So… are we Black-spoiting? (…Again?)

[Twisted Crow]

So… heh… I have been circulating this in my mind over recent years as an outside observer and wondering if this is something to worry about or not.

Is this a new era of Blacksploitation in the west?

After the wake of BLM and the “Oscars are too white” etc., I have been curious on whether or not we (the people) are doing the right thing. I would like to believe that some of our hearts could be in the right place, but this feeling also mirrors my mixed feelings toward Rainbow Capitalism. Some of this comes from people still whining about whether or not Black Mermaids should be mermaids (of which, I don’t directly care about), and things of this nature.

On one hand, I roll my eyes when it seems like corporations are just doing the corporation advertising gambit and creating the perception that they are getting with the times. When I see another black actor in a commercial or in a movie remake now? When I see YouTube and Twitch sound the horns on Black History Month to “celebrate black content creators!” I find myself in two different emotional places.

“Oh, nice. He’s getting a check. Finally he’s getting a spotlight for his work as a (contextual variance; whatever art he may be doing that I care about)”

Then also…

“I don’t trust YouTube/Twitch/Hollywood/Corporations are doing this for the reasons that they should. But also… why shouldn’t we do this all the time? When do these moneybag organizations ‘need’ to sensationalize a time for us to be roused about it”

Then back to…

“Well, the sad thing is that we need to be reminded to give a shit about stuff, so that’s why we have traditions, and… (etc.)”

To help people understand my conflicted feelings in one way here, I have never really been a tradition-minded person? So I have also always viewed such occasions as superficial and obligatory when we should be genuine. Yet, I might argue that we might need such things to encourage people to be genuine about it. Yet again, the occasion lends to obligation that I feel sorta kills the point with the obligation itself. And I’m going to stop there with that because it is hard for my brain to escape that spiral concerning tradition.

So anyway… am I crazy? Or possibly worried over nothing? The end result (more black actors and performers are getting their check and their recognition) I suppose is still a W, right?

But… I wonder if it is for the right reasons? Or, Hell…. Does it even matter because it appears to be achieving the desired end result? Or is it even doing that?

[Twisted Crow]

Minor correction to title, but…? “-Sploiting” as opposed to whatever “spoiting” is supposed to be.  ::)

[Oniya]

Could you be a bit more clear on what you mean?  I grew up in the 70's (when the term originated), and I'm not sure I'm seeing anything like the same thing happening today.  Then again, I've become quite jaded on the movie industry as a whole (in the 'is this worth 2+ hours of my time, much less the monetary cost of admission' scenario), so I might have missed something.

[Twisted Crow]

Hm. I'm not sure else how I could articulate this, now that I think on it.

Maybe my understanding of it (at my age, trying to looking back beyond my lifespan) isn't quite the same as what could be happening lately. This is also partially why I put 'again' in parentheses. As I'm not sure if it is anything like that? Also, considering how media content has changed with technology? Perhaps this might be a shoddy comparision on my part in general. I follow and watch some content creators on various places (YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, etc.) that have poked at this perceived trend following the beginning of BLM movement. Now, these creators have occasionally shared their sense of humor about 'getting more spots' in entertainment and advertising that finally extends beyond associations with Crime, Sports and music.

Take for instance the butthurt over The Little Mermaid live action casting of Ariel and the stupid arguments that followed. Or the fact that it even became a controversy to begin with. On one hand, I should be happy for the actor that gets the part. And it shouldn't matter if the hollywood d-bags are faking it til they make it. On the other hand, I don't get chummy/loyal with corporations anymore and I can't the fakeness of show-biz on the producer/marketing side of things. Then, of course... I deal with certain kinfolk complaining about wokeness throwing their own tomatoes. "Disney's only doing it to pander", etc.

Even I'm over Disney being Disney at this point, but I feel the urge to ask them "Did you consider that they got Halle Bailey because she could be talented, beautiful 'Disney-Princess' material... that just so happens to be a person of color?"

But sadly, even I can't fully believe myself when I run that question in my mind. It feels like I'm trusting too much in Disney doing the right thing because its the right thing, as opposed to doing it because other media is doing it. Even if those things are true about the actor, my cynicism for big time entertainment and advertising might just be hitting critical mass. Maybe I'm just annoyed with my family's disdain/fear of change and I don't feel adequately armed to help them look at it differently than the throngs of morons on Twitter.  :-\

I suppose, in the end, this is business. And if people think that it's better for business to fake represent or represent for real... I suppose the performers getting the work are still getting paid. Representation is representation, I guess?

[Twisted Crow]

Ah, and looking at what the original term 'blaxsploitation' means... I suppose this isn't quite the same?  :-\

[Oniya]

Well, the original was a way of attempting to lure a minority audience to the theaters - but the usual type of character was viewed through a 'white gaze' - what white people thought would appeal to that minority.

Now, I'm of Eastern European descent, by way of West Virginia coal country, so I'm not going to attempt to speak for that particular audience.  I'm somewhat more closely tied to the LGBTQA community, by way of Little Oni, my nephew, my eldest sister, and two sisters-in-law (my sister's wife and Mr. Oniya's sister).  And it's fairly obvious to that community that Disney and other studios rainbow-wash a lot.  Yes, they want money, and they think they can get it by including LGBTQA characters.  Some productions are done through the cis-het gaze (the interminable 'firsts' in places like the live-action Beauty and the Beast, Finding Dory, etc), some look like there's been a bit more care taken (Owl House).

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there was a similar division elsewhere, which makes the answer a bit less cut-and-dried.  The better question is, as you said, is the representation enough of a balance?

[Chulanowa]

So first off, yes, of course these moves are completely vapid gestures by corporate douchebags trying to find an angle to wring more money out of consumers. That's a given, it's behind every decision made by Google, or Paramount, or Disney. There is no social motive, no ethical investment into a "cause," it's just that an analysis suggested that making the gesture might raise stock value by 0.003% over the next quarter at practically no cost; so why not do it? It's never about "doing the right thing," it's about "doing the profitable thing."

So with that a given we must ask; does the intent matter.

In these specific cases I think, no, it doesn't. No harm is being caused (any more than is caused by default by these businesses at least) and yes, some individual people who might otherwise get left behind aren't. Good for them.

Where things might become harmful is if people take these vague, for-profit gestures as genuine activism, or god forbid, meaningful advancement for a whole group; while media representation is definitely beneficial in certain regards, let's not pretend that an already famous and established actress being cast is doing much to elevate an entire community of people. So long as it's understood that these moves are calculated with profit in mind and do not represent any actual care or interest in the community, it's fair to just take the "Well I'm glad (person) is getting a paycheck" angle and leave it there.

[Beorning]

*twiddles fingers*

So, uhm... would it be the right thread to mention the race controversy in Netflix's Cleopatra docudrama..?

Because it really rubbed me the wrong way. I wanted to ask you guys about for some time now - but I didn't want to offend anyone...

I think it might be related to this matter - including Chula's assertion than no harm is done when corporations engage in representation for monetary reasons. I admit I'm not sure if the decision to cast a mixed-race actress as Cleopatra was dictated by Netflix's desire to cash on Black representation, or other factors were involved... but it was a wrong decision, IMHO. And, in truth, it *was* harmful, as it led to validating historical falsehoods and radical Afrocentrist views...

[Chulanowa]

Well, Cleopatra's been cast with women of English descent (Elizabeth Taylor), Italian descent (Monica Bellucci), Ashkenazi descent (Theda Bara), Brazilian Portuguese descent (Allesandra Negrini), Syrian descent (Sulaf Fawakherji), Acro-Caribbean descent (Yanna McIntosh) and African-American descent (Loray White).

I think it speaks to a distinct lack of inbred actresses of mixed Pre-Slavic and Persian ancestry in the talent stables of most media producers.

What I want to know is why every Roman is always British in media (Legates are from London, plebs from Liverpool, centurion from Glasgow, every time!). Italy still exists and is full of Italians, why not at least try?  :-)

[Keelan]

Well, Cleopatra's been cast with women of English descent (Elizabeth Taylor), Italian descent (Monica Bellucci), Ashkenazi descent (Theda Bara), Brazilian Portuguese descent (Allesandra Negrini), Syrian descent (Sulaf Fawakherji), Acro-Caribbean descent (Yanna McIntosh) and African-American descent (Loray White).

I think it speaks to a distinct lack of inbred actresses of mixed Pre-Slavic and Persian ancestry in the talent stables of most media producers.

What I want to know is why every Roman is always British in media (Legates are from London, plebs from Liverpool, centurion from Glasgow, every time!). Italy still exists and is full of Italians, why not at least try?  :-)

How many of those actresses starred in films or series that claimed to be documentaries, and weren't a comedy, entirely fictional portrayal, or an outright adaptation of Antony and Cleopatra?

In contrast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IktHcPyNlv4&ab_channel=Netflix

Additionally, Jada Pinkett Smith - the executive producer - created the African Queen docudrama series (which Queen Cleopatra was the 2nd installment of 4 episodes for) to - and I am quoting her cited words here - highlight "Black queens". The actress who played Cleopatra - Adele James - also attributed the pushback by historians, archeologists, Egyptologists, and the COUNTRY of Egypt to racism and those who felt "threatened by Blackness".

Seems to me like maybe - as Beorning points out - the endorsement of Afrocentrist talking points and flagrant factual inaccuracies in what was billed as a 'Documentary' (as well as being in 'the current year' instead of from nearly a century ago in at least one of those actress' cases) MIGHT have more to do with the response here.

[Vekseid]

The idea that Cleopatra and Egyptians were 'black' (in the sense that modern Egyptians aren't) is actively an African supremacist position.

They have a lot worse takes than this one, but inventing and promoting racial myths about Egypt is their most common gateway to the afrosupremacist pipeline. It is nakedly racist, even moreso than most white supremacists, and deserves to be called out for what it is.

[Azy]

I've also heard the theory that Cleopatra was Roman because Rome would've installed their own rulers during the takeover process. 

https://cairoscene.com/buzz/national-geographic-s-dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-only-17-arab
According to this, Egyptians are mostly African, but kind of a mixed bag.  This is probably because of where it sits in the world.  It's on the continent of Africa, but the very northeastern edge.  The Middle East is only a sea away.  It was a major power in the ancient world.  Islam is the main religion.  It looks like kind of a unique place with unique people. 

[Vekseid]

North African, specifically. Afrosupremacists don't consider them truly black.

[Beorning]

Well, Cleopatra's been cast with women of English descent (Elizabeth Taylor), Italian descent (Monica Bellucci), Ashkenazi descent (Theda Bara), Brazilian Portuguese descent (Allesandra Negrini), Syrian descent (Sulaf Fawakherji), Acro-Caribbean descent (Yanna McIntosh) and African-American descent (Loray White).

I think it speaks to a distinct lack of inbred actresses of mixed Pre-Slavic and Persian ancestry in the talent stables of most media producers.

As Keelan pointed out, these actresses weren't playing in documentaries. Plus... you know, the fact that Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra over half a century ago, doesn't justify a modern casting that is just as inaccurate.

How many of those actresses starred in films or series that claimed to be documentaries, and weren't a comedy, entirely fictional portrayal, or an outright adaptation of Antony and Cleopatra?

Additionally, Jada Pinkett Smith - the executive producer - created the African Queen docudrama series (which Queen Cleopatra was the 2nd installment of 4 episodes for) to - and I am quoting her cited words here - highlight "Black queens". The actress who played Cleopatra - Adele James - also attributed the pushback by historians, archeologists, Egyptologists, and the COUNTRY of Egypt to racism and those who felt "threatened by Blackness".

Seems to me like maybe - as Beorning points out - the endorsement of Afrocentrist talking points and flagrant factual inaccuracies in what was billed as a 'Documentary' (as well as being in 'the current year' instead of from nearly a century ago in at least one of those actress' cases) MIGHT have more to do with the response here.

Exactly...

To better illustrate my point - back here, we have our own pseudo-historical theory that started getting traction in recent years: the "Great Lechia" concept. Or, as it's commonly known among sane historians: "turbo-Lechitism". Basically, it's a "theory" that, in the pre-Christians era, there existed this big empire ruled by the ancestors of Poles, Lechites. According to this "theory", this empire existed for centuries and was as big as to reach the Middle East. Apparently, our Lechite ancestors fought (and defeated) Julius Caesar, are mentioned in the Old Testament etc. It's all complete nonsense, of course.

Anyway, what's worth noting is that "turbo-Lechitism" isn't the only "turbo" version of history out there. There's a Chinese variant of the same nonsense, claiming that all civilization in the world came from Ancient China. And that all the cultural artifacts etc. proving otherwise are falsehoods. Pyramids of Egypt? Why, they are concrete constructions erected in modern times to obsfucate the truth about China being the oldest civilization in the world!

As I said, there are many variants of this. And there's an African variant of it, too - which also strives to rewrite history to make it Africa-centric. And that Cleopatra documentary? It plays right into it.

It's really not harmless. I've actually seen people online cheering this documentary for "telling the truth" about Cleopatra and validating their belief that she was Black. "Rebrand Africa!", these people proclaim.

This... is not harmless. No historical falsehoods are. You cannot just cast a Black / mixed race actress as a historical character who was *not* Black. You cannot sacrifice historical truth for the sake of representation. Because real people end up latching onto it and forming false beliefs about the world.

I remember that, some time ago, we discussed the British TV show featuring a Black actress playing Anne Boleyn. Some people here were telling me: it's just a TV show, it's just like theatre, not allowing a Black actress to play Anne Boleyn on the grounds of skin colour would be discriminatory. Well, now we have this Cleopatra documentary, we have another non-Black historical character played by a Black / mixed-race actress... and now people out there are taking it as a proof of their incorrect beliefs. Seriously, this is not okay.

I've also heard the theory that Cleopatra was Roman because Rome would've installed their own rulers during the takeover process. 

https://cairoscene.com/buzz/national-geographic-s-dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-only-17-arab
According to this, Egyptians are mostly African, but kind of a mixed bag.  This is probably because of where it sits in the world.  It's on the continent of Africa, but the very northeastern edge.  The Middle East is only a sea away.  It was a major power in the ancient world.  Islam is the main religion.  It looks like kind of a unique place with unique people. 

The thing is, Cleopatra wasn't even Egyptian. She came from the Ptolemaic Dynasty, meaning she was of Macedonian Greek ancestry. And the Ptolemaics were one of those tightly in-bred dynasties, so the chance of Cleopatra having a Black-skinned parent isn't really big...

[Azy]

The average Egyptian person alive today isn't black skinned.  As the article I linked states, most tend to think they're of Arabic ancestry, which they wouldn't if they had black skin.  They're mocha brown on average, and hieroglyphs depict the same. 

It did irk me a little when that one woman in the video said her mother told her it didn't matter what her school told her, Cleopatra was black.  Learning actual African history is a good thing, but yeah, it sounds like they're trying to claim a historical figure because it looks good.  Though really, if you look past the glamorized story and learn about the actual woman, she wasn't exactly something to covet.  I was watching a History Channel documentary when I was a teen that said she was scheming murderous bitch.  There were two brothers she was supposed to marry, and they were to be king and she their queen, but she killed them.  She might've even killed her father.  Her getting bitten by a poisonous snake while trying to save herself was probably karma.       

[GloomCookie]

I've also heard the theory that Cleopatra was Roman because Rome would've installed their own rulers during the takeover process. 

https://cairoscene.com/buzz/national-geographic-s-dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-only-17-arab
According to this, Egyptians are mostly African, but kind of a mixed bag.  This is probably because of where it sits in the world.  It's on the continent of Africa, but the very northeastern edge.  The Middle East is only a sea away.  It was a major power in the ancient world.  Islam is the main religion.  It looks like kind of a unique place with unique people.

Scholars generally identify Cleopatra as essentially of Macedonian Greek ancestry with some Persian and Sogdian-Iranian ancestry. This is based on the fact that her Macedonian Greek family - The Ptolemaic dynasty - had intermarried with the Seleucid dynasty that ruled over much of West Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_race_controversy#:~:text=Scholars%20generally%20identify%20Cleopatra%20as%20essentially%20of%20Macedonian%20Greek%20ancestry,over%20much%20of%20West%20Asia.

Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great's generals btw.

The average Egyptian person alive today isn't black skinned.  As the article I linked states, most tend to think they're of Arabic ancestry, which they wouldn't if they had black skin.  They're mocha brown on average, and hieroglyphs depict the same. 

It did irk me a little when that one woman in the video said her mother told her it didn't matter what her school told her, Cleopatra was black.  Learning actual African history is a good thing, but yeah, it sounds like they're trying to claim a historical figure because it looks good.  Though really, if you look past the glamorized story and learn about the actual woman, she wasn't exactly something to covet.  I was watching a History Channel documentary when I was a teen that said she was scheming murderous bitch.  There were two brothers she was supposed to marry, and they were to be king and she their queen, but she killed them.  She might've even killed her father.  Her getting bitten by a poisonous snake while trying to save herself was probably karma.       

A lot of the negative bias towards Cleopatra is because history is written by the victors, and Cleopatra was on the wrong side of a Roman civil war. A lot of history tends to focus on her being beautiful and sexy, but she was incredibly intelligent and that also means being a bit manipulative, but all political leaders, especially the good ones, are. Egypt was Rome's breadbasket, and as such whoever controls the Nile delta has a lot of power and influence over politics throughout the Mediterranean. Remaining in such a position without being replaced or usurped requires a lot of political maneuvering.

https://youtu.be/9eGPBX7gY44

https://youtu.be/S3vAKRa0f5I

[Chulanowa]

As Keelan pointed out, these actresses weren't playing in documentaries. Plus... you know, the fact that Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra over half a century ago, doesn't justify a modern casting that is just as inaccurate.

Of course it's inaccurate. Every casting decision is inaccurate. As much as I enjoy the Bill and Ted movies, it's not possible to go back in time to nab historical figures to portray themselves.

So what's  the boundaries for tolerating inaccurate depictions of a character who's been dead 2100 years? Clearly we can't get Cleopatra VII to represent herself. We're probably not going to find an actress who matches her various identifiers (At least I don't know of any 12-generations-inbred Macedonian-Persian actresses who practice the Old Egyptian faiths and rule Egypt). Now, we could certainly find a Greek or North Macedonian actress I suppose; but it's more likely that an American production is going to cast an American actress; sorta like how Netflix's "The Last Czars" is full of British people playing Russians. Once we reach the point where "Just cast someone on the rolodex" is the answer, then in my thinking we've already stopped worrying about "accuracy" on that particular point.

Which is fine in most cases, because in most cases it doesn't actually matter. Alan Rickman can be Rasputin. Adele James can be Cleopatra VII. Anthony Quinn can be Ḥamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib. It's not important that Grigori Rasputin be portrayed by a Russian. It's not important that Cleopatra VII be portrayed by a Macedonian. And it's not important that Ḥamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib be portrayed by an actor of the Qurayshi tribe.

To better illustrate my point - back here, we have our own pseudo-historical theory that started getting traction in recent years: the "Great Lechia" concept. Or, as it's commonly known among sane historians: "turbo-Lechitism". Basically, it's a "theory" that, in the pre-Christians era, there existed this big empire ruled by the ancestors of Poles, Lechites. According to this "theory", this empire existed for centuries and was as big as to reach the Middle East. Apparently, our Lechite ancestors fought (and defeated) Julius Caesar, are mentioned in the Old Testament etc. It's all complete nonsense, of course.

Anyway, what's worth noting is that "turbo-Lechitism" isn't the only "turbo" version of history out there. There's a Chinese variant of the same nonsense, claiming that all civilization in the world came from Ancient China. And that all the cultural artifacts etc. proving otherwise are falsehoods. Pyramids of Egypt? Why, they are concrete constructions erected in modern times to obsfucate the truth about China being the oldest civilization in the world!

As I said, there are many variants of this. And there's an African variant of it, too - which also strives to rewrite history to make it Africa-centric. And that Cleopatra documentary? It plays right into it.

It's really not harmless. I've actually seen people online cheering this documentary for "telling the truth" about Cleopatra and validating their belief that she was Black. "Rebrand Africa!", these people proclaim.

I've "seen people online" say all sorts of ignorant shit, and have learned long ago to not base my own opinions on thirdhand twitter nonsense. So I took the time to watch this documentary (Well, the first episode, a fellow only has so much time in the day.)

So fun thing. The documentary doesn't actually claim Cleopatra was black. The closest you get is Professor of Classics Shelley P. Hayley telling how one of her childhood teachers claimed as much; the professor then spends a fair but of time on the fact that Cleopatra was a Macedonian Greek, that her  family did not mingle with the local Egyptian population, and that Cleopatra's interest in the local population and their practices was seen as strange by the others in the ruling caste. So if you've "seen people online" claiming it says so, rest assured they haven't watched it.

What is said is that depictions of her have changed through time depending on who's doing the depicting; An Egyptian bust of one of her ancestors looks very African. Egyptian Greeks and Romans depicted her as looking like a Greek or Roman. She was deeply Orientalized during the Egyptomania period of the 19th century, and of course, Hollywood cast her from their stables of predominantly white, North European actresses for a long time. This isn't the documentary going "OMG YOU GUYS CLEOPATRA WAS TOTALLY BLACK!!!" it's  the documentary explaining a stylistic decision it made.

It also doesn't promote any sort of afrocentrism.  How could it when it's not saying the Ptolemies were black... But I guess we need to get angry at things we made up because getting mad at the real thing would be silly, since it's clearly nothing worth getting mad at.

This... is not harmless. No historical falsehoods are. You cannot just cast a Black / mixed race actress as a historical character who was *not* Black. You cannot sacrifice historical truth for the sake of representation. Because real people end up latching onto it and forming false beliefs about the world.

On the right is a photograph of Tsar Nicholas II Romanov.
On the right is Tsar Nicholas II Romanov, as depicted by Robert Jack, a British actor in Netflix's documentary "The Last Czars"


They do not look alike in the least.

Yes, you absolutely fucking can cast an actor who does not look like the person they portray. Especially when, as I said, it's not important to the person being portrayed.

For instance a common rebuttal is something like "so I could cast Chris Pratt as Malcom X?!?!" and the answer to that is yeah. You totally could. It's just that Malcom's story is very reliant on being a black man in a white supremacist country, so that decision would probably just confuse the story you're trying to tell by using Malcom X at all, right?

Depicting Cleopatra with a black American actress, or depicting Tsar Nicholas II with a British actor who honestly looks WAY more like Grigori Rasputin... doesn't matter.

"But someone might believe something historically wrong!" I mean, yeah? Most people believe a lot of wrong things about history. Most of it's just dumb and harmless; thinking Cleopatra VII had more melanin than she probably actually did is definitely in that position. Compare perhaps to people who watch "300" and see Sparta as something to admire and emulate.

Or the weird Smol Bean-ification of Poland in popular historical discourse, for a fun one  O8)

I remember that, some time ago, we discussed the British TV show featuring a Black actress playing Anne Boleyn. Some people here were telling me: it's just a TV show, it's just like theatre, not allowing a Black actress to play Anne Boleyn on the grounds of skin colour would be discriminatory. Well, now we have this Cleopatra documentary, we have another non-Black historical character played by a Black / mixed-race actress... and now people out there are taking it as a proof of their incorrect beliefs. Seriously, this is not okay.

Just gonna say it's weird for you to dismiss my examples of inaccurate castings of Cleopatra with "Those weren't documentaries," and  then come here and get huffy over a black woman being cast in a fictional thriller like "Anne Boleyn." You do know it was a fiction, right? If you didn't, maybe it's time to unplug twitter. They call it "The Hellsite" for a reason.

(Same with "Queen Charlotte," just for good measure.)

The thing is, Cleopatra wasn't even Egyptian. She came from the Ptolemaic Dynasty, meaning she was of Macedonian Greek ancestry. And the Ptolemaics were one of those tightly in-bred dynasties, so the chance of Cleopatra having a Black-skinned parent isn't really big...

It's a non-zero chance; Her actual maternal lineage is unknown (being Greeks, the Ptolemies didn't really write that much about female lines). And we can be kind of safe in assuming that the Ptolemies were no more staid and chaste than any other God-Kings in history have ever been. She likely wasn't, but it's not beyond possibility that she was.

[Azy]

I would say murdering a good chunk of your own family to grab power is a little more than being politically savy.  There have been many great leaders who didn't kill anyone.  She could've accepted exile and bitched to anyone who would listen, but she went and got all opportunistic and vengeful.  Point being, the glamorous story is crap, and this whole documentary makes her seem more than she actually was, as well as the wrong race.  The documentary I watched basically said she wasn't as hot as her legend claimed, but she was a charmer.  She also let the Isis incarnate thing go to her head and her subjects didn't like her much. 

Yes, history is written by the victor, but most people don't hear about her being a cold and calculating narcissist.  My point is the real woman isn't even worth making up crap to claim she was of a certain race and so part of their history.  She had a dark side that I don't think any culture would be proud to claim if they bothered to learn about it instead of the fairy tale. 

It is also quite possible that there were some native Egyptian women in her family tree.  Some wives of the dynasty before may have been taken as spoils of war, because that kind of thing happened.  So she was either completely Greek, or mixed.  The only way to know for sure is to find her remains and DNA test.   

[Beorning]

Of course it's inaccurate. Every casting decision is inaccurate. As much as I enjoy the Bill and Ted movies, it's not possible to go back in time to nab historical figures to portray themselves.

This is just a strawman argument, Chula. Of course we cannot get historical figures to portray themselves. It doesn't mean that we cannot try to make the casting as accurate as realistically possible.

So what's  the boundaries for tolerating inaccurate depictions of a character who's been dead 2100 years? Clearly we can't get Cleopatra VII to represent herself. We're probably not going to find an actress who matches her various identifiers (At least I don't know of any 12-generations-inbred Macedonian-Persian actresses who practice the Old Egyptian faiths and rule Egypt). Now, we could certainly find a Greek or North Macedonian actress I suppose; but it's more likely that an American production is going to cast an American actress; sorta like how Netflix's "The Last Czars" is full of British people playing Russians. Once we reach the point where "Just cast someone on the rolodex" is the answer, then in my thinking we've already stopped worrying about "accuracy" on that particular point.

Two points:

1. I understand that employing a Greek / Macedonian actress might be not possible. But are you seriously telling me that in the immense talent pool available to American casting agencies (which easily includes not only US citizens, but also Canadian and British actors) they couldn't find actress that at least somewhat approximates the ethnicity in question?

2. Based on the comments from the makers of Cleopatra, casting Adele James was *not* a "Cast the first person on the rolodex" decision. It was *deliberate*.

Which is fine in most cases, because in most cases it doesn't actually matter. Alan Rickman can be Rasputin. Adele James can be Cleopatra VII. Anthony Quinn can be Ḥamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib. It's not important that Grigori Rasputin be portrayed by a Russian. It's not important that Cleopatra VII be portrayed by a Macedonian. And it's not important that Ḥamza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib be portrayed by an actor of the Qurayshi tribe.

Nope, sorry, it is important. Movies are visual medium - and said visual aspect is usually meant to be taken literally. Hence, we have costume departments recreating historical clothes, prop departments creating realistic scenery etc. And, for the same reason, casting departments usually try (or, at least, should try) to provide actors that can approximate the people they are playing.

And the thing is: it is possible for Alan Rickman, when in costume, to approximate Rasputin. He would not be able to approximate, say, any Chinese emperor (not to mention, such a casting wouldn't be considered appropriate today - yellowface and all that). For the same reason, Adele James cannot approximate Cleopatra.

If you are saying that it's not important for an actor to at least superficially match their characters ethnicity, you're effectively subscribing to the "Black actor can play Gorbachev" notion.

I've "seen people online" say all sorts of ignorant shit, and have learned long ago to not base my own opinions on thirdhand twitter nonsense.

Yes, "people online" can say ignorant shit. But they still provide some insight into how some ignorant people perceive things.

So fun thing. The documentary doesn't actually claim Cleopatra was black. The closest you get is Professor of Classics Shelley P. Hayley telling how one of her childhood teachers claimed as much; the professor then spends a fair but of time on the fact that Cleopatra was a Macedonian Greek, that her  family did not mingle with the local Egyptian population, and that Cleopatra's interest in the local population and their practices was seen as strange by the others in the ruling caste. So if you've "seen people online" claiming it says so, rest assured they haven't watched it.

What is said is that depictions of her have changed through time depending on who's doing the depicting; An Egyptian bust of one of her ancestors looks very African. Egyptian Greeks and Romans depicted her as looking like a Greek or Roman. She was deeply Orientalized during the Egyptomania period of the 19th century, and of course, Hollywood cast her from their stables of predominantly white, North European actresses for a long time. This isn't the documentary going "OMG YOU GUYS CLEOPATRA WAS TOTALLY BLACK!!!" it's  the documentary explaining a stylistic decision it made.

So, what they are saying is, effectively "We know that Cleopatra wasn't Black, but we made a choice to portray her as such anyway". And other comments I've seen from them clearly suggest that it was an ideological decision - "We want to change the way Egyptians view themselves" and all that.

It also doesn't promote any sort of afrocentrism.  How could it when it's not saying the Ptolemies were black...

See above, really.

On the right is a photograph of Tsar Nicholas II Romanov.
On the right is Tsar Nicholas II Romanov, as depicted by Robert Jack, a British actor in Netflix's documentary "The Last Czars"


They do not look alike in the least.

Chula, come on. Are you joking here? These two photos clearly show a Caucasian male with a short full beard. You make it sound as if they had Nicholas II played by Dwight Johnson wearing mohawk.

For instance a common rebuttal is something like "so I could cast Chris Pratt as Malcom X?!?!" and the answer to that is yeah. You totally could. It's just that Malcom's story is very reliant on being a black man in a white supremacist country, so that decision would probably just confuse the story you're trying to tell by using Malcom X at all, right?

Are you seriously telling me that having Chris Pratt play Malcolm X would be acceptable, but impractical? And that, if such a movie was made, you'd be telling to (fully justifiably) angered viewers that there's not thing wrong with that?

"But someone might believe something historically wrong!" I mean, yeah? Most people believe a lot of wrong things about history. Most of it's just dumb and harmless; thinking Cleopatra VII had more melanin than she probably actually did is definitely in that position. Compare perhaps to people who watch "300" and see Sparta as something to admire and emulate.

Actually, that *is* my beef with 300. Although it's worth remembering that 300 was (deliberately) so unrealistic that any viewer should realize it's not a movie to learn history from.

Or the weird Smol Bean-ification of Poland in popular historical discourse, for a fun one  O8)

Not sure what you mean by that, to be honest.

Just gonna say it's weird for you to dismiss my examples of inaccurate castings of Cleopatra with "Those weren't documentaries," and  then come here and get huffy over a black woman being cast in a fictional thriller like "Anne Boleyn." You do know it was a fiction, right?

Actually, I don't dismiss your examples with "Those weren't documentaries". As I said: when a movie featuring real-life historical figures, I believe it's important to cast actors who can at least approximate these characters' ethnicities (and appearance in general). For documentaries, doubly so.

And so, casting a Black actress as Anne Boleyn is just awfully incorrect, just as casting Chris Pratt as Malcolm X would be. And, if somebody casted Chris Pratt for a Malcolm X documentary, it would be even more awfully incorrect... just as casting Adele James as Cleopatra was.

It's a non-zero chance; Her actual maternal lineage is unknown (being Greeks, the Ptolemies didn't really write that much about female lines). And we can be kind of safe in assuming that the Ptolemies were no more staid and chaste than any other God-Kings in history have ever been. She likely wasn't, but it's not beyond possibility that she was.

You forget about the dynastic inbreeding, though. Ptolemies married amongs themselves. Could Cleopatra's father have had an illegimate daughter with a black-skinned servant? Theoretically, yes... but such a girl wouldn't be his heir.

I would say murdering a good chunk of your own family to grab power is a little more than being politically savy.  There have been many great leaders who didn't kill anyone.  She could've accepted exile and bitched to anyone who would listen, but she went and got all opportunistic and vengeful.

Well, to be honest, murdering family members in dynastic squabbles was hardly unusual for many, many centuries. Cleopatra certainly wasn't any exception here :)

[Keelan]

I've "seen people online" say all sorts of ignorant shit, and have learned long ago to not base my own opinions on thirdhand twitter nonsense. So I took the time to watch this documentary (Well, the first episode, a fellow only has so much time in the day.)

So fun thing. The documentary doesn't actually claim Cleopatra was black. The closest you get is Professor of Classics Shelley P. Hayley telling how one of her childhood teachers claimed as much; the professor then spends a fair but of time on the fact that Cleopatra was a Macedonian Greek, that her  family did not mingle with the local Egyptian population, and that Cleopatra's interest in the local population and their practices was seen as strange by the others in the ruling caste. So if you've "seen people online" claiming it says so, rest assured they haven't watched it.

What is said is that depictions of her have changed through time depending on who's doing the depicting; An Egyptian bust of one of her ancestors looks very African. Egyptian Greeks and Romans depicted her as looking like a Greek or Roman. She was deeply Orientalized during the Egyptomania period of the 19th century, and of course, Hollywood cast her from their stables of predominantly white, North European actresses for a long time. This isn't the documentary going "OMG YOU GUYS CLEOPATRA WAS TOTALLY BLACK!!!" it's  the documentary explaining a stylistic decision it made.

It also doesn't promote any sort of afrocentrism.  How could it when it's not saying the Ptolemies were black... But I guess we need to get angry at things we made up because getting mad at the real thing would be silly, since it's clearly nothing worth getting mad at.

So fun thing. I had 7 bucks of disposable income, several hours to spare to watch the whole 4 episodes, and took notes.

Since I couldn't find a clip of the part you're talking about in the above, I decided to transcribe it starting at around 15:40 on Episode 1 using the CCs:

Hayley: Cleopatra feels very close to the Egyptian People. Cleopatra learned the Egyptian language. She practiced the Egyptian religion. She wants to be remembered as Egyptian. We don't know her exact racial heritage. We don't know who Cleopatra's mother was. There's been a lot of research to prove that her mother was Egyptian, but we can't know for sure.

Ashton: It's also uncertain who Cleopatra's grandmother was. Cleopatra's father was given a nickname, which was illegitimate, so people recognized that his mother had probably been somebody who was at the royal court. It's possible that she was an Egyptian. Ancient Egyptians would've had a variety of different complexions, um, as we find in other African cultures today.

Hayley: Skin color ranged from black to pale brown, much like the people of South Sudan to modern-day Egypt.

Ashton: Given that Cleopatra represents herself as an Egyptian, it seems very strange that we insist on depicting her as a wholly European.

Heard: If you look at her depictions, she looks different depending on who it is that's depicting her. So her representations change, her perceptions change. So she's almost like this chameleon.

Issa: The appeal of Cleopatra is that we imagine her, that everyone can imagine her in their own way. I imagine her to have curly hair like me and a similar skin color.

Is there a reason the rest of the context above wasn't provided? It was all part of the same contiguous segment. Oh, and as an added bonus, here's Haley's ACTUAL statement on who made the claim she was Black, because you got it wrong stating it was an educator:

Haley: My grandmother was the inspiration for me. I would come home and I would tell her about what I was learning. You know, "Oh, we're learning about the Greeks, and we're learning about the Romans. And today we learned about Cleopatra." And I remember clear as day, her saying to me, "Shelley, I don't care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was Black."

Which brings me to this:

It's a non-zero chance; Her actual maternal lineage is unknown (being Greeks, the Ptolemies didn't really write that much about female lines). And we can be kind of safe in assuming that the Ptolemies were no more staid and chaste than any other God-Kings in history have ever been. She likely wasn't, but it's not beyond possibility that she was.

Because funny enough, those three sections are a pretty good example of the core components of the Afrocentrist arguments:

"The Eurocentrists say that she was white, but they don't even know who her mother or grandmother are?"
"Look at these depictions of Pharaohs, they were clearly Black, meaning the Ancient Egyptians were actually Black, meaning Cleopatra was Black because she was an Egyptian Pharaoh"
"The Eurocentrists are lying about the truth of Egypt which we know to be true (because racism)"

[Humble Scribe]

Didn't we have this exact same argument two years ago?

In which case I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave earlier;
There are all kinds of reasons for making casting decisions, and fidelity to what we believe to be historical accuracy is only one of them. Historical dramas are not history, nor should we expect them to be. Even when they're trying to be "historically accurate" chances are they are wrong. I've yet to see a Shakespeare production where the women are played by boys, but I've seen ones set in the 1930s (the 1995 movie version of Richard III) or the present day trading floors of the City of London (a 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice). If the drama is trying to make us think about a familiar situation in a different way, or highlight some aspect we take for granted, then why not? Why not make Anne Boleyn black to emphasise her outsider status in Henry VIII's court? Why not have a 'colour-blind' casting of David Copperfield to ask us to question why we think it even matters? And that's before we even get to 'Hamilton'.

I do agree it can be a mild annoyance when believe we know differently. Every time King John is cast as a guy with black hair and a goatee beard I groan a little inwardly (contemporary illustrations show him with reddish blond hair like his brother Richard I, and clean shaven). But it doesn't stop me enjoying Robin and Marian or Prince of Thieves. We have no real idea what Cleopatra looked like aside from the coins that show her with a big nose, but the Eastern Mediterranean has been a melting pot for millennia anyway, so you pays your money and you takes your choice I guess. On which subject, I remember my grandmother used to have a picture of Jesus on her wall. It was called The Good Shepherd, and he had a lamb draped over his shoulders. He also had long, flowing golden locks of hair and bright blue eyes. You know, just like a 1st century Judean would. Should it bother us? Maybe. A bit. I don't know.

[Azy]

Afrocentrists can argue that we don't know her maternal line all they like.  We do know her paternal line, which it seems was Greek.  Anything else is just speculation. 

As far as Shakespeare goes, female characters were played by men because back in that day women were not allowed on stage.  Women can be on stage now, so it makes a lot of sense to cast a woman for the role of a woman character.  It is a casting director's job to look for actors who at least mostly fit the part of the role they will be playing.  Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra because back then all actors were white, which is a whole other issue.   

[Chulanowa]

This is just a strawman argument, Chula. Of course we cannot get historical figures to portray themselves. It doesn't mean that we cannot try to make the casting as accurate as realistically possible.

No, it's a lead-in to the point that we have to expect and accept "inaccuracy" when looking at portrayals of people who have been dead since before Jesus was tossing fishes around.

Two points:

1. I understand that employing a Greek / Macedonian actress might be not possible. But are you seriously telling me that in the immense talent pool available to American casting agencies (which easily includes not only US citizens, but also Canadian and British actors) they couldn't find actress that at least somewhat approximates the ethnicity in question?

2. Based on the comments from the makers of Cleopatra, casting Adele James was *not* a "Cast the first person on the rolodex" decision. It was *deliberate*.

1. If you can accept a non-greek / Macedonian actress in the role then you are no longer talking about "accuracy."

2. Yup. It was an intentional stylistic choice. As I said this was explained in the series.

Nope, sorry, it is important. Movies are visual medium - and said visual aspect is usually meant to be taken literally. Hence, we have costume departments recreating historical clothes, prop departments creating realistic scenery etc. And, for the same reason, casting departments usually try (or, at least, should try) to provide actors that can approximate the people they are playing.

Oof. No. While producers love to say "our props and settings and costumes are historically accurate!"[/i] that's mostly just advertising. Set, costuming, etc are meant to create verisimilitude, not authenticity. The goal is to convince the audience that they are watching somewhere / somewhen else. To convey a vibe. 

And the thing is: it is possible for Alan Rickman, when in costume, to approximate Rasputin. He would not be able to approximate, say, any Chinese emperor (not to mention, such a casting wouldn't be considered appropriate today - yellowface and all that). For the same reason, Adele James cannot approximate Cleopatra.

Actually at this particular moment in Rickman's career, he is the spitting image of every Chinese emperor in history.

(too soon, I know, I know)

If you are saying that it's not important for an actor to at least superficially match their characters ethnicity, you're effectively subscribing to the "Black actor can play Gorbachev" notion.

I do literally say "you can cast anyone into any role." I for one would love to see Terry Crews as Gorbachev; he could piledrive someone dressed as the USSR into the ground, and then go to Pizza Hut. Pinpoint fucking accuracy.

Yes, "people online" can say ignorant shit. But they still provide some insight into how some ignorant people perceive things.

They were ignorant before the series came out, and would have been ignorant no matter the casting decisions. if your worry is "people are wrong on the internet," my friend, you're going ot stress yourself into an early grave. Especially if you are really using Twitter as your go-to.

So, what they are saying is, effectively "We know that Cleopatra wasn't Black, but we made a choice to portray her as such anyway". And other comments I've seen from them clearly suggest that it was an ideological decision - "We want to change the way Egyptians view themselves" and all that.

Yeah that's what a stylistic decision is, "we decided we wanted it to look this way." Again, this is a decision every production always makes, becuase as I noted up at the very top, you're just almost never going to get "The Real Thing."

Chula, come on. Are you joking here? These two photos clearly show a Caucasian male with a short full beard. You make it sound as if they had Nicholas II played by Dwight Johnson wearing mohawk.

BEHOLD, Kaiser Wilhelm II!

At this point Beorning, it's clear that the worry isn't "accuracy."

Are you seriously telling me that having Chris Pratt play Malcolm X would be acceptable, but impractical? And that, if such a movie was made, you'd be telling to (fully justifiably) angered viewers that there's not thing wrong with that?

Am I seriously saying that? Let's go back and look!

"For instance a common rebuttal is something like "so I could cast Chris Pratt as Malcom X?!?!" and the answer to that is yeah. You totally could. It's just that Malcom's story is very reliant on being a black man in a white supremacist country, so that decision would probably just confuse the story you're trying to tell by using Malcom X at all, right?"

Hmmm. Looks to me like I said (to paraphrase) "That's something you could totally do. However given the nature of stories about this person, it wouldn't make any sense, so no one does it."

Let me walk you through:

1. You can cast anyone in any role. That's the whole idea of "acting," is that someone who is not that person is portraying that person.
2. This means yes, you totally could cast Chris Pratt as Malcom X.
3. Any production about Malcom X is probably going to focus on his position as a revolutionary, activist, and leader.
4. In Malcom X's case, all of those aspects are integrally tied to his experiences being a black man in the United States.
5. Ergo, while you could cast Chris Pratt, or any other white actor in the role, doing so would be farcical.
6. So no one does that, because no one wants to make a Malcom X farce (feel free to tag me when History of the World Part II season 2 comes out I guess)

Again, it's about verisimilitude. You're making a movie about Malcom X; you're going to cast a black man in the lead role. This isn't because the actor "needs to look like Malcom X" (I mean come on... Denzel Washington? Morgan Freeman? Mario van Peebles?!), it's because the character itself is dependent on being a black man. Do you understand the distinction there? Blackness is integral to the "character" of Malcom X, if you take that out, you just don't have Malcom X anymore, you have Star Lord quoting him for some reason.

So let's bring back Cleopatra VII.

Is her being what you would consider "white" integral to her story in a similar way? if you were to cast her with darker skin (or let's be real, lighter skin) than she probably actually had, does she stop being the character of Cleopatra VII? Id her characterization centralized by that physical feature?

I genuinely don't think so. You could cast her with Michelle Yeoh, and while that's obviously going to be a stylistic decision, it does not "break" the character of Cleopatra at all. I can totally see Yeoh seducing a Roman Consul or two. God knows I've seen her kill enough people in her film career, so the fratricide passes muster.

Actually, that *is* my beef with 300. Although it's worth remembering that 300 was (deliberately) so unrealistic that any viewer should realize it's not a movie to learn history from.

You say that, but it's written by Zack Snyder sooooo... I'm not so sure that the deliberate choices were made with the intent you think they were. Anyway, divergence!

Actually, I don't dismiss your examples with "Those weren't documentaries". As I said: when a movie featuring real-life historical figures, I believe it's important to cast actors who can at least approximate these characters' ethnicities (and appearance in general). For documentaries, doubly so.

Alright, fair, Keelan dismissed my examples as such, and you simply agreed wholeheartedly.

First off, you're clearly perfectly okay with actors who look nothing like the character being cast as the character (see again, Robert Jack as the Tsar, or my example of Mario van Peebles as Malcom X - or Will Smith as Muhammed Ali from the same movie, holy shit.) This is because I'm sure you know what "acting" is, and understand that it's generally not going to be that important; so long as the character can be delivered, then an exact - or even close - likeness is not all that essential.

Where we diverge is that I extend this to race and ethnicity; if it's not important to the character being portrayed, then it's not important in casting for that character. I've explained why I hold this position, but I can't help but notice you have not explained why you feel it IS so essential. All you've given is some stuff about "accuracy," but again, we're already accepting tons of inaccuracy all over the place anyway. So why is race / ethnicity the one place you can't, even when it's genuinely unimportant to the character?

You forget about the dynastic inbreeding, though. Ptolemies married amongs themselves. Could Cleopatra's father have had an illegimate daughter with a black-skinned servant? Theoretically, yes... but such a girl wouldn't be his heir.

Cleopatra VII's father, Ptolemy XII was illegitimate. His father, Ptolemy IX, donked some woman who is literally unknown, except that she definitely wasn't Ptolemy IX's wife at the time (Cleopatra IV), or his wife at some prior time (Cleopatra Selene). He was in fact one of several illegitimate children of Ptolemy IX. The entire dynasty is full of this shit, along with the added layer of "the child is legitimate but the marriage is not" stuff due to frequent divorces... Remember the Pharoah and Queen were literally gods; how is Osiris just going to divorce Isis and marry someone else? Does she become Isis? Does the old Isis stay Isis? What the fuck is going on?!

This is why there was so much fratricide and plotting. Literally every kid, every relative was a possible heir. The ptolemies did not follow a neat and orderly primogeniture succession; the reigning Pharoah literally just picked a favorite, and told them "when I die, marry your sibling" - There was no guarantee this would even be their own kid, it might be some other family member. Hell sometimes you just got everyone together, had them all marry each other, and had a fucking Pharoah polycule, as was the case with Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII, and their sister Cleopatra II.

Here's the thing; they married their siblings as a ritual, part of the whole ascending the throne thing. And yes they absolutely fucked their siblings too, and made new kids to marry each other, all down (and sometimes up...) the family line. But they're also people who had absolute power over everything, were worshipped as divine beings, and that girl over there with the dates is cute, bring her to my chambers. What I mean is, there was absolutely nothing that stopped any of them from putting their genitals wherever the fuck they wanted, and they did so with varying degrees of enthusiasm (I mean Cleopatra VII herself was clearly not at all shy about putting a few branches onto the family pole, was she?)

[Vekseid]

A lot of the negative bias towards Cleopatra is because history is written by the victors

This is the most bullshit phrase humans have ever invented. The Mongols didn't write their history while they were winning. The North had nothing to do with the Lost Cause myth. The Hebrews lost, a lot, but produced a highly literate culture and consequently have had an outsized say in writing history, especially their own.

Afrosupremacists haven't won any battles. And yet they've got a lot of people believing Cleopatra was black.

/endrant

[Chulanowa]

The Mongols didn't write their history while they were winning.

Point of order; yes, they did. The Secret History of the Mongols was written near the height of Mongol power, shortly after Temüjin's death, sometime around the acknowledgement of Ögedei as his successor by the Kurultai.

I mean your sentiment towards that idiom is not unwarranted; History is written by whoever has something to write with. But the Mongols were definitely writing history about themselves while they were on top of the world  ;D

[Azy]

This is the most bullshit phrase humans have ever invented. The Mongols didn't write their history while they were winning. The North had nothing to do with the Lost Cause myth. The Hebrews lost, a lot, but produced a highly literate culture and consequently have had an outsized say in writing history, especially their own.

Afrosupremacists haven't won any battles. And yet they've got a lot of people believing Cleopatra was black.

/endrant

Your frustration and points are valid.  That being said, the world does tend to put more stock in the point of view of the victor, and sometimes facts get a little skewed.  The Lost Cause is only talked about in the American south.  I never knew anything about it until the internet became a thing and I made a friend who lived in South Carolina.  The internet has become a tool for any group to spread any kind of spun story they like. 

[Twisted Crow]

While I shrug at the "History is written by the Victor" argument as being something of a cop-out, I can't say that I don't subscribe to it on some level. I tend to prefer a slight twist on it:

"Anyone can write a history that they like -- but not all that record history are honest about it".

I feel that it sums up historical revisionism effectively enough; both in the efforts to record events or even to correct records that we feel are inconsistent.

Those in power can effectively scrub historical facts and obscure them all the time. But this happens a lot with historical entertainment pieces all the time. I am a Romance of the Three Kingdoms fan, and you wouldn't believe how many Dynasty Warriors fans I've run into looking at the key moments in the timeline and assuming how much is accurate to history. Sure, it's safe to say that most of us in that fandom don't buy into the magical aspects (Zhang Jiao doing anything, Zhuge Liang controlling the weather, etc.). The funny thing is, there are still arguments among said diehards of the fandom as to which characters were real people and which were completely or mostly fictional (Diao Chan, King Wutugu, Zhurong, etc.)

[Vekseid]

Point of order; yes, they did. The Secret History of the Mongols was written near the height of Mongol power, shortly after Temüjin's death, sometime around the acknowledgement of Ögedei as his successor by the Kurultai.

I mean your sentiment towards that idiom is not unwarranted; History is written by whoever has something to write with. But the Mongols were definitely writing history about themselves while they were on top of the world  ;D

Yeah it only took six/seven centuries for it to be translated back into Mongolian...

Regardless, the meaning of the term is what gets read. In the case of the Mongols, we only know of the histories because the people responsible for their ultimate defeat (Ming and Qing) wanted to preserve them.

[la dame en noir]

This thread is incredibly tiring because it veered away from the original point and started talking about Cleopatra

I'm a Black American woman whose line descends from those that were brought and enslaved here since the 1600s (I'm one of the fortunate ones that can trace this lineage back).

I'm seeing the word Afrocentric being thrown around and it's very clear that it is not being used correctly. Afrocentric; a focus on or influence by Africa or cultures of African origin; Afrocentric ideas, attitudes, or emphasis. It is also a movement that rose up during the 60s/70s as a way for Black Americans to find connection to their ancestral homeland and to understand that there isn't anything wrong with being of African descent. The idea is also to showcase the very real influence that African and its diaspora has had on the modern world (and in a lot of cases, the ancient world as well).

The thing you guys are thinking of is our (black American) definition of Hotep which is basically a black person that is radical, sexist, and homophobic in their thinking. Basically that we're the original Jews, the original egyptians, etc etc. A lot of harmful, stupid, and ridiculous thinking. This is a very small % of people, but because we have the internet, everyone has been exposed to their bs. There are pockets of people like this in every ethnic group, not just those that fall under the black category.

Another thing I want to touch on is this thing that, we as a people, have been using for centuries and that is "black and white". For Africans specifically, they have never in their years of habitation EVER called themselves Black or White until the influence of European colonizers, etc. There are ethnic groups - just like they are everywhere. You weren't black or white, you were Nubian, Igbo, Zulu, Amazigh, etc. Africa, before the invasion/colonization/immigration of European & Asian peoples, they have always been the most genetically diverse people on this earth. Skin colors range from lightest to the darkest, hair textures from straight to tightly coiled, and eye colors all over the spectrum.

Race is a social construct, it is not real.
https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm

It was because of German Physician Johann Friedrich Blumenbach that folks started to refer to all Europeans as Caucasian simply because he liked a skull he found in the Caucasus mountains. It's because of him that there are ridiculous racial categorizations. Black wasn't just for those from subsuhara Africa - it was also used on those from South India, Melanesia, etc. This was also used as "evidence" to call Black people inferior to White people because the skull was different or because our skin was dark. We are, apparently, the less evolved version of white people. This was also a tactic used in Europe on indigenous people like the Sami for example.

I could talk about this all day, but to try and categorize Egyptians is absolutely wild because there are so many ethnic groups in Egypt.


Now for the OP's topic, its capitalism & radical liberal thinking and possibly white guilt. It's easy to exploit black Americans because many of us want to feel equal, to feel like we belong, and we are typically the loudest when it comes to injustice and representation. But we are also loud for others too. No one asked for a black Ariel, but it happened. When it happened, we all knew that poor girl was going to get hate from every corner of the goddamn earth. People tell us that we need to make original stories, but every time we do...no one goes to see them, no one reads them, etc etc. Some will even go as far as to say "I couldn't relate because the character wasn't white". But for decades black and brown people have connected to stories were 90 to 100% of the cast was white.

I have a lot of feelings on this.