanish. One could scarcely refer to the majority of that population as being "Indo-European" by ethnicity, whatever that would mean. They're visibly non-caucasian (and pardon me for reminding everybody of the obvious). They do not speak an Indo-European language because very much of their ancestry branched off of some pre-cursor "Indo-European" ethnic group. They speak an Indo-European language because their ancestors were conquered by an Indo-European speaking people (the Spanish), whose ancestors were, in turn, conquered millennia earlier by another Indo-European speaking people (the Romans). By this point, any "Indo-European" bloodline is going to be thinned out to the point of invisibility.
May I suggest to our Asatruar visitor that the Romans were far from the first Indo-European people to conquer a non-Indo-European speaking population, without eliminating it? Note that the population of northern India bears little physical resemblance to that of either Italy of Germany, nor does it seem to bear any resemblance to that of ancient Italy, judging from the portraiture still existing, much of it done in loving detail, with striking realism. (Take a look at some of the busts of the emperors, so lifelike that one is almost amazed that they don't start breathing). Obviously, some branches of the "Indo-European" people didn't engage in genocide, back during early antiquity. I would then question, just how useful a concept, that of "Indo-European" ethnicity really is, in understanding the peoples and cultures of Europe, India and Central Asia.
The Indo-European speaking migrants did not enter a cultural vacuum in the Mediterranean basin. Population flow from North Africa to Southern Europe goes back into pre-history, if I understand correctly. These non-Indo-European migrants into the region, even if they lacked the political power needed to change the language in use, would have brought their culture with them. That culture, being that of people who had been settled for millenia, is likely to have been far richer and well-developed than that of a group of nomads fresh in from their wanderings. (One recalls that the Mongols, in conquering China, found their culture becoming more Chinese; the Chinese did not become especially Mongolian. Earlier, the Hyksos ruling Egypt, Egyptianized during their period of rule, Egypt did not become noticeably Asian).
See where I'm going with this ?
Hi. Where did you enter this page from?
- "Racialism Starts to Intrude"
- The ReligioRomana archives
- (via the Loborubro page)