In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm Collins dive deep into the forbidden history of group-based stereotypes and cultural pattern recognition from ancient Egypt through Renaissance Europe. This is the dark lore mainstream education won’t touch — what Egyptians really thought of Nubians and Libyans, Greek views of “effete” Persians and rowdy Macedonians, Roman donkey-god graffiti mocking Jews and Christians, medieval antisemitic pig-suckling art that makes modern versions look tame, and the surprising origins of the “French Vice,” “Italian Vice,” and “English Vice.”

The Collinses explore how what we now call racism was once just observed averages, patterns, and tribal jokes — not modern ideological sin. No moralizing. Just raw historical context on how humans have always categorized “us vs. them.”

Show Notes

With the release of Talkie, a 13M “vintage” language model trained only on pre-1931 text, people realized just how casual, widespread, and matter-of-fact prejudice was in even the recent past.

Ancient Egypt

Different groups were absolutely depicted, mostly with Egyptians being reddish, nubians being black, Asiatics being tan (and often bearded), and Libyans being white (and often bearded)

Nubians as people to conquered

Texts and artistic programs from pharaonic Egypt sometimes emphasize Nubia as a land to be subdued and exploited, supporting a stereotype of Nubians as “barbaric” or less civilized compared to Egypt.

* See:Critique of the “Black Pharaohs” Theme: Racist Perspectives of Egyptian and Kushite/Nubian Interactions in Popular Media https://www.jstor.org/stable/48763823

Canaanites/Asiatics as rebellious and treacherous

* Egyptian sources portray peoples to the northeast of the nile (“Asiatics,” including Levantine groups) as culturally suspect, often linked to rebellion, disorder, and treachery

* They were also, however, viewed as trading partners and skilled craftsmen

* TL:DR: They threatened social order

* Egyptian royal narratives from the later 17th–16th centuries BCE describe the Hyksos (“Shepherd Kings”) as foreign usurpers who disrupted proper Egyptian order.

* After the Theban kings of the 18th Dynasty expelled them around 1550 BCE, Egyptian texts portray this expulsion as the restoration of Ma’at (cosmic order), implicitly stereotyping Asiatic rule as chaotic, illegitimate, and oppressive

* In New Kingdom imperial inscriptions, Canaanite city‑states are often framed as unreliable vassals—prone to rebellion, needing punishment, and subject to heavy tribute and forced labor conscription

Libyans: Western barbarians turned useful soldiers and even rulers

* In Egyptian sources, Libyans were stereotyped both as dangerous, warlike “western barbarians” and, over time, as useful soldiers and eventually fully Egyptianized rulers; the view shifted from hostile outsider to complex “cousin” status as Libyan groups migrated into the Delta and took power.

* Sometimes they traded; sometimes they fought

* “The Libu were first mentioned in New Kingdom (c. 1550-1069 BCE) texts and were often the Libyan archetype depicted in Egyptian art. Libu tribesmen were depicted with their hair cut at the nape, a sidelock, and often tattooed. All Libyan tribes were shown with light complexions and Caucasian features.” (The Collector, citing “The Meshwesh”)

* They had tattoos and sidelocks and interesting haircuts

* “Eventually, massive migration brought the Libyans into Egypt’s Delta during the New Kingdom, forever changing the political landscape of the Nile Valley.” (The Collector)

Ancient Greece

Greeks commonly divided the world into Hellenes (Greek speakers) and “barbarians” (non‑Greek speakers), treating Greek culture as inherently superior.

Persians as decadent and effete

* Persians especially were portrayed as decadent, soft, and naturally suited to monarchy rather than free citizenship

* Their art of Darius the Great certainly makes him look fancy

Athenians: Cultural elites

* Athenians were stereotyped—especially in Athenian sources—as philosophical, talkative, artistic, and politically engaged, the center of culture and debate.

Spartans: Disciplined warriors

* Sparta practiced xenelasia, the expulsion or strict control of foreigners, driven by fears that outsiders might spy on Sparta or corrupt its harsh, militarized way of life.

* This created a stereotype of Spartans as intensely closed, suspicious of outsiders, and committed to preserving a rigid ethos that rejected luxury, commerce, and cosmopolitan influences

* Spartan woman were also definitely seen differently than Athenian women (who were largely meant to be unseen), what with their athleticism, property ownership, etc.

* Art of a Spartan woman running:

Ionian Greeks: Cowards

* Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor (e.g., coastal cities under Persian rule) were stereotyped as cowardly and weak fighters, “softened” by their mild climate and prosperity, and as good talkers but poor warriors.

Boitians: Hicks

* Boiotians, especially Thebans, were mocked as brutish country hicks—agricultural, uncultured, and un‑cosmopolitan—later also stereotyped as big, strong wrestlers rather than subtle thinkers.

Ancient Rome

Christians

* Alexamenos worships [his] god” graffiti

* The artist is referring to a well‑known slur that Jews and then Christians worshipped a donkey—an accusation called onolatry—and used the donkey head to mock Christ and Alexamenos as absurd, foolish worshippers

* At first, Christians were seen as just another Jewish subgroup

* Their devotion to a crucified man and claims about one true god were seen as peculiar but not uniquely threatening compared to other mystery cults and foreign religions.

Jews: Stubborn cliquey weirdos

* Jews were portrayed as stubborn subjects with a herd mentality, fiercely attached to unique customs such as circumcision and dietary laws.

* Romans satirized Jews as gullible religious fanatics and puzzled over their attitudes toward pigs, sometimes imagining them as pig‑worshippers or pig‑haters, while also fearing that Romans themselves might be seduced into Jewish practices.

All outsiders: Barbarian

* Romans tended to divide the world into Roman and non‑Roman, with non‑Romans often lumped as “barbari” and assumed to be less civilized, less disciplined, and less politically sophisticated.

* Foreigners could be mocked for accents, dress, food, and religious practices, and were frequently portrayed as either dangerously cunning or naïvely simple.

* At the same time, Roman writers sometimes romanticized “barbarians” as noble savages, using them rhetorically to critique decadence and corruption inside Rome itself.

Greeks: Admirable and contemptible

* The good: The source of philosophy, art, and literature

* The bad: Talkative, tricky, morally weak, effeminate, prone to luxury, unreliable in war (basically, brainy but soft)

Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Syrians (people from the levant): Sleazy merchants

* Stereotyped as sleazy merchants obsessed with money and pleasure

* The phrase “fides Punica” (“Phoenician honesty”) became proverbial for deceit, and Carthaginians were especially cast as treacherous, cruel enemies whose sophistication made them dangerous.

* Syrians and other easterners were depicted as lazy bon‑vivants living in over‑civilized cities, spending their time in baths and banquets instead of honest work or soldiering.

* Roman elites worried that exposure to such cultures would “soften” Romans, so Levantine peoples embodied a stereotype of corrupting luxury and dishonesty.

Egyptians: Ancient and sinister

* Romans were fascinated and disturbed by their religious rituals and animal cults

* Roman writers framed Egypt as a land of magic, superstition, and arrogant priests, and resented Roman dependence on Egyptian grain, which led to a stereotype of Egyptians as arrogant and entitled

Persians / Parthians: Formidable enemies

* Persians and later Parthians were stereotyped as the archetypal eastern enemy: militarily formidable but ruled by cruel, tyrannical monarchs.

* Romans cast Persia as the mirror image of Rome—an empire of disciplined warriors, but with an inferior, despotic political system and excessive royal luxury.

Gauls: Noble savages

* Gauls were initially seen as hotheaded, brave, “noble savages”: valiant in battle but impetuous, simple, and prone to rashness.

* After Gaul became more integrated into the empire, Romans began to stereotype Gauls as softening under luxury and Romanization, while still recognizing them as good ora...