/lit/ - Literature

>muh female suffering
Yikes!

>>12401050
If you aren't intelligent enough to engage in the thread you probably shouldn't be posting.

You really gotta find new bait man. Or at the very least change up the wording and use a different angle. It’s the little things that count and I think you’ve overfished the waters here for the time being.

WHY do female authors make my blood boil so much. FUUUUUCKKKK

>>12401113
The problem is that this book gets /lit/ so goddamn angry that there's no reason to even find another book that makes /lit/ mad. This thread could be posted 2000 times a day and /lit/ would still seethe with rage upon seeing it.

>>12401039
She's a renowned classicist and an expert at her subject, what should I be mad for?

>>12401114
Because they exists on the pretense that thier entire audience is logical.

>>12401122
In the first thread people gave you all sorts of reasons for not liking it. You ignored it and continued assuming it's all because of misogyny. Now you're constantly this thread. You're a loser dude.

>>12401511
Sounds like you're still mad.

Mary Beard is a daft hen and her claims that buggery and sodomy were normative in Ancient Rome is a bit sophomoric

Mary Beard claims Rome fell because super trendy homosexuality made everyone into bum-chasing poofters and the barbarians were embraced as "more fun for the ongoing orgies"

Can someone explain to me the big meme about this book I'm out of the loop

stop spamming this thread, fuckhole.

>>12401978
It makes /lit/ unreasonably angry.

>>12402162

Was it that she insinuated that Rome had a multicultural origin or something else?

>>12402294
There are a few paragraphs about how being a woman in ancient Rome sucked that got /lit/ utterly buttblasted.

>>12402294
>>12401039

Btw, just thought I'd give /lit/ a heads up, these people barely reference archeological findings, so in light of this their works are little more than summarisations of old primary texts like Sallust's histories and Cicero and Caesar's private writings, etc. You're mostly better off just reading the older texts yourself unless you're short for time and want a very expansive albeit shallow view of history.

These old texts are also free so it'll save you cash as well
https://archive.org/details/texts

>>12401110
>Homer
>Minoan mural

>>12402294
She was on a BBC show saying that Roman Britain was diverse, and I dont have a problem with this as they shipped north african and illyrian troops north and british legions south. The work itself is a perfectly fine pop history with some focus on social history, and there is nothing really wrong with that either. The homosexuality in rome stuff is problematic, because conflating elite greek fratry culture with imperial roman culture is garbage, and it should always be noted that homosexuality in the latin context is never presented fondly, rather it is almost always a criticism of some emperor buggering boys written by his detractors ala suetonius

>>12402351
>Minoan mural
>not acknowledging that Mycenaean took over crete in the late bronze age

>>12402351
>Thinks Homer was Greek and not Anatolian
>Thinks Homer/Homeric didn't travel to Crete
I have a book for you. You might like it.

>>12402380
In search of the trojan war by michael wood is an excellent primer to this as well.

>>12402388
>>12402363
"she" writes like Joyce

>>12402359
Her BBC documentaries are so basic It's fucking insulting, she does she shit like standing in front of a penis shaped object and takes 10 entire minutes to explain phallus symbolism, why.

>>12401039
I bought this book because of these threads.

>>12402374
>>12402387
Nice

>>12402359

I thought that she was criticised for justifying the presence of a Negro in Roman Britain - and not just a Negro, but one of high military rank.

I think there was like one that was recorded, but that kind of proves it was exceptional, otherwise the historian (Severus) in question would have thought nothing of it. Severus was also born and ancestrally from North Africa, so the fact that an 'Ethiopian' surprised him is all the more compelling evidence that Negros in Roman North Africa was a rare sight.

>>12402400
Based and Beard pilled

>>12402395
its not really her fault, BBC knows its audience. if you really want nice lectures you should try old teaching company lectures or googling keynotes at academic conferences of the subject you want, which are usually on youtube

>>12402419
i heard that, but i just figured she was conflating "negro-id" with berbers. I mean she is def a post-structuralist and probably didnt know what she was wading into. I imagine when she drops stuff like that in her comfy seminars no one bats an eye

>>12402294
Rome was mutt central seeing as people from all parts of the empire flocked there.

>>12402359

I thought that she was criticised for justifying the presence of a Negro in Roman Britain - and not just a Negro, but one of high military rank.

I think there was like one that was recorded, but that kind of proves it was exceptional, otherwise the historian (Severus) in question would have thought nothing of it. Severus was also born and ancestrally from North Africa, so the fact that an 'Ethiopian' surprised him is all the more compelling evidence that Negros in Roman North Africa were a rare sight.

>>12402437
see
>>12402431

>>12402436

No, I'm talking about its origins specifically. Like the city of Rome c. 900BC - 300BC

>>12402332
>these people barely reference archeological findings

when you study native american history which is almost 99% archaeological reconstruction it is so fucking different than studying classics. Like whole periods are defined by middens

>>12402332
Plenty of history books reference archeology, SPQR is pop history for people unfamiliar with Rome, best to read an actual history book that incorporates archeological findings rather than rely only on primary sources which are often fragmentary or only tell a small part of the story. Classical and archaic Greek history would be barebones if not for the archeological discoveries of the past century

>>12402469
>native american history
may as well be a bear or chimpanzee historian if you want to study droppings and trash

>>12402496
Embarrassing desu, and I could have thrown up mayan or inca sites np.

>>12402431

>I imagine when she drops stuff like that in her comfy seminars no one bats an eye

I wonder how many people believe just balls in your face wrong information because their professor said it as an offhand remark during a lecture without even really thinking about it.

>>12401110
has painted lips and makeup like a harlot,

>>12402380
ohh that jackass bernard knox wrote the introduction

>>12401069
>implying that there are intelligent people in this thread

>>12401039

>>12401039
Mary Beard is an IYI BS vendor.

>>12401039
>watch her Pompeii documentary
>she literally holds no regard for archeological evidence and uses the excavation zone like her personal playground
Why are claccisists are so bad at treating ancient stuff? Don't these people know how careful they should be when inspecting an archeological material? How dense is she?

>>12402388
>>12402363
>>12401601
where is the "brap sow" tweet pic?

>>12402469
>>12402496
>>12402507
There is no such thing as pre-Columbian Native American history. Archaeology IS NOT HISTORY. It's anthropology for fuck's sake.

>>12404019
>studying historic documents isn't history since it's also archaeology so it's anthropology

>>12404019

t. Caucasoid eunuch of Zog

Maybe there's no need to share our history with libidinous pig flesh colloquially named "white people."

>>12404042
>archaeology
>studying historic documents
Nice reddit image by the way.

>>12404047
What the fuck are you even on about?
>>>/pol/ is that way.

>>12404056

You deny my family's history and legacy and you tell me to leave? Is there anything more unabashedly European? I'm convinced your Caucasoid agriculture is rotting your mind and spirit, so much so that you suppose there's no history because we didn't prostitute ourselves well enough.

>>12404065
I like you

>>12404016

Braap ranchers are modern day slavers. They got their start in post-Qaddafi Libya and have now spread to Appalachia and the border towns of Texas and Mexico.

>>12404065
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting newfriend.
>>12404066
Don't encourage bad behavior.

>>12404073
>>12404051
>>12404042
>>12402395
>>12402400

Why are Mary Beard threads such good containers for pedants?

FYI, if I linked your post you displayed pedantic behavior and you get called out for that kind of infraction on nu-/lit/.

Wow, Mary Beard sure does some funny research, haha

>>12404080
/lit/, /his/ and /sci/ are literally containment boards for pedantic behavior.

>>12402437
>I thought that she was criticised for justifying the presence of a Negro in Roman Britain
The non-Alex Jones guy from infowars posted a link or screencap to the BBC cartoon about Rome saying Romano-Briton wasn't multicultural. She never once refernced the BBC video. She just responded by saying that it was multicultural, which is true, then people got butthurt and a massive flamewar happened.

>>12404170

Even if we're just talking Romans proper and not of any North Africans or Middle Easterners, etc., from genetic data it seems like there weren't really that many Romans in Britannia. Certainly there was cultural influence like Roman baths, customs, gods, etc., but not multiculturalism in the sense of numerous large distinct groups of widely different cultures inhabiting the same area.

Modern day Englishmen are ~2% Greco-Italian DNA, and ~5% Mediterranean DNA if you include Spain. The Spanish DNA probably comes from the common celtic and bell beaker connection, but even taking that for granted that's only 5% of the English character hailing from European Romans.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5325857/Average-Brits-DNA-60-European.html
https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/international/press-releases/DNA-of-the-nation-revealedand-were-not-as-British-as-we-think

Btw the link above means 'Continental Europe' when it says "60% European".

>>12404170

Mary Beard got her beef CHARRED by head whore grill chef taleb

>>12404238
>Multiculturalism is solely based on race
Roman culture clearly blended with the culture of local tribes during the occupation. The Roman empire didn't even care about race, so it was able to include conquered people into the system and gave them a stake in preserving it.

>>12404266

That's what I said my dude, England today has a city named "Bath" so clearly they were influenced by Roman culture, but that doesn't mean there was actually a substantial number of Romans proper physically in Britannia. This is what people usually mean when they say multicultural.

When people say "Multiculturalism" they're usually referring to many culturally and ancestrally distinct groups cohabiting the same area. I'll provide an example if you can imagine such a bizarre location for a moment: no one would say that a public place in 1960s Northern Sweden with goths, metalheads, Star Trek nerds, and fundamentalist Christians was "Multicultural", even though these are definitely distinct subcultures and ways of life.

>>12404284

Change that to 1980s, 60s is too early for the example to make sense. Either way the principle remains the same.

>>12404238
>from genetic data it seems like there weren't really that many Romans in Britannia
Asides from the fact that this is very misleading it's also misguided in that it assumes a very particular kind of multi-multiculturalism is the only kind.

>that's only 5% of the English character hailing from European Romans
Outside of major settlements Rome exerted little influence interaction. They didn't control all of the British isles of what they did their non-Celtic physical presence was almost entirely in the very south. Aristocracy tends to be insular, reproduction of slaves is controlled, children are slaves are also slaves. A large part of the make up of this cities are of only a temporary nature and do not tend to influence genetic make up, sailors, traders, even a large amount of government officials. After Constantine took the last Roman army out of Briton large numbers of the non-Celtic members of Romano-Briton left. This is why I say statements like this are misleading.

Why I say it's misguided is that it assumes that multi-cultural can only mean large integration of peoples throughout an entire country that's so large as to massively change the genetic makeup of the the region almost 1500 years later. This is a very strange definition that doesn't match the way most people use it.
Romano-Britain was multicultural because you had the smashing together of urban Roman and rural Celtic. You had a multi-ethnic aristocracy and slaves, at one point there was a Berber governor, sailors and merchants from all over the known world in your cities, soldiers recruited from Gaul and from Germanic tribes and yes as you mentioned the importation of culture. The term is multicultural, not multiethnic, the importation of Roman culture into a culturally Celtic world IS multi-cultural. If you lived in the north you might not even really understand that much was very different but to say to a Celt living in a southern city that the culture surrounding him wasn't some weird mix of many things to him would be absolutely absurd.

>>12404303

>Roman presence mostly in South
Okay, then DNA should go from 2-4%

>Romans didn't leave genetic impact
I thought that the Legions would've dicked around a lot, and there are anecdotal cases of that happening. I guess you could have merchants and so on. Shame we don't have any hard numbers or demographic data to refer to.

>Multicultural can refer to practices not people
Eh, most dictionary definitions refer to people or ethnies as a component of the multicult and the common man sees multiculturalism as being the same as having a multiethnic area. Beard should've known better imo if that's what the argument is based on.

>>12404339
>Eh, most dictionary definitions refer to people or ethnies as a component of the multicult and the common man sees multiculturalism as being the same as having a multiethnic area
I just looked up seven different dictionary defintions of multicultural, including ones such as Oxford and Merriam-Webster and none of them give the ethnic centric view you are claiming. Most treated the ethnic and cultural equally and a couple only mentioned the cultural.
It sounds like your taking your idea of what multiculturalism is and projecting that onto what other people mean when they say those terms.

>Okay, then DNA should go from 2-4%
Even if we do humour the genetic centric view (in which you ignored all the reason except for one why the figures you are giving are incredibly unreliable) if you have a population of 100 and 2 of them are of a different ethnic group and they both double in population you know have 200 vs 4. In terms of percent they are proportional but there are not 196 more than the 4 where before there was only 98 more. Thus small groups need to increase at a far faster rate than the large groups in order to keep an equal foot print. Looking at data for modern day Britain at 66 million (without considering another possible variance) as providing anything approaching the makeup of what I've seen estimated as the 4 million population of over 1500 years ago is extremely irresponsible.

>>12404339
I realise I misread you before in regards to the dictionary definitions. You can disregard most of what I wrote in that paragraph.

>>12403951
is this like 4chan for women

>>12401610
Now, I'm no Roman scholar, but that just don't seem right to me

i fucking hate when sjws rewrite history, it doesn´t help either that they´re bad at interpreting history altogether

Boy this book made /lit/ mad.

>>12401039
>>12401114
>>12401122
>>12401534
>>12402162
>>12406407
retard
>>12404047
based, fuck wh*teoids

>>12404047
>implying you even have history
where are your books and literary sources that were not gifted to you by the grace and love of pious christians?

>>12407025

Why would we share it outside our families? Do we give a shit about barbarian book clubs?

>>12401215
she posted a picture of herself, teary-eyed, because she wasn't hard-line enough for the brown menace. It's time to call it a day at that point, especially a woman of her age.

>>12402351
>judging a book by its cover

>>12402395
What went wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6qYjisp51M

>>12402359

The fuck you talking about. Have you never read Satyricon?

>>12406439
Yep, you mad