The argument that classics are "unfit for the 21st century" because ancient Greeks and Romans were "white men" and "slave owning patriarchs" holds zero water.

First, the premise is false. Greeks and Romans were not at all "white" by modern standards. Not only was skin color not a social construct at the time, but most Mediterranean peoples had darker, bronzed tones. And yes, slavery & patriarchy have existed in every single society since the dawn of time, until very recently. Just because the affordable care act didn't exist in 1991 doesn't mean I will refuse to use Linux because it was created in a time without basic healthcare rights.

The real reason for the decline of classical studies (and more generally history) is because corporations are offering graduates with STEM degrees higher salaries.

I don't think this is a good trend either. I've personally gained more from self-studying the classics than anything from my CS degree.

>> First, the premise is false. Greeks and Romans were not at all "white" by modern standards. Not only was skin color not a social construct at the time, but most Mediterranean peoples had darker, bronzed tones.

More to the point, whatever colour the ancients were, their slaves were very often the same colour as them, having been taken from neighbouring cities during war operations, or even being citizens of the same city who had lost their freedom because of debt, etc.

Obviously, slaves were also often from other places and ethnicities, but my point is that slavery in the ancient world was not the same as slavery in say, American plantations before the civil war. You just can't project 20th and 21st century issues like race onto ancient peoples and hope to make sense of their world.

Er. I hope I don't have to add any disclaimers about abhoring and condemning slavery in every shape or form, and so on?

> Greeks and Romans were not at all "white" by modern standards. Not only was skin color not a social construct at the time, but most Mediterranean peoples had darker, bronzed tones.

You can see what the upper class looked like in Roman Egypt for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits

By modern physiological standards, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Persians, Hebrews, Babylonians, etc., were all white. They're still white now. This is why the formal term used in the US is "Caucasian", named after the Georgians and Armenians who a (European) anthropologist felt were the epitome of white beauty.

(Fun fact: the Romans would insult someone who they felt was lacking in the basics of humanity by saying that that person had been born not of a human mother, but directly from the Caucasus mountains. "Caucasian" probably wouldn't have caught on with them.)

There is another modern standard, which people don't like to talk about explicitly, reasoning as follows:

1. Whites are on top of the world.

2. Arabs don't look like they're on top of the world.

3. Arabs must not be white.

But this system of labeling people "white" isn't useful for much. This is how you get people who are upset that a group consisting of 40% East Asians is "lily-white".

For me, the most off-puting thing about classics is almost the religious veneration with witch some people treat it. It must be talked about as bestest thing by saint perfect person uncriticisable. It is boring, but also does not check out. Often it says something boring and simple, but is still somehow celebrated as words of wisdom. Bad parts are euphemized away with flowery language. Like with slavery (you mentioned it), it is not just that it existed in around independently, it is that the very old ancient text we are talking about is written with purpose to convince contemporaries to be harder on slaves. Same with patriarchy or Sparta militarism or whatever.

I did enjoyed new Odyssey translation lately, but for the love of god cant comprehend all the basic of civilization, immortal wisdom and other similar commentary around it. Why cant I say that parts of it are boring that flowery text of some translations kills even interesting parts? Why do I have to pretend that sirens or meduza part were fun? (They are not, through they are short so no big deal.)

As big as those texts had influence, some of that influence was negative, but that somehow is still presented as good thing, just because old. A bit exaggerated comparison is that if some writing of Gobbels or Hitler remained, people thousands years after might celebrate it as great old writing, chalk militarism and racism and sexism on "culture around". But that is not how it was, those guys texts were dominant because they were active in creating that culture and had awful lot victims.

It is not that I would have moral issue with the above or did not wanted to study it for the above reason. But the way it is mandatory celebrated (at least in teaching I obtained) did not squared to me, did not made sense.

"Few questioned the institution of slavery, and none the patriarchy"

Plato's Republic questioned both slavery and patriarchy. Since this is arguably the most influential philosophical work of the classics, the above statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is true that slavery and patriarchy were the deeply engrained status quo at that point of history and that Plato's vision had authoritarian features, but there was more questionening than the linked text suggests.

Epicurus allowing women into his school as a matter of rule rather than exception, thousands of years before our universities would do so, also deserves our respect.

Also look to the foundations of Greek science and philosophy with Pythagorean female philosophers, 550bc - themistoclea, theano, myia...