> Romans were white even more than current Italians.

What does "to be white" even mean, especially when applied to a culture in which the modern primarily-American understanding of the word was completely absent? To me it seems as pointless an argument as it would be for hypothetical time-travelling ancient Romans to argue whether 21st century Americans are Roman citizens or not.

What are you asking actually? We are questioning their “whiteness” from modern perspective of course. But I wonder something else. Why didn’t you attack the original author with that question? It’s the same. Or it works only in one way - when white people are attacked. White lives matter is racist, but Black lives matter is fair game. Someone saying the ridiculous lie that Roman nobility was racially diverse is ok, but pointing out this as a lie is met with “what white means actually”. And, of course, downvotes for everything. Because democracy works for the most vocal. What does it mean black actually? Why only their lives matter? Why they need special treatment, if there is no definition of White/Black?

Hey, would you please read the site rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Your account has already gotten involved in flamewars in a way that contradicts what the site is meant for. We want people to use HN for intellectual curiosity [1]. We don't want people to use HN for ideological battle, because that kills curiosity. It does so in two ways: one by being super repetitive [2] (people bash each other with the same points over and over again, which is tedious and predictable), and two because such flamewars are so divisive and linked to such intense feelings that they quickly turn nasty, which is terrible not only for curiosity but also community.

It's in principle possible to have curious conversation about divisive topics [3], but it needs to be done in an entirely different way: respectfully and with a certain gentleness towards the people on the other side, even though you strongly disagree with them, and with the motive of actually receiving information rather than lashing out in the hope of smiting and vanquishing enemies.

Because flamewars destroy the intended purpose of this site, we ban accounts that do them, regardless of what they're flaming for or against. Normally I would ban a new account that was doing this (I'm a mod here), but because you've posted about other, more on-topic things, I thought you might appreciate an explanation of the intended use of HN instead. If you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and some of the past moderation explanations I've linked to below, you'll be in a better position to make valuable contributions instead of damaging ones.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

> It’s one of the first Roman laws - noble cannot marry common.

This is more of a historical curiosity than anything else, since the right to intermarriage across the Roman ordines was restored in 445 BCE (i.e. still quite early in the Republican period).

I really don't want to know the sources of the claims in this comment. I am skeptical to put it mildly. If one uses a search engine to look up surviving murals and mosaics from Ancient Rome the faces that pop up bolster the claims in the essay, not this comment.

Edit: Come to think of it, also there were also a few Roman Emperors from North Africa!

Come again? Frescoes are not evidence?

You should know that you’re not making a very strong historical argument when part of your argument is “Ignore these primary sources.”

Your reasoning is haphazard. Where did I say anything about not wanting sources, about leftism, or about any black Roman senator? Who are you arguing with?

I'll stick with mainstream sources.

>Edit: Come to think of it, also there were also a few Roman Emperors from North Africa!

North Africa, like most of the Mediterranean, was white in Roman times. North Africa is only swarthy today in the aftermath of Arab conquest in the 7th and 8th centuries.

This isn’t remotely true. The Berber-speaking population of North Africa, i.e. the autochtonous population that was living there before the Arab invasion (and, of course, before Roman influence) is generally swarthier than those who can demonstrate pure Arab descent.

The historical evidence suggests a range of skin tones in North Africa in ancient times.