The Ptolemy dynasty descended from Greek Macedonian roots and ruled ancient Egypt during its Hellenistic era, with marriages typically occurring within the family. The dynasty was established when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 323 B.C.
The part of Cleopatra’s bloodline that remains a mystery is that of her mother and paternal grandmother. However, many experts say there is no evidence to suggest either woman was Black.
As Duane W. Roller, a professor emeritus of Classics at Ohio State University, wrote for the Oxford University Press blog in 2010, “Assuming, however, that Cleopatra’s grandmother was not from the traditional Macedonian Greek stem, the question arises as to just what she was.
Again, all evidence points to her being Greek. There is no evidence at all that she was Black.
Thanks. I often ponder this question of two people, reading exactly the same things and coming to opposite conclusions. A lot of it has to do with the doing of science and knowing what the word “probability” means. So I added bold to two of your words above. Compare them to the quotes you pulled, the ones that you say prove your point.
No, I’m making sense. You just don’t want to hear it.
As I said, you speak of race. I talk about complexions. There is only one race, the human race, but you don’t want to hear it because you get a thrill out of thinking others are lower than you if they aren’t white. Cleopatra was not white. She was olive complected.
Without any reference to Cleopatra, what do these words of your mean? That’s not nit picking, that’s defining. I don’t hear any room for “maybe” or “possibly” in your language. For me, it’s easier to use percentages, but not everyone likes that.
If the possibility is 99.9%, then, ok, “no evidence” means about the same thing. But, I don’t think that’s where we are.
But go ahead and believe what you want. The truth is, when you use words such as “nobody”, “all”, etc you end up falsifying your own statement. Such words make such a statement untrue. Do you call Jews “white”? Some are “white” and consider themselves “white”, yet there are some like my mother who insist they are not. Words, such as “some”, make such statements true, but to say everyone considers Jews something other than white is not true. You should have learned this long ago, but then again, you like to clump people in groups and use words such as “all”, “none”, “everyone”, etc. Life doesn’t work the way you’ve constructed it.
It’s also a complexion seen among Egyptians too. Again, your construct of “all” and “none” isn’t reality.
Do you remember when you wanted something, as a kid, and you said, “well everybody is doing it”, and our parents said, “Well if everybody was jumping off the bridge, would you?”
Our generation should teach the next generation of parents to say, “Well, you just said something that is easily falsifiable, so no. I only need to find one person who isn’t doing it, here let me text them now, if they say ‘no’, then that’s ‘no’ from me. And oh, by the way, what you’re doing is something commonly used by demagogues and propagandists, you should read Mark Antony’s speech at Ceasar’s funeral in Shakespeare. Not to mention just watch a dumb commercial of some product you don’t want and see how obvious it use they are using this tactic and it’s not working. I’m making a big deal out of this trivial request because I don’t want you to end up like the woman with the piano key scarf getting maced at the Capitol because everybody else was storming it, so, she fallaciously followed.”
Here’s the main problem for history buffs. The historical pictures, known lineage, and consensus image of Cleopatra are that of Greek/Mediterranean appearance. The actress is African American, which is not even close. The superficial appearance is not what matters. What matters is that the producer is signaling that what you are about to see is modern virtue-signaling rather than historical reproduction.
Same problem with last year’s Tolkien farce. They take the Anglo-Saxon creation myth and use African Americans for immortal (non-evolving) elves. Maybe you’ll like the show, maybe the acting is good, but it’s not Tolkien.
It’s great in Bridgerton because you know it’s a farce. But if they cast a Chinese guy for the lead role in Roots then you know the plot is probably not going to be serious about the history.
[quote=“vitolear, post:32, topic:10279, full:true”]
The superficial appearance is not what matters. What matters is that the producer is signaling that what you are about to see is modern virtue-signaling rather than historical reproduction.
But if they cast a Chinese guy for the lead role in Roots then you know the plot is probably not going to be serious about the history.
When you are trying to recreate a 3000-year-old famous person there is never much recent history of that person available.
But using “local” demographics is the preferred setting for historical accounts.
I want history in books and movies. I want to see a movie about Napoleon played by a French-looking guy, and I want to see a movie about Genghis Khan played by a Mongol-looking guy. If you want to see a movie about Fredrick Douglas starring Danny DeVito, or a movie about Einstein starring Morgan Freeman, then you’re into virtue-signaling rather than good history or good movies.
The only things this actress has in common with Cleopatra are (1) personal wealth and (2) violent husbands. This explains all the 1-star ratings.
OK then give people a Jesus that looks like an Israeli or an Egyptian or an Arab or some dark complected man to play the character. Stop giving us white Jesuses, because if he ever lived, he wasn’t white.