>>723992795
That’s not entirely true.
First of all, the Roman Empire existed for a very long time, so Roman views were never truly uniform or unchanging. There are multiple sources showing Roman distaste or distrust toward other races or cultures.
For example, many Romans saw Greek influence as something negative — Greek culture was extremely influential, but it was also perceived by some as soft and decadent. Ultimately, of course, it survived and shaped Western civilization.
"Graeci subtiliter disputant, Romani viriliter agunt."
(Paraphrased from Seneca, Epistle 90)
Translation: “The Greeks argue with subtlety; the Romans act with manliness.”
"Graeca adulatio et dedecus urbis."
Tacitus, Annals 11.6
Translation: “Greek flattery — the disgrace of the city.”
"Primum deliciae peregrinae in urbem invectae sunt... tum coquorum et ministrorum greges, et alia luxuria quae mox in domos quoque privatas penetraret, contagione morbi in civitatem versa est."
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 39.6–8
Translation: “Foreign indulgences were first brought into the city... then came whole troops of cooks and attendants, and other forms of luxury, which soon entered private homes — the infection of the disease spread into the state.”
Europeans of the time were, of course, perceived as barbarians — the opposite side of the spectrum. While the Greeks were seen as refined but soft, the northern Europeans were viewed as tough yet primitive and barbaric.
Some sources suggest that the Romans saw themselves as the perfect blend between the two worlds: standing between the Greek and European spheres — both tough and manly, yet also clever and refined.
Ultimately my point is that they've seen race. But they were pragmatic. Take best aspects from other cultures while maitaining your own.
Pragmatism does not equal respect.
