Director Speaks Out: ‘What Bothers You So Much About a Black Cleopatra?’ - Queen Cleopatra (2023) Discussion

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6095) a year ago

In about 20 years people are going to be writing about this period as the time when art suffered because embedded messages became more important than the art itself, and about how those attempted messages completely backfired, causing the reverse of the desired effect.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Nah! Art sucks because of too many superhero movies, spin-offs, remakes and sequels. For example, instead of doing the zillionth movie about Cleopatra, they could've done one about Nefretiti or her much despised husband Pharaoh Akhenaten who started a naturalistic-style art movement and insisted on monotheism. Or even their grandson, King Tut.

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6095) a year ago

True also

Though... I am starting to even dread it when they do do something like this because they can never resist mucking around a great deal with the history. They don't respect it at all and just do whatever they feel like.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

I won't watch most Biblical, Egyptian or Western movies because they are whitewashed. A blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus or Egyptian is laughable.

Even Adam and Eve should always be depicted as black since they lived in Africa and white skin didn't exist until 8,000 years ago in Europe.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8-000-years-ago-10160120.html

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6095) a year ago

True enough

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

I'd ask the director "what bothers you so much about a Greek one?"

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

No proof that she was Greek since her mother is unknown. She was likely racially-mixed like the actress.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

I've already addressed this in another thread on which you were active, so you know these assertions have been refuted. You are being disingenuous, and ignoring evidence you don't want to acknowledge. She was from a Greek/Macedonian dynasty. Her ancestry is known. Saying there is no proof she was Greek is like saying there is no proof that that Barack Obama's father was Kenyan. Moreover, her dynasty was known to have heavily engaged in inbreeding in order to keep the line unpolluted by non-royal blood. Her genealogy most certainly is known to be Greek, with some admixture with the Persian Seleucid dynasty, and that's it. We also know that there is not a single documented Egyptian wife of a Ptolemaic king.

Not one.

And we also know that Cleopatra VII was the very first of her three-hundred year-old dynasty even to bother to learn to speak the Egyptian language. In other words, the Ptolemies were NOT minglers.

To say that there is no proof that she was Greek is stupid. STUPID.

There IS proof that she was Greek. What there is no proof of is that she was anything else.

You are accepting the supposition that she could have had non-Greek ancestry as virtual proof that she did. That is ass-backward from the rules of historiography. It is ass-backward from the rules of scientific inquiry in general: the proper course is to accept only that for which there is evidence. In other words, you don't assume something is so unless evidence refutes it; you assume something is not so unless you have evidence to confirm it. Cleopatra's genealogy indicates Macedonian/Greek ancestry, with some admixture of Persian. There is NO evidence of anything else. You have NO reason, other than speculation -- and from your posts, your own obvious wishful thinking -- to think that Cleopatra was not white/European, and abundant historical evidence to indicate she WAS.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

They haven't been refuted. Her mother was unknown. Her paintings show her to be melanated - not white.
Her sister was shown to be racially mixed with a black mother.

Hiring a racially-mixed actress is likely closer to the reality.

Get over it!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

You mean this painting?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Posthumous_painted_portrait_of_Cleopatra_VII_of_Egypt%2C_from_Herculaneum%2C_Italy.jpg

She looks pretty damn white to me. Even has red hair.

I grant you, that portrait, though ancient, is posthumous, but guess what? There are no surviving contemporary portraits of Cleopatra, apart from a few Egyptian reliefs in the Pharaonic style -- which any paint is long gone from (and Egyptian art is heavily stylized and idealized anyway, not photorealistic).

https://www.memphis.edu/egypt/resources/colortour/dendara3.php

As for Cleopatra's sister -- half-sister -- Arsinoe IV, she was not shown to be to be racially mixed with a black mother, that is conjecture, based on the heavily disputed assertion of Hilke Thür, made after examination of a now-missing skull. The craniometry as used by Thür to determine race is based in scientific racism that is now generally considered a pseudoscience. And the tomb from which that skull came has no name on it, and is not positively identified as Arsinoe's. AND the remaining bones are those of an individual too young to be Arsinoe -- 15-18 years old.

This supposed identification of Arsinoe is exactly what one writer called it: a triumph of conjecture over certainty.

And if by some miracle those remains were Arsinoe's, it still wouldn't prove your case, since she and Cleopatra had different mothers, and while Cleopatra's is not known, most scholars accept it was probably Cleopatra V -- another Macedonian Greek member of the Ptolemy family.

You are straight up cherry picking your evidence, and relying on highly dubious evidence at that.

In short, we have no evidence that Cleopatra was black or even part black. None. You don't assume facts not in evidence.

Get over it!

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

No. That painting isn't based on anything real.

"From a science magazine:

"No two coins are quite alike, but in many, the most prominent features are an aquiline nose and a jutting chin....During her marriage with Mark Antony, a silver denarius coin was issued to pay his troops. Each side of the coin bears one of their faces, and hers seems exaggeratedly Romanized to match his.

Her family hailed not from the land it governed but from Macedonia, which has led many researchers to believe her skin was light — as European art has always depicted her — not dark like that of the native Egyptians."

The lineage of her father, Ptolemy XII, a pharaoh himself, is well-documented; her mother’s, not so much. In fact, no one is sure of her mother’s identity, and even less so of her grandparents’. Still others note that Macedonia, along with the rest of the Hellenic world, was not exclusively white — so her European descent did not preclude blackness."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/what-did-cleopatra-really-look-like

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

So that's the best you've got: well, she could have been.

That's not how historiography works. It's not how anything in scholarship works. If there's no evidence for it, then as far as you can tell, it wasn't so. Never mind if it might have been possible. Anything else is reaching a pre-ordained conclusion, and reasoning backward from there. That's clearly what you are doing here, but that's not how scholars do it.

We have no real reason to believe that Cleopatra was anything but white.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

You know nothing about history nor science which is never set in stone. Both continue to evolve and update with new information. The show already said they were only speculating about Cleo's appearance since nobody knows what she looked like. Only a racist would believe everything should default to white.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

I have a master's degree in history you idiot. I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know. Yes, they do update it with new information. That's not what you have. You have supposition, speculation, conjecture, pseudoscientific craniology, unsupported assertions, and debunked claims. You're arguments are stupid, and you're behavior is childish. Greek people absolutely DO default to white you utter MORON!!! I have just about had it up to my eyeballs with your stupidity. We know Cleopatra's ancestry. It's European, with a slight admixture of Persian. In your own words DEAL WITH IT!!! That makes her default white. To assert she was anything else, you would have to come up with evidence that she was, not suppose she was and challenge others to come up with evidence disprove it. Them's the rules. This is so in any academic discipline. Don't take my word for it; ask any reputable scholar.

I've been somewhat civil with you to this point. But I've had enough. You're another stupid, agenda-driven, revisionist, Afrocentrist lefttard. Go get a fucking education.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

LOL! You don't have a high school degree. You're a typical right-wing extremist bigot. You're anti-education and close-minded.

Nobody knows Cleopatra's ancestry! Her mother is unknown. Her illegitimate father's mother is unknown. 3/4 of Cleopatra's ancestry is unknown!!!!

YOU'RE NO HISTORIAN!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

And there it is. The inevitable "you don't have..." Wondered when you'd get around to it.

Whenever the argument descends into one person smugly accusing the other of not being who they say they are, rational debate is over. You know you are dealing with a petulant child who is incapable of genuinely rational thought, who indulges in wishful thinking, and reasons backward from preconceived opinions --opinions derived at by emotion, not reason -- rather than trying to investigate rationally and let conclusions flow from the evidence. You are dealing with someone who is not arguing in good faith, and will never, ever admit to error.

You're a stupid child. You said elsewhere you were born in 1992? That same year, I was in Galway, Ireland, in graduate school at what is now called The National University of Ireland, Galway, but was then called University College Galway, studying history under the Prof. Gearóid Mac Niocaill, and archeology under Prof. Etienne Rynne. I even studied a little Old Norse under Prof. Gearóid Mac Eoin, who is, sadly, the only one of those three gentlemen still alive. I took my degree in 1994, when I submitted a thesis comparing Viking settlements in Ireland, Scotland, and England, and why the settlement patters were so markedly different in these different areas.

Quite literally, I was studying history at the graduate level when you were still shitting your diapers.

I see the quality of your output has not improved during the last thirty-one years.

Deny all you like, it means nothing. I am sure any rational person reading this thread, and beholding your parade of fallacious arguments, unsupported assertions, evasion of answering questions, name-calling, denial, and so on, can observe for himself who has the better argument.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

The reason I questioned your history degree is because you didn't appear to understand history, was close-minded to new information and missing basic reasoning skills. I'd expect much more from a historian.

I assume your expertise is Irish Studies, not Egyptian. I'm willing to debate your earlier arguments. BTW, I never stated my birthdate.

1. The painting with red hair is irrelevant. You acknowledged its problematic as proof of her race because its posthumous, but then dismissively state there's no contemporary portraits, therefore accept this one, anyway. That's confirmation bias! And horrible reasoning. You also dismissed Egyptian art as "stylized and idealized" while linking to art that is "stylized and idealized".

Your argument is weak. There's no identity. It's dated 100 years after her birth. She's wearing a headband, not a royal diadem which was styled differently on coins & statues. The painting was in a private house, therefore likely commissioned work of the resident.

People use her image on coins as proof. The Mark Anthony & Cleo coin shows his nose and chin protruding because that represented strength. Coins with various leaders had the same idealized look. Cleo's image mirrors his.
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/194522/tetradrachm-coin-portraying-queen-cleopatra-vii

Was this coin used as reference for other art? If so, it's inaccurate.

Not true that all Egyptian art was stylized:
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3790

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Head_of_a_daughter_of_Akhenaten._18th_Dynasty,_c._1345_BC._State_Museum_of_Egyptian_Art,_Munich.jpg

Realism promoted by Akhenaten was called Amarna art. Also, Egyptian art influenced Greek which influenced Roman.

Lastly, this may be an Egyptian bust of Cleo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bust_of_Cleopatra

I propose we both agree that nobody knows what she looked like.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Re: Arsinoe IV

Your Wikipedia article is outdated and some of your information is inaccurate.

Sister OR half-sister. Her exact birth year is unknown. Her mother is unknown.

Tombs were only built for those of high birth. It would be extremely unusual for a young woman to have one. Not too many young woman of Arsinoe IV's stature who happened to be murdered in Ephesus where the tomb is located and fitting the timeline.

Egyptian tombs carried symbols telling who was buried inside. The outside of her tomb was in pieces, but slowly being reconstructed. The inside burial chamber and another area were intact which had Egyptian symbols and it faced Egypt. The octogonal shape of the building is another Egyptian indication referencing one of the 7 Wonders of the World in Alexandria at the time, the Octogonal Lighthouse.

Her skeleton AND skull were studied by forensic scientists. Studying human remains should've been part of your education. I studied comparative anatomy and know how simple obtaining useful information is from them. They were able to determine her age, gender, social-class, health, facial features, petite size (like Cleo), quick death and race. They had photos and detailed notes about her skull which allowed them to recreate a 3-D model. They knew her racial makeup with a quick look. They confirmed the previous findings. It was obvious for me, too. The reality is that whites, blacks and Asians don't look the same. That's reality.

While supporting Ptolemaic purity, Persian and Sogdian Iranian ancestry are easily accepted, but black ancestry denied by critics because of Ptolemaic purity? What contradictory nonsense!

There's no reason why Cleo couldn't be mixed-race in a predominantly POC Egypt especially when 3/4 of her grandparents are unknown and nobody knows her appearance.

The racist outrage needs to end!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Your Wikipedia article is outdated and some of your information is inaccurate.

No it isn't, and no it isn't. I'm not relying on Wikipedia, I'm relying on the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, and on others that aren't. The most recent information I have found dates to 2020, and if you've found anything more recent than that which provides new information that changes the picture, cite it.

Because as far as I know, there are still no markings on the tomb to verify whose it was, and the "science" of craniometry relied upon by Hilke Thür, has not grown in respectability since she employed it to assert that Arsinoe IV was of mixed heritage.

I demand a quote to back up your assertion that: "They knew her racial makeup with a quick look. They confirmed the previous findings. It was obvious for me, too." Because it is NOT that simple.

"Over the past year, debate about ancestry estimation has exploded in U.S. forensic anthropology, with a flurry of papers examining its accuracy, interrogating its methods, and questioning its assumptions.... There’s no checklist of skeletal, physical, or genetic traits shared by all people of a certain race; in fact, there’s far more variation within racial categories than between them." (Emphasis added.)

https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-anthropologists-can-try-identify-person-s-race-skull-should-they

There is simply no consensus on the accuracy of such a method of identification.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Question: Could Cleopatra have had any black ancestry?

Your link confirms that forensic scientists can accurately identify race. Thank you. Your article is only questioning the ethics.

"... she could predict whether they identified as Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American."

The majority consensus, including the government of Turkey, has already accepted that the Octagon Tomb belongs to Arsinoe IV.

I read Mary Beard's full rebuttal. It was filled with inaccuracies, oversimplification, missing information and obvious lies re: the skeleton, the tomb, the scientific method used, confusion between Craniometry and Phrenology, lack of knowledge about previous research at University of Greifswald (1930) and by Josef Weninger in 1953, etc..

Most of her rebuttal focused on "African" heritage. At one point she lies by stating the scientists suggested Cleo was not ethnically Greek nor Macedonian which never happened. Few of her arguments are sound and they contradict the facts. She comes across as a typical racist.

Conclusion: Ptolemaic royalty, including Cleopatra, could have been racially-mixed. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to speculate about the possibility in a series.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Yes, my field is the Viking Age, and Irish history. But the historiographical methods used in the field apply to all of history. When I went to Ireland, a lot of what I thought about Irish history came from pre-Anglo-Norman Irish literature, which painted an extremely grand picture of Gaelic Irish society. What I learned there was that Irish society was poor, fragmented, rural, tribal, and materially somewhat backward compared to the rest of Europe -- largely as a result of Ireland being isolated so long on the westernmost fringe of the then-known world, and having few resources others in Europe wished to trade for.

I remember speaking with Prof. Rynne about Irish contact with the Vikings and how much it changed Irish material culture. The Irish adopted the larger and better Viking-type swords and other weapons -- previously they had wielded rather undersized weapons of outmoded Celtic La Tène type, not used in the rest of Europe since Roman times. But they didn't start wearing armor, building towns, building ships, etc. etc. I asked Prof. Rynne if, after contact with the Vikings, the Irish adopted more of the more advanced material culture, armor, helmets, etc. He replied "we've no evidence for it." I asked him if it were possible that some of the leaders among the Irish, the wealthier, higher-status, adopted some of these things, after seeing their effectiveness. He looked me in the eye and repeated "we've no evidence for it."

Translation: no. We have no reason to believe so.

That's how it works. You don't say something is true because it could be, and especially not because you'd like it to be. You only say it's so because you have evidence to show it's so.

Bottom line: we know Cleopatra's lineage pretty completely, and everything we do know says she was Macedonian/Greek + a little Persian. Until definitive evidence is discovered to alter that view, we have no reason to assume she was anything else.

You want open-minded? I am open-minded. Show me the evidence, and I'll believe it. That's what open-minded is: changing your mind with new evidence. But if you haven't got the evidence, if all you have is "it could be," then no. Try again.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Question: Does anyone know Cleopatra's appearance?

Knowledge of her lineage ended with her illegitimate father whose mother is unknown. Furthermore, Cleo's mother is unknown which means 3/4 of her ancestry is unknown.

You're not able to produce an accurate and contemporary image of Cleo which shows her appearance because none exists.

Conclusion: Nobody currently knows Cleopatra's appearance, therefore she could have looked white, racially-mixed or black.

BTW, the belief that she was ugly appears to be inaccurate since it's based on the inaccurate portrait on the Roman coin.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

You're still doing it. You're going from the position "we don't know for sure what Cleopatra's appearance was, so she could have looked white, racially-mixed, or black," and from this you're implying we ought to believe this is what she probably looked like. That's not how it works. You're requiring us to prove a negative, and for the umpteenth time, that is not what real scholars do.

We DO know Cleopatra's appearance, at least in general: as a Macedonian/Greek, with some admixture of Persian/Sogdian ancestry, so she would have looked white. That's what the people of those regions looked like. That is absolutely what we know she should have looked like, based on that ancestry. Before anyone accepts the assertion that she looked any different, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide some evidence to support the idea. It's not up to anyone to refute that could have looked different.

It's no different than if I said, Genghis Khan really could have looked white. How do you know he didn't? Marco Polo made the journey all the way to the court of the great Khan a few generations later, and we only know about that because he wrote about it. A European could have got there before and married into Temujin's family. How do you know he didn't? Prove it.

Are you starting to see the problem with this standard of proof?

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

"Even Cleopatra’s foremost European biographer, Egyptology professor Joyce Tyldesley, writes that Cleopatra “possibly had some Egyptian genes” and that she is “most likely to have had dark hair and an olive or light brown complexion”.

Besides Cleo's biographer, the majority consensus among historians and Egyptologists is that she had black Egyptian ancestry, was not white and had olive or tan complexion.

You presented ZERO PROOF and your OPINION is based on outdated stereotypes and white European painters with limited worldview and historical knowledge whereas I presented proof which you didn't refute.

You're holding on to "white" Cleo as if she were "white" blond-haired, blue eyed WASPy Jesus - another Eurocentric image based on pure fantasy. I prefer facts and reality - not fantasy like you.

1. Nazi race purity ideology was NOT a thing in the ancient world. Pharaohs/kings married relatives to retain power and wealth within the family. They also had children from lesser wives and concubines.

2. Modern racism began 500 years ago in Spain, therefore didn't exist in the ancient world. Mixed marriages were very common and normal.

3. Cleo's DISTANT ANCESTORS came from Greece 276 years earlier to a predominantly black and brown country. That's 276 years worth of potential to intermarry with the local population like her sister's parents did.

4. Ancient Greece and Rome were NOT white!

Rome
"At the height of Rome's power, city residents showed little European DNA.
That diversity increased even more as Rome became an empire. At that time, "Rome was like New York City … a concentration of people of different origins joining together."
https://www.science.org/content/article/many-imperial-romans-had-roots-middle-east-genetic-history-shows

Greece
"People from other parts of the Mediterranean, including North Africa/Egypt, Anatolia and the Levant, also mixed with the ancient Greek population (through trade, slavery, warfare, migration), leaving behind their genetic “fingerprints,” too. In sum, the ancient Greeks were a pretty diverse lot."

Olive-complexion Greeks:
"Herodotus provides some useful descriptions of Greeks (“ethne”) in contrast to non-Greeks (“barbaroi”). While he generally accepted that Greeks were darker than northern Europeans and lighter than Egyptians and Ethiopians."
https://www.greece-is.com/what-did-the-ancient-greeks-look-like/

You lost this one. Move on!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Besides Cleo's biographer, the majority consensus among historians and Egyptologists is that she had black Egyptian ancestry, was not white and had olive or tan complexion.

No. They. Do. NOT!

Back that statement up? Cite a reputable historian or Egyptologist. Because I have quoted an actual scholar, Michael Grant, who points out that there is only one known Egyptian mistress of a Ptolemy and no known Egyptian wife of a Ptolemy, further arguing that Cleopatra probably did not have any Egyptian ancestry and "would have described herself as Greek."

You continue to make bald, unsupported assertions that are factually wrong. You also asserted that the Egyptians portrayed Cleopatra as "melanated" when we have NO surviving Egyptian portraits of her.

You're holding on to "white" Cleo as if she were "white" blond-haired, blue eyed WASPy Jesus

No, YOU are the one who thinks white means WASP. Actual "white" (i.e. caucasian) people vary a lot, with skin ranging from brown to ivory. I've pointed out what actual Middle Easterners tend to looks like:

I don't doubt at all that many could. Look at Danny Thomas, the entertainer and founder of Saint Jude's Children's Research Hospital. He was born Amos Muzyad Yaqoob Kairouz. He was born in Deerfield, Michigan, but both his parents were immigrants from Lebanon. They were Maronite Catholics, not Jewish, but Thomas looked very much like Christians, Jews, and Muslims from that part of the Middle East, and the population has not changed that much genetically since ancient times.

Thomas had light olive skin, black hair, and facial features common to Middle Easterners, but still, he fit right in in 1950s America, when close to 90% of the country was still white. He didn't look like a WASP, but his appearance wasn't that different either.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

LOL! Now you believe black skin tones equal white. The mental gymnastics you must do to maintain your fantasy.

White means white skin color which is the reason white people are called white. Basic common sense!

Ancient Greeks considered only Northern Europeans to be white! The majority of Greeks were darker with olive, tan and brown skin. Furthermore, a large majority of foreigners were from Africa and Western Asia who settled in cosmopolitan Greek cities and intermarried Greeks. Cleo's family was never white even without Egyptian ancestry. The majority consensus outweighs your one dead guy.

Danny Thomas? Who? You mean Amos Muzyad Yaqoob Kairouz who whitened his name because whites don't accept Lebanese to be white!

Arabs and other West Asians and North Africans have already said they are NOT white and want their own category.

"Many in the MENA (Middle Eastern; North African) community do not share the same lived experience as White people with European ancestry, do not identify as White, and are not perceived as White by others.

The narrative around systemic barriers (racism) also includes MENA people. “I think that narrative is one that is very different from early Arab Americans that came because there is a recognition now that we all, as Black and brown communities, are impacted by these same systems."”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/why-arab-americans-are-pushing-for-a-middle-east-or-north-african-category-on-the-census

BTW, I know you're not a historian because you don't know any history.

You lost this one. Move on!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

LOL! Now you believe black skin tones equal white.

I said BROWN, not black you lying ass. You have no case, when you can't rebut what I actually say, and have to twist it into something I didn't. And yes. Brown. Historically, peoples classified as Caucasian included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa, and the skin color of peoples in these regions runs the whole gamut.

Ancient Greeks considered only Northern Europeans to be white!

Name yours source for this assertion. Because my guess is, nearly all of your assertions so far, you don't have one.

Danny Thomas? Who? You mean Amos Muzyad Yaqoob Kairouz who whitened his name because whites don't accept Lebanese to be white!

Yeah, I mean Amos Muzyad Yaqoob Kairouz. I even spelled out his birth name, so shut the fuck up! You're not clever. And yes, they DO accept Lebanese to be white. That listing of which populations comprises "caucasian" comes from a book by Carleton S. Coon, an American anthropologist, that was published in 1939.

Thomas Anglicized is name. So what? Most non-Anglo immigrants did. My family did. The original form of O'Connor is Ó Conchobhair. Thomas became a rich, famous, beloved entertainer, and married a white Italian-American by the name of Rose Marie Cassaniti, and his Lebanese origin was known by all. I see ZERO evidence he wasn't accepted in white America, back in the 40s and 50s no less.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

More semantics from you!

"Historically, peoples classified as Caucasian..."

Historically, not all Caucasians considered white. Read the Supreme Court decision Thind v. United States. The judges decided the Indian was NOT white.

" "Caucasian" is a conventional word of much flexibility... It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today."

"Hence, it seems to require a strong mental effort to sweep into a single category, however elastic, so many different peoples -- Europeans, North Africans, West Asiatics, Iranians, and others all the way to the Indo-Gangetic plains and uplands, whose complexion presents every shade of color, except yellow, from white to the deepest brown or even black."

Historically, the early Caucasians were black. Read Herodotus who said the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Colchians had black skin and kinky hair.

"the Colchians, as described in the 5th century bce by the Greek historian Herodotus, were black-skinned Egyptians, though their true origin remains unclear. "
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Colchian

BTW, Greeks didn't like North Europeans to whom they considered barbarians.

News flash! Neither were Irish and Italians considered white:

"How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev

"Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs"
by David R. Roediger

You don't know your own history! Open a book and read it!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

You know, I’ve been debating you on the internet for the last twenty years. Not you specifically, but you plural (pity English lacks a proper second person plural): a particular species of smug, stupid ignoramus, of which you are a perfect exemplar. You all have certain characteristics in common.

You make bald, unsupported assertions, that you never, ever back up with factual evidence.

These assertions are frequently wrong in their facts, but when this is pointed out to you, you never, ever concede you were in error.

You seem not even to understand a basic characteristic of logic: that it is incumbent on the person making a claim to provide supporting evidence, and instead nearly always demand your opponents prove a negative instead.

You cherry pick your evidence, ignoring that which undercuts your case.

Your standard of evidence is poor, and you assert disputed evidence as if it were settled (e.g. Arsinoe’s tomb).

Your arguments are choc-a-bloc with logical fallacies, with the appeal to authority, argumentum ad hominem, appeal to motive, moving the goalposts, and straw man (especially the straw man) being especial favorites.

You pepper your comments with smug asides and LOL’s and so on, as if playing to the gallery wins arguments rather than intellectual rigor.

And of course, one thing you ALL get around to: accusing your opponents of not being who they says they are, or having the credentials they have.

Your species’ lack of intellectual rigor, and abundance of intellectual dishonesty is beyond tiresome. And I’ve just about wasted all the time I am going to waste on you. You are exactly what iffy762 called you in a post a couple of weeks ago: a true ideologue.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but agreeing with your cherry-picked evidence, fallacious arguments, bald assertions, and supposition is not "knowing" history. I'd love to read any graduate thesis you might write. I'd bet money it would get laughed right out of any scholarly peer review.

People just like you are exactly who Geo. Will was referring to when he said: “Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the father of their thoughts.”

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Your Ad Hominem attack = Your surrender

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Declaring victory doesn't actually give it to you. It didn't work for Caligula either.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

I said YOUR SURRENDER, not victory you lying ass. You have no case, when you can't rebut what I actually say, and have to twist it into something I didn't.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

I haven't surrendered stupid. I don't concede your victory you stupid child. Insulting you isn't an ad hominem. It's just an insult.

Resorting to insults instead of rational arguments and supporting evidence would be an ad hominem. I have provided rational arguments and supporting evidence,<>/i> -- which you have ignored -- and have only begun insulting you when you ignored that evidence and kept repeating debunked, unsupported assertions.

Losing patience with a fool you have wasted rational arguments on isn't an ad hominem. It's merely cutting your losses. You have the intelligence of a soapdish. Why would I waste any more of my all too limited lifespan on you?

You are going on the ignore list.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

I haven't surrendered stupid. I don't concede your victory you stupid child. Insulting you isn't an ad hominem. It's just an insult.

Resorting to insults instead of rational arguments and supporting evidence would be an ad hominem. I have provided rational arguments and supporting evidence, -- which you have ignored -- and have only begun insulting you when you ignored that evidence and kept repeating debunked, unsupported assertions.

Losing patience with a fool you have wasted rational arguments on isn't an ad hominem. It's merely cutting your losses. You have the intelligence of a soapdish. Why would I waste any more of my all too limited lifespan on you?

You are going on the ignore list.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

If you time, she discusses the ancient world including Greece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSJXTSTI_tI

I'm reading Herodotus now, so her discussion about him was interesting.

reply

[–] Batfleck (1538) 9 months ago

change this post title to "watch me get intellectually embarrassed and destroyed"

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1331) a year ago

This is a good try but pointless, as you are arguing with a true ideologue.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

It makes me angry they picked a black woman to play the part, when they could have been more inclusive and hired a black, gay, feminist, obese non-binary transgender wheelchair bound paraplegic instead this, where's the diversity?

reply

[–] Kowalski (64193) a year ago

EVERYONE ASSUMES YOU ARE AN ELEVEN YEAR OLD WITH BRAIN DAMAGE...JUST A HEADS UP.🙂

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

nothing. but you bother everyone keelai you fat fucking beast hahahahahahahahah

reply

[–] jk90us (5869) a year ago

What bothers the director that she wasn’t?

reply

[–] Mustang (5281) a year ago

Or maybe we are tired of the virtue signaling and race baiting?

And... Cleo was white

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Egyptians painted her with melanated skin. She would be darker too since they painted women lighter than their actual skin tone to show an indoor lifestyle.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Okay, link to a verified, contemporary (i.e. painted during Cleopatra's lifetime, by someone who most likely saw her in the flesh) Egyptian portrait that shows her as dark-skinned. Since you've asserted there are such portrayals, it should be easy for you to find one and post a link to it.

Go ahead.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

You need to overcome your white supremacy indoctrination with your nonsensical belief that Egypt is in Europe and Ancient Egyptians were blond-haired, blue-eyed, alabaster-skinned WASPs.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Never said they were, which of course, you know full well. Very telling that since you can't refute my actual arguments, you resort to crafting an extremely clumsy, inaccurate, straw man distortion of them. If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to such childishness.

I also cannot fail to note that you are unable to back up your assertion by producing evidence of the sort you say is out there.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Historians and Egyptologists have already stated that Cleo was not white, but tan or brown. Egyptian wall paintings confirm that even though they normally represented women fairer than they were since they were supposed to remain indoors.

I have a home library with numerous history books about Africans, Asians, Native-Americans, Jews, women, etc.. Since you don't read books, I suggest you google.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

They have? Really? Which ones? Because I know ones like Zahi Hawass -- who is not white himself -- have said that she WAS white. So how about some citations. Quotes.

And reputable historians and Egyptologists mind you, not cranks.

Yeah, I have a large library too. I also have a master's degree in history from the National University of Ireland. Unlike you, I know how scholarship works, and the parade of supposition and conjecture you have trotted out on this thread doesn't fly there.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

"Yeah, I have a large library two."

LOL!

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Cool your jets. I've fixed it. It was a typo because I was in a hurry post that and to get to work. That's why I have 776 posts on this board, as of this one, and you have 25784 -- some of us have lives and offline interests that require more of our time.

I bow to your superiority, since you obviously never make careless mistakes when you're in a rush, but I can't help but notice that you have used mine as a very convenient excuse to evade posting any of that evidence, of which you say you have volumes and volumes on your shelves.

Now why am I not surprised?

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Spin away! Your "two" proves you have no library nor dictionary.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Stop dodging, and post the evidence you say you have. Put up, or shut up.

reply

[–] Batfleck (1538) 9 months ago

lol look how you ran like a pussy when Darren demolishes you

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) a year ago

There are no contemporary paintings of Cleopatra, only relief carvings that aren't colorized. And those are highly stylized, meaning they are very generic and don't look a thing like the real person. She and her brother look more like aliens. People will say the coins are in Roman style, but at least those show physical traits that set her apart.

reply

[–] Darren (1197) a year ago

Yes, I know. I pointed the same thing out to her in an earlier post on this same thread (you can find it about halfway up this page), and here she is still claiming that Egyptian portraits show Cleopatra "melanated."

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

From a science magazine:

"No two coins are quite alike, but in many, the most prominent features are an aquiline nose and a jutting chin....During her marriage with Mark Antony, a silver denarius coin was issued to pay his troops. Each side of the coin bears one of their faces, and hers seems exaggeratedly Romanized to match his.

Her family hailed not from the land it governed but from Macedonia, which has led many researchers to believe her skin was light — as European art has always depicted her — not dark like that of the native Egyptians."

The lineage of her father, Ptolemy XII, a pharaoh himself, is well-documented; her mother’s, not so much. In fact, no one is sure of her mother’s identity, and even less so of her grandparents’. Still others note that Macedonia, along with the rest of the Hellenic world, was not exclusively white — so her European descent did not preclude blackness."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/what-did-cleopatra-really-look-like

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) a year ago

Why do you act like that article is some kind of evidence? The author is no expert on the subject, but simply an insignificant internet journalist who has summarized several different opinions that exist on Cleopatra, some more BS than others.

Those coins show a big hook nose, not unlike the contemporary busts that exist of her. They clearly portray her as a white woman, NOT a black woman.

"Her family hailed not from the land it governed but from Macedonia, which has led many researchers to believe her skin was light — as European art has always depicted her — not dark like that of the native Egyptians."

So you just need to shut up.

"Still others note"

Yeah, others like you and Jada who ignore the contemporary representations of her ancestors that clearly show people with Caucasian features. Non-white folks in the Hellenic world were not the elite like Cleopatra's family.

Now go away, I wasn't even talking to you, trollboy. Go massage your imaginary Brazilian girlfriend's feet or something.

reply

[–] Keelai (32800) a year ago

Why do you act like your unqualified opinion is some kind of evidence? That magazine has more credibility than you.

You're illiterate. The article is pointing out the racism of European artists and European researchers. RIF.org
You're welcome.

Her mother and grandmother are unknown, Sherlock.

Project your racism elsewhere.

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) a year ago

"Why do you act like your unqualified opinion is some kind of evidence?"

Uhm, that's you.

"The article is pointing out the racism of European artists and European researchers"

Nope. It contains only one quote by a white-hating, race-obsessed looney tune like you.

Take your dumbass trolling somewhere else, D-feet. Everybody who is not one of your many socks is sick of you.🤮

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

LOL I think people are more bothered by the fact that the show sucks. But that’s what happens when you put diversity quotas over telling a story.

reply

[–] parkerbot (6510) a year ago

You gotta do what you gotta do to get that Academy eligibility.

reply

[–] KaiMaster (825) a year ago

It doesn't really matter what she looked like. Egypt is a country where 20% can't read or write. That is a more important issue.

reply

[–] parkerbot (6510) a year ago

Truth matters.

reply