re: Gal Gadot cast as Cleopatra, and people aren't happy about it

quote:

---

There’s probably as much Gaulic and Celtic DNA in Italy now as there is in France and Germany despite the fact that neither are from there.

---

Gaul was a Roman name a region populated by Celtic tribes, and it was most of central Europe, including Germany and parts of Italy. Saying the Gauls were located in or from France is the simplification of historic regions on a map for elementary school children. And Genghis didn't make it too far past Iraq, and that was centuries after the Arabs conquered much of the region in question. I understand the point you're making, but I'm not sure you're doing it very well, and...

quote:

---

These woke Leftists clearly don’t understand this.

---

You're doing that annoying thing where you equate an article's sourcing of three randos on Twitter with the "Left," which, I don't know why I have to keep saying this to people, is definitely one way of announcing stupidity. The same sort of stupidity those three Twitter randos exhibit. I don't think you're stupid, but generalizing an idea you don't agree with, announced by a dozen people you don't care about, published in two articles of nonsense news, with an abstract designation of potical ideology is frickin weird. Or it tells me you think "Left" means "things I don't like, and if some people I disagree with said something, it means everybody I dislike thinks the same thing." Also just as fricking weird, and wrong.

quote:

---

Well, progressives believe that middle eastern means “brown”, therefore, ONLY a “brown” person can play Cleopatra.

---

I thought it was closed minded to get upset over things like this. I’m so confused. When should I be outraged and when shouldn’t I care?

I’d show Claudette Colbert’s tub scene, but it showed nip.

quote:

---

Twitter is not happy about it lol

---

Bill Maher is a smug douche but he made a very valid point once.

Any time you read any article or headline talking about "What the internet thinks" or "what twitter thinks" it' should immediately be viewed as fake news.

You can make up any narrative you want and find a Tweets that support it.

Twitter is not real life. It is in no way a reflection of what the average person thinks or what the majority thinks. It's the biggest vocal minority to have ever existed. Most people are not on Twitter and roughly 10% of Twitter's userbase is responsible for 80% of the Tweets.

Part of the reason society is god damn screwed up right now is because a tiny group of lunatics on Twitter controls the entire media world.

quote:

---

This is what people don’t understand about ancient and tons of medieval warfare: the side that lost was largely genocided and/or enslaved. Even the French living today are largely not descended from the Gauls living there 2500 years ago. Sure some of the DNA survives over slave DNA, but it is the minority and it ethnically greatly changes the country where their forebearers lived. There’s probably as much Gaulic and Celtic DNA in Italy now as there is in France and Germany despite the fact that neither are from there. It’s because they were genocided/enslaved by these civilizations. You go back 3000 years and I think the average person would be astounded on how the random person looked. Even in the Middle East, think of how many people are descended from Genghis Khan and his army. It’s almost everyone. These woke Leftists clearly don’t understand this.

---

also, to get into their specific argument (which is almost about dark-skinned Africans), dark-skinned Africans didn't often leave Sub-Saharan Africa. that's one reason why so many of the populations were so ill-developed when Europeans started colonizing them in the 19th century. we're talking stone age in some places and barely iron age in others.

i've argued on here for a long time that the lack of major empires is a direct cause of the lack of development of the continent. empires consolidate populations (for reasons you stated). empires make populations that remain cooperate. empires make each other compete with one another, which leads to development.

hell, if you listen to the few progressives who try to defend pre-colonial SSA as the REAL progressive area, it's always "well life was so good here they didn't have to develop", essentially. that exact argument also explains why pre-slavery and colonialism, there really wasn't a diaspora of SSA populations. they simply rarely made it north to the Mediterranean or developed sailing of any substantial level.

that's not to say Egypt was never ruled by "black" people (quotations due to the context of this thread. certainly they were SSA). as far as i know, there was one "black" (Nubian) dynasty in egypt, the Kushite Empire. it lasted about 100 years and when they were defeated basically all remnants, monuments, etc. were destroyed. so yeah, this argument that their blood line remained within the royal lineage is...difficult. pretty sure the people who defeated the Kush were Assyrians, also.

quote:

---

Twitter is not happy about it lol

---

Who gives a frick if some dweebs are unhappy? They're always unhappy.

quote:

---

Twitter is not real life. It is in no way a reflection of what the average person thinks or what the majority thinks. It's the biggest vocal minority to have ever existed. Most people are not on Twitter and roughly 10% of Twitter's userbase is responsible for 80% of the Tweets.

---

People love to say this but ignore the fact that Twitter often times helps to drive the narrative of a story. Sure, Twitter isn't real life, but it is transformed into real life when the media uses it to advance the story.

quote:

---

And like I said, there is evidence that the Egyptians did not want Ethiopians crossing over their border which points they saw themselves different than what we consider black-African...sub-saharan and not Northern Africa.

---

But the Nubians (blacks) crossed over the border anyway and made themselves Pharaohs for a time period.