Rome was a multiethnic empire. I don't see what being Roman or not has to do with ethnicity.
The Roman people living there being ethically Berber, that is, African. The name Africa itself probably coming from the Afri Berber tribe. They were both Roman people and also ethnically African.
And Berber tribes despite not being from subsaharan Africa did, through thousands of years of contact, have significant ethnic and cultural admixture with various subsaharan African peoples. Not that North Africa is less African than subsaharan Africa.
By Roman I meant having Italic roots. It is a bit disingenuous to call them them indigenous or ethnically African. Especially because his father was of Punic origin and not a Berber as you are implying.
There were multiple Roman emperors born in North Africa. One had mixed Punic and Italic origins, one was a mix between Punic, Berber, and Syrian ancestry, and Caracalla had only Berber ancestry.
Caracalla could not possible be only of Berber ancestry, since neither of his parents were Berber. His father (Septimius Severus, the first "African emperor") was of Punic and Italic origins. Caracalla's mother (Julia Domna) was of Arab origins. The third Roman emperor was his brother Geta.
You are correct on that detail - I mixed up Caracalla and Macrinus, the second of which was of Berber origin and also a Roman emperor. Which is an ironic error from part since Macrinus conspired to kill Caracalla. My original point still stands, however, and I believe you are still mistaken in that.
> Macrinus was born in Caesarea (modern Cherchell, Algeria) in the Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis to an equestrian family of Berber origins. According to David Potter, his family traced its origins to the Berber tribes of the region and his pierced ear was an indication of his Berber heritage.
You are right, I did forget about Macrinus (mixed Geta's timeline). Though I don't agree with your point still standing. Him being an emperor for a short time was more of a fluke rather than an indicator of something common. Rome was in possession of North Africa for 2 centuries or more by than. He is the only Emperor for who you could claim to be indigenous (as far as we know) North African. And he ruled for only 1 year.
A lot of Romans (i.e. inhabitants of Rome) did not have Italic roots. Most inhabitants of Rome came from conquered regions, either as slaves, as wives, or as traders.
The Roman people living there being ethically Berber, that is, African. The name Africa itself probably coming from the Afri Berber tribe. They were both Roman people and also ethnically African.
And Berber tribes despite not being from subsaharan Africa did, through thousands of years of contact, have significant ethnic and cultural admixture with various subsaharan African peoples. Not that North Africa is less African than subsaharan Africa.