Strange this isn't in the FAQ.

Now the easiest way to answer this is to say that the Romans did not have racism based on physical appearance. Which isn't to say they didn't have prejudices, they had plenty, but there wasn't the sort of quick physical categorization that there is in modern racism. For example, I can point to quite a bit of art, such as this rather fine bust of an African youth, and note how there is not the sort of grotesque physical exaggeration one sees in later European art. Which isn't to say there weren't such depictions (note: this is Greek, not Roman, but there are some Roman examples of similar art) but they are in the theater-esque mask absurd context, and not to fall back on this defense, but these sort of exaggerated characterizations were used equally, including to depict other Greeks. But that grotesque exaggeration was not used in more dignified media such as statuary. And while there were certainly black slaves in Rome--in the immediately prior Hellenistic they seem to have been something of a novelty--but there were slaves of all sort, ans Africans were iin no way associated with slavery.

So the easy way to answer is to say no, there was no racism in the modern sense. However, this isn't entirely correct, and one scholar has suggested that modern racism has its origins in ancient geographic prejudice. This may well be true, but even Issac does not give a stronger claim than that this is "proto-racism" and there is no real uniquely vitriolic demonization of black Africans (Egyptians are arguably the main target of Roman prejudice, and that was because they were very culturally distinct).

Basically then, you would be treated as another provincial. If you were high class and spoke good Latin, you would be able to easily flit among the upper classes.