Suburani: part 1

Trigger Warning: This post has mentions of r*p*, s**c*d*, sl*v*ry, and r*c*sm. While vowels are not included here, they are in the text for clarity. 

Introduction

Firstly, I teach in a program that is untextbooked. While we regularly reference textbooks and look at resources for ideas and supports, we do not use a textbook in our classes. This has been the case for many years. Secondly, I got a copy of this textbook because it seemed very promising and I'd heard reports of the amount of work and research that went into it and that it was multicultural and made progress in terms of equity. I was very excited to have it as a resource and potentially use it where appropriate.

I am breaking this review into parts. I was planning on writing one review, but as I looked through the chapters, it became clear that this was not possible. So, I will link subsequent and previous reviews as I go, but here is what I'm planning:

1. Review 1 (this one): Chapters 1-9 artwork and culture
2. Review 2: Chapters 10-16 artwork and culture
3. Review 3: Chapters 1-16 Latin text
4. Review 4: Chapters 1-16 Accessibility

I will not be reviewing the grammar pieces, nor will I be reviewing the teaching philosophy, methods, or strategies provided because (a) that is not my point in these reviews and (b) I am still waiting for a textbook built on Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition Research. 

Lastly, while my writing is my own, a number of things that have been shared here were voiced to me by friends and trusted colleagues. Credit is given always, but is only named where appropriate. I could not write these posts without their valued input and discussions they had with me. Where I can I am providing links to online discussions (nothing from private groups, only from public Twitter feeds) and references as I am able. Please bear in mind that I am not perfect and am a full time teacher who is also in grad school, so if I miss something or did not reference something, please put it in the comments and I will get to it as soon as I can.

Lastly, in the interest of copyright, I am not going to be posting pictures of what I see. I will do my best to describe the issues.  

Opening Pages + Chapter 1

1. Cover Page - I must admit how disappointed I was when I first saw the cover of this text. What disappointed me was the fact that while multicultural in some ways, there were not darker toned people on the cover (despite Julia being named in Chapter 3) and those who were not white looked dirtier than those who did look white. What I mean by this is that those with darker skin tones are inconsistently painted and, if it is shadows, it is very unclear. This is a consistent issue throughout the book as I looked.
   
   Another issue present on the cover, and throughout the book, is the possible use of celebrity likenesses. This was discussed at some length on Twitter and you can read that thread here. In addition to those mentioned, I've also spotted Sir Patrick Stuart and Natalie Portman. I am not an expert in using a person's likeness in a textbook, but I know that, for me, it takes away from the story. When I started glancing through this, before a friend and colleague pointed out this thread to me, I recognised faces enough that it actually detracted from me reading any stories. It felt off. Another concern is the legality of it, if this is what has been done. Again, I'm not an expert, but if it were my likeness, I would not be okay with it.
2. The Population of the City of Rome - I don't know if it was the intent of the writer, but multiculturalism is described as people born in Rome and people born outside of Rome. Further they say that "it is hard to know how multicultural the city would have felt to a modern observer," and later, "this suggests, perhaps, that it was not considered particularly important to them" in reference to where people were from (Hands Up Education, 2020). There are a few issues with this. Firstly, there is a lot of evidence to talk about multiculturalism in, at bare minimum, the Roman empire (which much of the book focuses on). While I understand they are talking about the city of Rome, considering they are talking about multiculturalism and spend a lot of time on Rome as an empire, it would stand to reason that some writing on this would be appropriate here. They mention the merging and presence of a variety of religions, so there is evidence. The argument that where people are from "must not have been important" is, in my opinion, inaccurate and ignores research on proto-racism. While looking at things through a modern lens is important, it is also important to understand the ancient lens to, especially when discussing multiculturalism, so I find it incredibly lacking that this isn't discussed here or anywhere. There is plenty of research on these things. For reference, consider looking at my thesis on proto-racism and its use in both Caesar and Pliny's work along with proto-racism in artwork and its comparison to contemporary racism. Regarding multiculturalism in the empire, one might consider reading about the Beachy Head Lady and the Ivory Bangle Lady, both of whom were found in England. There is also a lot of writing and evidence on Roman relationships with the Egyptians, the Aethiopians, the Carthiginians, and the Garamantes. Lastly on this matter, there are many stories about invasions into the city (some of which the book itself discusses later). The suggestion that Rome would not be seen as multicultural, in reality, plays on a common misconception (whether through ignorance or active hate) that African peoples did not travel, did not have socioeconomic relations with Europe, and were not part of the ancient world.
3. Women at Work - The textbook explains a "lack of evidence" that women worked outside the home because "many women must have been occupied with having and raising children and domestic work, such as making clothes" (Hands Up Education, 2020). The wording of this is poor, at best. It echoes assumptions made about women with or without evidence and puts the burden of society's opinions on the woman. Regarding a lack of evidence, again, this is simply not true. We have letters and texts written by women, as two friends and colleagues reminded me during discussion, that show the lives of women. What is even more disturbing about this brief cultural window (it covers less than half a page) is that it ignores that research being done currently about women and their role in the ancient world as writers and creators.
4. Rome in 64 AD - This page focuses on Nero and the "benevolence" and "generosity" he displayed. It discusses how he was a patron of the arts and how those of lower socioeconomic status appreciated him and his work. It goes on to discuss his reforms which benefitted the "common people" and how that upset the wealthy. It does also mention that there was "another side to Nero's character, and he did not cope well with the power available to an emperor" (Hands Up Education, 2020). I want to be clear that I am not saying we need to talk about all the evil things Nero did, but surely we can discuss him without painting over his reign with rose coloured glasses. What is more upsetting to me about this page is that it sets a precedent for how Suburani discusses the Romans and their empire vs. others like the Gauls. Rome can seemingly do no wrong.

Chapter 2 and 3

1. Romulus and Remus​ - This page on Romulus and Remus describes the twins' conception as follows: "However, Rhea Silvia was visited by the god Mars (or so the story goes) and later gave birth to twin sons" (Hands Up Education, 2020).  If this story is pertinent to the textbook, then so is Rhea Silvia and her role in things. This sets a precedent for how the treatment of women is discussed. Much like the previous section on women.... they are overlooked and made to seem unimportant. 
2. Julia - Julia is a character who appears in Chapters  3 and 4. I am not sure if she reappears after chapter 9, but I will find out in my Part 2 review. Since I am not looking at the Latin text in this portion, I will save any of that discussion for later, but I find four things very concerning about this character. The first is that she is, as far as I can tell so far, the only named POC who is not a lighter skin tone. Colorism is a real thing and is dangerous. Representation matters. Julia is named, thankfully, but her name is my second issue. Why does she have a Roman name? Perhaps this isn't the biggest issue, but when paired with her obviously European hair style it is more concerning. We know that Africans traveled through Europe and existed alongside Romans. Couldn't she have been an African girl living in Rome? Again, the Ivory Bangle Lady and the Beachy Head Lady prove that these things happened, so why does she have to be a European Roman (if that's what she is?). Lastly, she has no lines. She doesn't speak. She doesn't do anything in the story that is explicitly stated except greet Sabina and exist as her friend. At best, this is a missed opportunity for representation. At worst, it is a trope. 
3. Charioteers - The text is inconsistent of its use of slave vs. enslaved person and I've heard much discussion on when one should use each or when each serves a text or point best... what concerns me more is the language about enslaved peoples in this and subsequent pages. I've heard the argument that "at least Suburani doesn't push the happy slave trope" or that Suburani doesn't push the "friendly enslaver idea", but that's just what happens in these culture sections. On this page, it is mentioned that  "A charioteer who started out as a slave could even win enough money to buy his freedom" directly after mentioning the celebrity status of athletes and gladiators (Hands Up Education, 2020). Is the idea then that these people were "lucky"?
4. Three Phases of Ruling - I'm just going to flat out say it here. This page doesn't just gloss over the rape of Lucretia, it flat out doesn't even mention it... OR HER. Instead, the revolution is started by a group of wealthy Romans who were "angry at the behavior of... Tarquin the Proud" (Hands Up Education, 2020, pg. 54). As I said before, if this story is important to the textbook, then tell the story. Women should be allowed to exist. Women should be allowed their autonomy and, according to Livy, Lucretia takes her autonomy back. Why must we ignore that? (this last bit is a criticism for all textbooks I've seen that do discuss Lucretia. After the rape, she dies at her own hand, by her own choice, and demands her father and husband avenge her death. Why can we not say it? Why can we not give her the credit she is due.

Chapters 4-5

1. Christianity - This passage of culture was difficult to read and pinpoint what made us all uncomfortable (us all meaning in this case three female Classicists of different religious and academic specialties). While the passage is "fine", it does imply that the Christians are the first group of monotheistic people the Romans come across. This is just false. Firstly the Romans had encounters and experiences with the Jewish people in Judaea. Further, there is evidence of Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. who dedicate their lives to a single deity. The idea of one deity being more important was not new. I don't understand why the text treats Christians this way. After discussing this with a scholar of ancient Christianity, again, while there is nothing out rightly wrong about this passage, it is, at best, misleading. No dates are given, but the storyline seems to be about the time of Claudius, which is well before Christianity is an established religion separate from its parent, Judaism. Artificially separating the two religions too early is problematic in terms of accuracy and in terms of Christianity's history of anti-Semitism and supercessionism.
2. Vesta - Vesta and her priestesses get a small 1/3 of the page below a grammar note. As a woman, this makes me sad.... What frustrates me and angers me is the way these women, who were incredibly important to the city, are talked about. The language implies that the girls chose to become priestesses, choosing to devote 30 years of life to the priesthood at the age of 6, and puts the entire burden of "chastity" on these women: "if she was caught breaking her vow of chastity, she would be punished by being buried alive" (Hands Up Education, 2020, pg. 58). Again, Suburani glosses over the assault of women. 
3. Sacrifice - Meanwhile... an entire paragraph is given to the requirement of "consent" in animal sacrifices. From a feminist standpoint I have nothing to say except, "wait... really?" and from an animal rights stand point I really wish they'd explained how the "nod" was gotten from the animals. 
4. Deucalian and Pyrrha - I love the flood story. I love all the iterations of the flood story across cultures. I am glad to see that discussed here.... but.... the flood story does not appear in the Christian Bible. It appears in the Tanakh or, if you want to use English, the Jewish Bible. This erasure of Jewish existence, history, and culture is anti-Semitic.
5. Rome Under Attack! - This page's language goes back to what I was talking about earlier as setting up Rome as "doing no wrong". The Gauls are here described in very violent terms. One sentence is given to what the Romans did after and is referred to as the "mighty empire". No one is doubting the violence in the sacking of Rome, but why is no attention given to, and in fact Rome is praised, the genocide the Romans enacted on the Gauls?

Chapters 6-7

1. Servititum - This page does not have a formal title, so I am giving it the title of the chapter. Those of us who read this section were mostly confused as to why some things were included. For example, the section on slave or servant is confusing. But, something worth mentioning is the quote on Sub-Saharan Africa: "slave traders also brought slaves from outside the Roman world, for example from Sub-Saharan Africa..." (Hands Up Education, 2020, pg. 92). We know (in fact there are articles and books on it) that the Romans had interactions with and regularly traded with Sub-Saharan Africa. They engaged in wars with each other. We know that the Romans went to Lake Chad.... Why is this being ignored? There are also issues with section 5 on this page "Choosing slavery". If there are no other choices, it isn't a choice.
   
2. Manumission - This goes back to the previous discussion on the friendly slave/master trope. The way this is worded furthers that. It should be noted that there is a sentence saying that we don't know how, in the example given, the enslaved person felt. This feels more as an aside rather than part of the actual point. 
   
3. Londinium - In line with the way the Gauls are described, in this cultural passage, one is led to believe that without the Romans, the Celts lived a horrid life. The Celts were living well before the Romans and the Romans did not save the Celts from themselves. The Romans were not "kind colonisers" (can those even exist?). Yes, some Celts welcomed the Romans, but those who did not are not lesser for it. Later in the chapter, in the section on Food, similar language is employed. The section focuses on the things Romans brought to Britain and how lucky people are for having those things. 
   
4. Romans Invading - This section focuses solely on the Roman invasion of Britain (but includes a quote from Caesar after his invasion in Turkey). Again, while the Gauls were described with violent language, the Romans are described in a matter of fact kind of way. The final paragraph describes how the Romans ultimately conquered Britain, describing the native Celts as "waiting" on the Romans to leave and having the Romans "persevere". This is problematic language, at best.

Chapters 8-9

1. Britannia - Again the trope of "kind colonisers" makes an appearance. While nothing on its own is out right in this manner, the entire page lends itself to this trope.
2. Druids - This page relies on proto-racist descriptions of the Druids as barbaric, cannibalistic, crazed, strange, superstitious, etc. One of the quotes relied on from Tacitus speaks about the Druids as if they were the only ones who used the blood of their enemies and engaged in fortune telling using entrails. While the description specifies human entrails, there are also rumours about Roman emperors doing similar things, but I have never seen that given much credence in a textbook. Caesar is presented here as almost as if he were a "friend" to the Druids by describing their educational system and beliefs about the afterlife. To be clear, Caesar did not see the Druids as his equals or as friends. Again, I recommend looking at proto-racism. 
3. Boudicca - Despite having an entire chapter about Boudicca, she has not been mentioned at all in the culture sections up to this point, including one that discussed how various British tribes reacted to the Romans.
4. Chain of Command - The British did not pass down land the way the Romans did and Boudicca was a queen in her own right. The text does not discuss this except in passing with all focus put on the Romans. While in previous stories mention of rape and assault have been erase or glossed over, in this passage it is described as a violation. Boudicca and her daughters get less than one sentence in this entire section.
   
5. Women and War - It is true Cassius Dio gives an example of Boudicca's speech to her troops. In fact, I've read it with students. It is great writing and an excellent speech. Why, however, does Suburani choose to focus the discussion of the speech on her physical description only? The section of Tacitus' description of the battle focuses on perceived arrogance of the British. Having read this speech, there is SO much more that gives a better picture of the bravery and fighting tactics of the Iceni. Similarly in the Latin, which I know I said would be in another post, but it applies here, Boudicca's only line is the same sentence from the Chain of Command section, "milites Romani me et filia violaverunt" (Hands Up Education, 2020, pg. 136) while the Romans get multiple lines describing their struggles in the battle against the Iceni. Cassius Dio's speech, while in Greek, gives a fuller view of the Iceni and would have been a great place to discuss the kind of warfare the Iceni practiced and would have allowed a fuller view into the Iceni and their values.
   
6. Vercingetorix - Again, while Boudicca is the focus of the chapter, she has less than one sentence in any and all of the culture sections. While I haven't read all of the Latin yet, considering this is a first year text... will there be enough context to make her human? Will she be given the same respect the Vercingetorix was as someone who "tried to fix the problems with the armies of Gaul"?