NETFLIX New Documentary produced by RACIST Jada Pickett Smith = BLACK WASHING HISTORY!

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.

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.

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.

It's not exactly an assumption, an informed guess. Yes.

I am not saying "the white race", I'm saying that they were one of many many peoples that by that time were white (reflective, or rather more transparent skin).

The genealogy, the archeological culture, and the linguistic analysis can't be perfectly correlated. To say one particular group of burial mounds was "the original indo-europeans" is probably never going to be a provable statement.

I don't know who calls modern Hungarians, Turks, and Romanians "people of color" but they are not SSA10kBC.

Historical Turks and Hungarians were steppe people that diverged from the indo-europeans before they were indo-europeans. [That's why their language is not indo-european].

They were also white (reflective) as they are today and as would be expected by the latitude they lived.

The commonality after the split is the substantiation that it existed before the split. The only alternative is that the trait simultaneously appeared in isolated populations. This is unlikely. Again this observation is the heart of all evolutionary analysis.

I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that no other precise collection of ancestors would have higher correlation with the modern categorization "black people".

I don't know who you've been talking to where turks are considered "PoC" (or black or whatever).

See above.

People get around, but one guy/gal in a 100,000

isn't going to alter the gene frequency of the population. i.e. he won't cause the population of the region in a thousand years to have "significant ancestry" in wherever he came from.

You mean you consider it unsubstantiated until it is somehow ruled out that she or her parents were very genetically very unusual for the region they came from?

I mean she might have been native American, you can't rule out an insane ocean voyage where her parents came over (or greater grandparents) and nobody wrote down any commentary about their unusual features that we've found.

In fact she might have been a sasquatch. Nobody wrote down "She was definitely not covered in hair standing 2.5 meters tall".

It's enough to say that any possible argument that she was SSA10kBC OR dark skinned has no evidence and the probability that her family was genetically similar to the rest of Macedon was 99.9% (verified by genetic legacy today).

When someone (the people who made this movie) chooses to grasp at tiny probabilities the motivation must be questioned.

It's not exactly an assumption, an informed guess. Yes.

Informed by what? The misconception that lighter-skinned Negroid individuals must necessarily have a Caucasoid ancestor?

I don't know who calls modern Hungarians, Turks, and Romanians "people of color" but they are not SSA10kBC.

I do. I've been in the company of some. But I also acknowledge that they are not a monochromatic geographic group. Just like I acknowledge the government designation of so-called "Black" does not apply to a monochromatic geographic group. And since you've continued to mention SSA10kBC and "dark skin"  in place of so-called "Blacks," let me propose this question: does SSA10kBC and "dark skin" = SO-CALLED "BLACKS"; and SO-CALLED "BLACKS" = SSA10kBC and "dark skin"?

Historical Turks and Hungarians were steppe people that diverged from the indo-europeans before they were indo-europeans. [That's why their language is not indo-european].

Because Indo-European isn't necessarily an "ethnic" group; they're a language-based (linguistic) group. All the more reason I question the reason you're associating strict "Whiteness" to them based solely on migration patterns.

They were also white (reflective) as they are today and as would be expected by the latitude they lived.

The latitude argument does not help your case especially considering Greece/Macedonia shares a latitude  with the "people of color" in the Middle East and parts of South East Asia.

The commonality after the split is the substantiation that it existed before the split. The only alternative is that the trait simultaneously appeared in isolated populations. This is unlikely. Again this observation is the heart of all evolutionary analysis.

Using a "concordance" of genetic clusters and migrations patterns. I would understand if you were talking about the southern most parts of the African Continent and the northern most parts of the European continent where skin albedo can be a somewhat sufficient proxy. But our focus is Greece which neighbors Northern Africa, (which has not escaped my notice that you've excluded) Iraq (formerly the Parthian Empire) the Arabian Peninsula/Plate, the Middle East, etc.

People get around, but one guy/gal in a 100,000

What is the basis of this estimation?

isn't going to alter the gene frequency of the population. i.e. he won't cause the population of the region in a thousand years to have "significant ancestry" in wherever he came from.

And since when is "skin albedo" a reliable proxy for "gene frequency" especially if the geographic groups are relatively close, e.g. Greece and  indigenous North Africa?

You mean you consider it unsubstantiated until it is somehow ruled out that she or her parents were very genetically very unusual for the region they came from?

Genetic abnormalities in relation to the region necessarily resulting in what?

All you've offered so far is this:

- Greece is directly descended from the Indo-Europeans (linguistic group) who migrated from North of the Black Sea.

- Pure Indo-Europeans are exclusively so-called "White," given that in precivilization, skin "albedo," as you allege was a reliable indicator of genetic selection.

- Macedonia during the Helenistic Age comprised of an exclusively so-called "White" population given that pure Indo-Europeans were exclusively so-called, "White."

- Subsaharan Africans 12,000 years ago unlikely provided enough genetically frequent selection in the area for descendants to be labeled so-called "Black."

I've contended:

- Even if we were to analyze the Indo-Europeans of 7000 years ago who were North of the Black Sea as you've proposed, the Hamangia Culture cultivated in that region would indicate an African presence given that the artifacts are very similar to Ethiopian artifacts.

- Migration patterns of Linguistic groups is not an indicator of so-called "Whiteness"

Except the contention was against her being so-called, "Black," not necessarily "dark skinned."

When someone (the people who made this movie) chooses to grasp at tiny probabilities the motivation must be questioned.

TINY PROBABILITIES =/= FALSE.

Lighter skin (excluding albinism) is as far as I known a sure sign of mixing with non SSA10kBC.

In the US indoeuropeans are the most common source of lighter skinned genes

Also my subconscious also says there is something about the forehead and eyes that is european.

SSA10kBC is my attempt to consolidate a vauge concept to a precise one. SSA10kBC ~= SsO-CALLED "BLACKS" (the race)

SSA10kBC is a subset of "dark skin". They had dark skin and without mixing continue to have dark skin.

There are other groups in 10k BC that also had dark skin. Australians for instance had and still have (when unmixed) very dark skin.

To have a language you need people.

There are only two options: Indoeuropeans were white OR indoeuropeans were white and everywhere they moved to and mixed with were white already

Some degree of the latter is almost certainly true

Racial categorization is already enough of a mess,

I have no interest in figuring out what "people of color" means if it doesn't mean dark skin.

Sedentary populations from 10kBC and before at 40 degrees north have light skin. I know of no exceptions.

Therefore this "people of color" stuff has no bearing on my case.

Excluded? Did I give a list?

SSA10kBC weren't really in the afro-asiatic zone at that time either. Obviously (as could be expected) there were far more SSA10kBC cultural/genetic exchange, but it takes more than a small influx to start to affect gene frequencies to a noticeable degree.

The lack of detectable genetic markers even to this day. In fact I believe I saw an article about the remarkably homogeneity of genetic makeup of Greece of today compared to then.

We know the skin albedo is caused by gene frequency. It's not that one is a proxy for another, it's that if gene frequency is not changed neither will skin albedo.

I don't understand.

Um, skin albedo is and was a reliable indicator of the presence of the genes which control it.

We know the indoeuropeans were white because everywhere they migrated people are white today (or rather were until significant migrations from outside occurred).

Or so nearly exclusively as to make any exception very remarkable and therefore the lack of contemporary remark would be absurd.

That's not a matter of liklihood, if there was a significant ancestry 2000 years ago it would still be detectable and it isn't.

Unfortuantely we would also know that if there was a migration from Ethopia 7000 years ago, that population died before it had time to mix genes with neighboring populations to any degree.

When combined with the end state of the migrations (what we observed during the historical period) it is.

Either way...

In many contexts including this one they have the same result.

Lighter skin (excluding albinism) is as far as I known a sure sign of mixing with non SSA10kBC.

Excluding the San people.

In the US indoeuropeans are the most common source of lighter skinned genes

Demonstrate.

SSA10kBC is my attempt to consolidate a vauge concept to a precise one. SSA10kBC ~= SsO-CALLED "BLACKS" (the race)

SSA10kBC is a subset of "dark skin". They had dark skin and without mixing continue to have dark skin.

So then is it your position that descendants of SSA10KBC are the most suited from a genetic standpoint to be characterized as so-called "Black"?

And since I've already mentioned Steph Curry as an example, how would you characterize him despite his identifying himself as well as being generally identified as so-called, "Black"?

There are other groups in 10k BC that also had dark skin. Australians for instance had and still have (when unmixed) very dark skin.

And what does this indicate to you about the genealogical history of the Australian Aboriginals?

There are only two options: Indoeuropeans were white OR indoeuropeans were white and everywhere they moved to and mixed with were white already

False dichotomy. There are indeed other options.

Some degree of the latter is almost certainly true

There's no "almost true." It either is or isn't.

Racial categorization is already enough of a mess,

Very much so. So then how is it prudent to exclude or exempt a person from a so-called, "racial categorization," without first "sorting through the mess"? It would be one thing to state, "attempting to identify Cleopatra's race would be too much of a mess," and another to state, "Cleopatra cannot be [so-called] Black."

I have no interest in figuring out what "people of color" means if it doesn't mean dark skin.

So wouldn't that include the very dark skinned peoples of Australia before 10K BC whom you had just referenced above? As admittedly messy as racial categorization can be, why again are you restricting the parameter to just SubSaharan Africans 10K BC?

Sedentary populations from 10kBC and before at 40 degrees north have light skin. I know of no exceptions.

Demonstrate.

Excluded? Did I give a list?

SSA10KBC necessarily excludes--particular North Africa which bears proximity to Greece. I presume you have a reason for doing this. 

But were not talking about a "noticeable" genetic frequency among an entire population; we're talking about whether there's enough evidence to exclude Cleopatra from the characterization of so-called, "Black." And thus far, at least as far as our discussion is concerned, no has provided or demonstrated any.

The lack of detectable genetic markers even to this day. In fact I believe I saw an article about the remarkably homogeneity of genetic makeup of Greece of today compared to then.

May you reference this article?

We know the indoeuropeans were white because everywhere they migrated people are white today (or rather were until significant migrations from outside occurred).

Except everywhere they migrated, the people being white has not been substantiated.

Or so nearly exclusively as to make any exception very remarkable and therefore the lack of contemporary remark would be absurd.

Please demonstrate.

That's not a matter of liklihood, if there was a significant ancestry 2000 years ago it would still be detectable and it isn't.

What about significant ancestry from North African countries?

Either way...

How is it "either way..."? Would the contention against her depiction have been qualified if Jada had chosen a much lighter skinned so-called, "Black" woman to portray Cleopatra?

In many contexts including this one they have the same result.

No, they actually don't.

I wish we had access to the underlying quote code so we could save to text file.