Claiming Cleopatra was black (an African), is like claiming Jada Pickett Smith is a loving and faithful wife.
NETFLIX New Documentary produced by RACIST Jada Pickett Smith = BLACK WASHING HISTORY!
Posts
Total:
40
TWS's 207th unbidden gripe about Black people.
-->
@oromagi
Seems to be a gripe about Jada Picket Smith.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Jada's black people.
The movie "Braveheart" commits far graver crimes against history than getting some shade of color wrong.
-->
@oromagi
Jada's black people.
Really? All this time I thought "black people" was a conceptually useless abstract collective. Turns out it's one woman.
The movie "Braveheart" commits far graver crimes against history than getting some shade of color wrong.
The 'crime' of white or blackwashing isn't the inaccuracy, it's the motivation for the inaccuracy.
Consider the difference between closing a creamery because the owner is going on vacation and refusing to serve certain races. No great crime to fail to give icecream, to do so because of racism is offensive to many.
Why is there no black color in rainbow? ☹
-->
@oromagi
The movie "Braveheart" commits far graver crimes against history than getting some shade of color wrong.
Brave heart wasn’t presented as [a] “docuseries” (ie - documentary based on factual history).
-->
@Best.Korea
Black is the absence of color. It’s not on the visible spectrum of color. That’s why it’s never in a rainbow.
-->
@oromagi
TWS's 207th unbidden gripe about Black people.
Wrong. And wrong.
It’s about one woman putting forth a false narrative claimed as historical truth. Even the Egyptians are pissed, and one lawyer has filed a lawsuit against Netflix.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I thought "black people" was a conceptually useless abstract collective.
- Let's agree it is a conceptually useless abstract.
-->
@oromagi
I thought "black people" was a conceptually useless abstract collective.
- Let's agree it is a conceptually useless abstract.
Done, color blindness has always been the only rational policy in my lifetime.
65 days later
-->
@TWS1405_2
Claiming Cleopatra was black (an African), is like claiming Jada Pickett Smith is a loving and faithful wife.
Explain how being Macedonian = Non-so-called-"Black." Or of "African" descent?
-->
@Athias
Try rephrasing that word salad.
-->
@Athias
Macedonia was settled in prehistory by indo-europeans whose skin has never been darker than Arabs or Punjabi without external cross-breeding.
We know Cleopatra was genetically entirely helenistic.
Everybody is of african descent, but there have been uncountable exoduses from Africa and the vast majority of Cleopatra's ancestors probably left Africa over 80,000 years ago.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Try rephrasing that word salad.
Try answering it. Explain:
MACEDONIAN =/= "BLACK/AFRICAN"
With "Black" or "African" denoting an expression you employ to gauge one's so-called "blackness."
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Macedonia was settled in prehistory by indo-europeans
Explain:
INDO-EUROPEANS =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
whose skin has never been darker than Arabs or Punjabi without external cross-breeding.
And this means, what? Are the skin tones of Arabs or Punjabi monochromatic?
We know Cleopatra was genetically entirely helenistic.
Explain:
GREEKS OF HELENISTIC AGE =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
Everybody is of african descent, but there have been uncountable exoduses from Africa and the vast majority of Cleopatra's ancestors probably left Africa over 80,000 years ago.
My ancestors probably left Africa 80,000 years ago. How does that explain Cleopatra's presumable "exemption" from a demographic governments today label as "Black"?
-->
@Athias
The lawsuits so all the explaining necessary to quash your asinine ignorant bigotry of incontestable historical facts:
And the journalism reporting on it:
For you to even question uncontested fact based history all in the name of Afrocentrism is hugely laughable at best, annoying at worst.
-->
@Athias
Explain:GREEKS OF HELENISTIC AGE =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
"Black" is a heavy simplification of the higher end of non-radiation-induced skin pigmentation (melanin).
Although I have not seen statistics it's obvious that the albedo of a person's skin could be measured. Given a significant sample size from all genetic clusters you would find that the darkest (least reflective) third would be categorized as "black skin" by most English speakers.
Pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo (all of them).
Everybody is of african descent, but there have been uncountable exoduses from Africa and the vast majority of Cleopatra's ancestors probably left Africa over 80,000 years ago.My ancestors probably left Africa 80,000 years ago. How does that explain Cleopatra's presumable "exemption" from a demographic governments today label as "Black"?
I haven't a clue what your skin albedo is nor whether a government would label you "Black", however the recentness of exodus from Africa is not the primary predictor.
You asked both about "black" and "africa".
As explained pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo. So would east Asians north of Vietnam. So would native Americans north of Texas. The melanin producing genes are readily susceptible to change (small mutations have big impacts) and the competing interests of vitamin D production vs skin damage & cancer explain why latitude fairly well predicts albedo given a thousand years of pre-civilized selection.
Post civilization is a different story, people can wear clothing to protect from the sun and regularly acquire otherwise rare foods with vitamin D.
Africa is and has been for a hundred thousand years the largest population (by far) of humans living in harsh solar conditions without the benefit of constant thick canopy cover. Australia is a corroborating example.
In the past ten thousand years all humanity has become civilized (loosely speaking). Without strong selective pressure on skin pigment it now strongly indicates ancestry.
For this reason the genetic cluster of subsaharan humanity circa 12,000 years ago is also called "black". When the genetic cluster is being referred to, skin albedo is merely a proxy and it is not meant to imply that someone who has darker skin must qualify.
Cleopatra would not qualify for either sense of the word. Her skin would have been in the top 1/3 of reflectivity and she would not have any large proportion of ancestry from subsaharan africa 12,000 years ago (10,000 years before her birth).
-->
@TWS1405_2
The lawsuits so all the explaining necessary to quash your asinine ignorant bigotry of incontestable historical facts:And the journalism reporting on it:
I've skimmed through these articles and they all state the same thing: Cleopatra was Greek/Macedonian. What I'm demanding of you is to explain:
MACEDONIAN =/= "BLACK/AFRICAN"
That is, how does her presumably being "Greek" exclude or exempt her from being characterized by what modern governments, as well as yourself, designate as so-called, "Black"? I'm not concerned with articles about lawsuits, nor am I concerned with articles about that which I already know--i.e. Cleopatra was Macedonian. Provide an argument, or make reference to that which substantiates the statement which I've emboldened above.
For you to even question uncontested fact based history
And the "fact based history" indicates what? That Cleopatra was not a so-called "Black" female? Then you should have no trouble substantiating the emboldened statement above.,
all in the name of Afrocentrism
My being "Afrocentric" is neither accurate nor relevant.
is hugely laughable at best, annoying at worst.
I honestly couldn't care less.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo (all of them).
And this is controlled for chronologically? Or is this an assumption based how census data collects this information since it has started--the census data, that is?
I haven't a clue what your skin albedo
Neither do I.
is nor whether a government would label you "Black"
I would assume so.
As explained pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo.
No, you haven't explained. You merely presented reflective albedo as a metric in differentiating skin tones, which would presumably differentiate between so-called "whiteness" and "blackness." But this doesn't necessarily determine much of anything, much less the statement I proposed you substantiate earlier, i.e. INDO-EUROPEANS =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK." An example of someone who would meet this criterion, i.e. 1/3 most reflective albedo, would be NBA player Steph Curry, and particularly his son, Canon Curry. Steph is presumably so-called "Black." And his parents, too, are presumably so-called "Black." And when you compare Steph Curry and his siblings Sydel and Seth, you can tell there's a difference in "reflective albedo" despite their being born (presumably) to the same parents. My point is this: stating that Indo-Europeans are purely so-called "White" or descended from those, who modern governments would characterize as purely so-called "White" has not been substantiated.
You asked both about "black" and "africa".
Actually I didn't. I was merely reflecting TWS's characterization. Technically speaking, as queen of Egypt, she would naturally be "African" or an African National--i.e. being the queen of an African country and ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom which spanned from Northeast Africa, the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of the Middle East (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) Now if we're talking about so-called "race," then I'm still waiting on those who dispute that she is so-called "Black" to substantiate how Cleopatra is "exempt" or "excluded" because she was Macedonian.
For this reason the genetic cluster of subsaharan humanity circa 12,000 years ago is also called "black". When the genetic cluster is being referred to, skin albedo is merely a proxy and it is not meant to imply that someone who has darker skin must qualify.
No more than having lighter skin disqualifies. So what was the point of "reflective albedo"?
Cleopatra would not qualify for either sense of the word. Her skin would have been in the top 1/3 of reflectivity and she would not have any large proportion of ancestry from subsaharan africa 12,000 years ago (10,000 years before her birth).
Since when were we restricting the parameters to "Subsaharan Africa"? Again, I ask you to explain:
INDO-EUROPEAN =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
-->
@Athias
What I'm demanding of you is to explain: MACEDONIAN =/= "BLACK/AFRICAN"
God you’re an idiot. Or as IWRA would say, “you’re a dummy.”
A Greek (Macedonian) is no more black/African than a Viking from North Umbria is a black/African.
Greek Macedonian female example
Black African female example
Not anywhere close.
Ya TARD!
-->
@TWS1405_2
A Greek (Macedonian) is no more black/African than a Viking from North Umbria is a black/African.
Can you substantiate this? If I'm the "dummy" especially when comparing me to your own "intellect," then I would presume it would not take much effort in substantiating how one's being Macedonian excludes or exempts one from being what governments today designate as so-called "Black" especially if you have the pure "Facts-based History" on your side.
-->
@Athias
It’s called the classic apples to oranges argument, you fucking idiot. One is not and never will be like the other. JFC! Go the fuck away you ignoramus. Your idiocy is beyond irritating.
-->
@TWS1405_2
From what I've gauged you know very little about actual history--namely in that you present pictures TODAY as an accurate reflection of a population over 2000 YEARS ago. And from the looks of it, you know very little about the skin tones and physical features Western countries use to characterize women of color as so-called "Black." The fact you're attempting to juxtapose a very light of skin, Macedonian woman (note that I did not once state that Greeks COULD NOT BE what governments today characterize as so-called "White") and a dark of skin, so-called "Black" woman, and propose "Here's my proof!" conveys to me that your dispute is over superficial non-sense. Don't bother responding, because I have little expectation that your responses will be informed. Enjoy your night, sir.
-->
@Athias
Look, twit, human beings are not all “African” as the other interloper suggests.
Have you had a DNA test done? Has that interloper? Nope. I’d gather not given your stupid ass replies.
I have. Nowhere I. My genome on the M or P side is there any ancestral relations to “Africa.”
I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa. No more than millions of others across the planet.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Look, twit, human beings are not all “African” as the other interloper suggests.Have you had a DNA test done? Has that interloper? Nope. I’d gather not given your stupid ass replies.I have. Nowhere I. My genome on the M or P side is there any ancestral relations to “Africa.”I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa. No more than millions of others across the planet
Athias Post#24:
Enjoy your night, sir.
I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa.
Haha!
-->
@Athias
From what I've gauged you know very little about actual history
You clearly couldn’t gauge the different between a Turkey or chicken sandwich.
Move along and let the educated intelligent people debate/discuss here.
-->
@Athias
I’m of Scandinavian descent. Nothing to do with Africa.hahaha
Shows how unintelligent you are.
-->
@Athias
Pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo (all of them).And this is controlled for chronologically? Or is this an assumption based how census data collects this information since it has started--the census data, that is?
Census is not required for entirely genetic traits. Gene frequency in a population can only change through mixing or selection. Selection over the course of 10,000 years is already questionable and it can be flatly rejected when the selective forces involved have remained constant or been removed from the equation.
You might be able to argue that all populations have been getting whiter as clothing availability increased, but there are contemporary clues that would make that unlikely. Plus, I believe the genes involved have been mostly identified. I'm sure we would have heard such startling news and they have been sequencing ancient DNA whenever possible.
Steph is presumably so-called "Black." And his parents, too, are presumably so-called "Black." And when you compare Steph Curry and his siblings Sydel and Seth, you can tell there's a difference in "reflective albedo" despite their being born (presumably) to the same parents.
It's basic Mendelian genetics that descendants can express traits that neither parent do. If "so-called black" means significant ancestry from the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC then they are "so-called black" (based on other racial cues).
It's also certain that since there are no recessive traits (of any commonality) of the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC [From now on I shall call this group of people SSA10kBC] which give such reflective skin: Steph Curry also has significant ancestry from humans outside that group, probably indoeuropeans by the look of him.
My point is this: stating that Indo-Europeans are purely so-called "White" or descended from those, who modern governments would characterize as purely so-called "White" has not been substantiated.
I didn't say indo-europeans are purely white, I said pure indo-europeans are all white (or top 1/3 reflective which I guess I'm allowed to call "white").
That is the group of people who were north of the black sea 7000 years ago were all white. We know this because they went in different directions and everywhere they went people are white. This is a basic technique of identifying hereditary traits including language and speciation. The common trait after splitting was present before the split.
Macedon and Hellas were white. Her parents both came from white populations. Whiteness is inherited. She was therefore white.
i.e. being the queen of an African country and ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom which spanned from Northeast Africa, the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of the Middle East (You can correct me if I'm wrong.)
You aren't, I'm a major history buff and within that interest I have spent way too much time on the hellenic scene.
Now if we're talking about so-called "race," then I'm still waiting on those who dispute that she is so-called "Black" to substantiate how Cleopatra is "exempt" or "excluded" because she was Macedonian.
The race in question can loosely be defined as SSA10kBC and all those with significant ancestry in that group.
The split between the gene group "Macedonian" and SSA10kBC would be 80,000 years ago (or longer). No one who left before 10k BC would be direct descendants and the subsequent gene outflows from SSA10kBC were insignificant.
So what was the point of "reflective albedo"?
Straightforward categorical exclusion: Not all people with white skin are macedonian, but all macedonians had white skin (at that point). Someone without white skin is someone whose skin is certainly dissimilar to Cleopatra.
Inaccuracy for the sake of practicality might be forgiven. However the perception here is that the inaccuracy is intentional to give a false impression of race in history.
Cleopatra would not qualify for either sense of the word. Her skin would have been in the top 1/3 of reflectivity and she would not have any large proportion of ancestry from subsaharan africa 12,000 years ago (10,000 years before her birth).Since when were we restricting the parameters to "Subsaharan Africa"? Again, I ask you to explain:INDO-EUROPEAN =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."
Indo-European != SSA10kBC
Indo-European != Dark Skin
These two facts don't cause one each other, they are merely correlated such that dark skin implies non-indoeuropean or not pure indo-european.
SSA10kBC arises because that is the racial definition (as good as you're going to get) for the "black race".
If you told me the actor had dark skin, I could tell you her skin isn't the same as Cleopatra's. That would not tell me that the actress is SSA10kBC, but from context I gather she is.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You might be able to argue that all populations have been getting whiter as clothing availability increased, but there are contemporary clues that would make that unlikely.
I'm not indulging any of this in my own arguments--i.e. clothing influences the genetic expression of skin tone. And yes, it would be unlikely that this plays any role, as is the "lack of clothing" would play a role in how so-called "black" a person would be.
It's basic Mendelian genetics that descendants can express traits that neither parent do. If "so-called black" means significant ancestry from the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC then they are "so-called black" (based on other racial cues).
Hence the reason I included his son. And if you read on his parents, i.e. Dell and Sonya, they claim that their parents respectively were so-called "Black." Ayesha claims that her parents are so-called "Black," i.e. John and Carol Alexander (who claim Jamaican, Chinese, and Polish Ancestry.)
It's also certain that since there are no recessive traits (of any commonality) of the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC [From now on I shall call this group of people SSA10kBC] which give such reflective skin: Steph Curry also has significant ancestry from humans outside that group, probably indoeuropeans by the look of him.
So you're assuming that by the look of him, (and I don't dispute it since I don't know Curry's genealogical history) that he has pure Indo-european ancestry--which you have taken to mean, "white?"
That is the group of people who were north of the black sea 7000 years ago were all white.
A group of strictly so-called "whites" who cultivated the Hamangia culture 7000 years ago despite their geographical neighbors like Hungary and Turkey and even Romania bearing, what we call today, people of "color?"
We know this because they went in different directions and everywhere they went people are white. This is a basic technique of identifying hereditary traits including language and speciation. The common trait after splitting was present before the split.
You haven't substantiated the "trait" before the so-called "split."
Macedon and Hellas were white. Her parents both came from white populations. Whiteness is inherited. She was therefore white.
Please substantiate this. You don't necessarily have to make a reference. A detailed explanation will suffice as well.
You aren't, I'm a major history buff
So am I. But my interest grew from studying religion and mythology.
The race in question can loosely be defined as SSA10kBC and all those with significant ancestry in that group.The split between the gene group "Macedonian" and SSA10kBC would be 80,000 years ago (or longer). No one who left before 10k BC would be direct descendants and the subsequent gene outflows from SSA10kBC were insignificant.
And how many so-called "Black" people, or those who governments designate as so-called "Black" are closely descended SSA10kBC? And why are we setting the parameter to that which we consider so-called "Black" as closely descended from Sub-Saharan Africans 10,000 BC?
Not all people with white skin are macedonian, but all macedonians had white skin (at that point). Someone without white skin is someone whose skin is certainly dissimilar to Cleopatra.
Please substantiate.
Inaccuracy for the sake of practicality might be forgiven. However the perception here is that the inaccuracy is intentional to give a false impression of race in history.
I'm by no means cosigning Jada Pinkett Smith's depiction (personally, I think she's a despicable woman who's being prompted by her sponsors to spread misinformation and disinformation.) What I do contend against is the dispute that Cleopatra cannot be, what governments designate as so-called "Black," because she was Macedonian. That is, can those who dispute the accuracy substantiate their grievance? And thus far, no one has done this. I can provide my own contention and substantiate that there were in fact so-called "Blacks" in Macedonia, Greece, Rome, (modern day) Germany, (modern day) Scandinavia, Hungary, Turkey, (modern day) Ukraine, Russia, etc. But that would only be necessary if I were proposing that Cleopatra was indeed so-called "Black." I bear no such obligation. Only those who claim that she would be exempt or excluded from the designation of so-called "Black." And I intend to hold you accountable to providing rigorous argumentation which verifies your position.
Indo-European != SSA10kBCIndo-European != Dark SkinThese two facts don't cause one each other, they are merely correlated such that dark skin implies non-indoeuropean or not pure indo-european.SSA10kBC arises because that is the racial definition (as good as you're going to get) for the "black race".
An erroneous logical bi-conditional. I never demanded that you substantiate that Indo-European =/= SSA10kBC or that Indo-European =/= Dark Skin. My demand of you was to substantiate how Indo-European =/= so-called "Black." Now you've offered up SSA10kBC as an indicator of the so-called "Black" race, and by conventional wisdom, presume that these people are too dark of skin--with the exception of the San people, ironically considered to be the world's "oldest race," who are of lighter skin tone--some whose tones reflect that of Steph Curry. Even if we indulge SSA10kBC, it does not substantiate your claim that (Purely) Macedonian exclude peoples who governments designate today as so-called "Black."
If you told me the actor had dark skin, I could tell you her skin isn't the same as Cleopatra's.
Does Cleopatra's skin have to be considered "dark" in order for her to be designated by governments as so-called "Black"?