|
Post by BettyNewbie on May 20, 2020 19:46:23 GMT -5
As someone who has read extensively on Ancient Greece, who is familiar with Homer from Chapman’s translation and the Aeneid and who just finished reading a 500-page biography of Alexander the Great published via Oxford, the alt right’s appropriation of Ancient Greece and Rome is disgusting. These morons think Ancient Greece and Rome were totally white civilizations and get upset when one mentions that both empires were quite diverse and not just white people. Both empires only distinguished between non-Greek or non-Roman people and were quite open to other groups, provided one learned the language and the cultural mores. Ancient Greece had colonies in Turkey and the Middle East where the locals learned Greek and became Hellenized, same with Rome. In fact, several Roman emperors were African who became emperors due to being brilliant generals, the title wasn’t hereditary. So yes, there were Africans in the Roman Empire and Greek influence spread all the way to western India, so the idea that Ancient Greece or Rome were all white isn’t true. So a Latin-speaking African or Greek-speaking Scythian from around the Caspian wouldn’t be far-fetched at all. As I've pointed out in another thread on this site, "whiteness" as a concept literally didn't exist until the colonization of the Americas in the 1500s. It was something that Europeans made up to justify the brutal colonization of the Americas and mass enslavement of Africans. And, probably not-so-coincidentally, this was also the same era (ie. the Renaissance and later, Enlightenment) that we saw the first big revival of interest in Ancient Greece and Rome. And, it's likely from this period that the modern whitewashed version of Classical history was born, even right down to the statues themselves being whitewashed. When Europeans started the mass conquering of the Americas and using their own "racial superiority" to justify it, Greece and Rome became a mythical past of whiteness to aspire to. (This is why using the term "Western Civilization" in reference to Greece and Rome is racially loaded.) Just a simple understanding of history and geography would tell you that Ancient Greece and Rome were racially/ethnically diverse civilizations. They existed literally at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and their influence spanned all three continents. Much of Greek culture itself was inspired by Egypt. Roman art depicts people of an array of skin colors. And, so-called "Western Religion" (aka. Christianity)? Came from the Middle East. Jesus, himself, was a brown man.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 20, 2020 20:16:50 GMT -5
Absolutely, ancient sculpture had vibrant colors and since they faded people thought they were always white. Same with the friezes on the Parthenon, the Acropolis at its height must have been stunning. A lot of people don’t realize that the ancient Greeks had extensive colonies in western Turkey and the people were considered their fellow Greeks, in addition to Greek mercenaries fighting in the Persian army. The Persian Empire might have been more advanced than Greece, films like 300 would have one believe Persia was an empire of decadence run by a crazy god-King. With the size of the Roman Empire, it would only be natural that Roman art would depict people of different colors and appearances, so saying Western Civilization is only Greece and Rome is a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on May 20, 2020 22:40:16 GMT -5
Absolutely, ancient sculpture had vibrant colors and since they faded people thought they were always white. Same with the friezes on the Parthenon, the Acropolis at its height must have been stunning. Here's a reconstruction of what the Parthenon might've looked like. And, check out these colorized remakes of Greek/Roman sculptures. Classical art and architecture was originally very beautiful and vibrant, and it's a shame that we've only seen a faded, whitewashed version of it for so long. A lot of people don’t realize that the ancient Greeks had extensive colonies in western Turkey and the people were considered their fellow Greeks, in addition to Greek mercenaries fighting in the Persian army. There's a sad reason for that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocideThe majority of the land now known as western Turkey was originally part of Greece (and later, Eastern Rome and Byzantium). But, then, the Turks invaded and conquered the land in the 15th century, just as they had done to Armenia a couple of centuries earlier. Remaining Greeks were later ethnically cleansed from the land, and most traces of Greek culture were either wiped out or Turkified. Anatolia used to be very ethnically and culturally diverse, and the only reason it isn't anymore is because of the Ottoman Empire's colonization and genocide. The Persian Empire might have been more advanced than Greece, films like 300 would have one believe Persia was an empire of decadence run by a crazy god-King. With the size of the Roman Empire, it would only be natural that Roman art would depict people of different colors and appearances, so saying Western Civilization is only Greece and Rome is a stretch. It's because Persia = Iran, aka. Enemy Of The West. Just earlier this year, Orange Hitler was threatening to bomb priceless cultural sites in Iran. Could you imagine a president threatening to drop bombs on Ancient Greek or Roman ruins? Why are Ancient Persian ruins considered less valuable? Another ancient civilization that constantly gets ignored for similar reasons is Mesopotamia (aka. present-day Iraq, the West's oil field). So many massively significant, important innovations came from them, yet you rarely hear about them, and their ruins are under constant threat of being bombed thanks to all of the imperial wars in the region.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 21, 2020 6:35:57 GMT -5
Persia and Babylonia do get the short shrift in discussions of the ancient world, I suppose it’s because Americans think they’re non-white cultures and because of the enmity between us, Iraq and Iran. 300 had the bare outlines of Thermopylae and the Greek-Persian wars correct but a lot of it was nonsense. Xerxes was not an immortal god-King with chains and piercings and the Persian people weren’t slaves; in fact, Greece had more of a slave society and Sparta had more slaves than citizens, which of course the film never brought up.
Those are great pictures in the links, Betty. Too bad the pigment used was so fragile, people would have had a different view of Ancient Greece and Rome otherwise. A movie that shows the Persian Empire a bit more accurately would actually be Alexander by Oliver Stone, believe it or not. Yes the film bombed at the box office but it’s actually quite accurate with his life and times. Persian cities and culture awe the Greeks and is portrayed as more lavish than what they had at home. Babylon in particular is shown as a huge, gorgeous city far bigger than any Greek one plus the main palace is enormous and lush, his Dad’s place was like a peasant hut compared to this. And throughout, the Persian people are portrayed more positively such as his father in law Oxyartes and his eunuch boyfriend Bagoas who acts as a translator. I guess it bombed here because of the gay subtext and that the Persians weren’t the automatic bad guys.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on May 21, 2020 10:32:32 GMT -5
Persia and Babylonia do get the short shrift in discussions of the ancient world, I suppose it’s because Americans think they’re non-white cultures and because of the enmity between us, Iraq and Iran. 300 had the bare outlines of Thermopylae and the Greek-Persian wars correct but a lot of it was nonsense. Xerxes was not an immortal god-King with chains and piercings and the Persian people weren’t slaves; in fact, Greece had more of a slave society and Sparta had more slaves than citizens, which of course the film never brought up. 300 was a movie tailor-made for the Molon Labe crowd. Very obvious that we were supposed to see the Spartans as Murrika and the Persians as a decadent, foreign Other to conquer. Plus, the author of the original comic, Frank Miller, is a nasty racist and misogynist.A movie that shows the Persian Empire a bit more accurately would actually be Alexander by Oliver Stone, believe it or not. Yes the film bombed at the box office but it’s actually quite accurate with his life and times. Persian cities and culture awe the Greeks and is portrayed as more lavish than what they had at home. Babylon in particular is shown as a huge, gorgeous city far bigger than any Greek one plus the main palace is enormous and lush, his Dad’s place was like a peasant hut compared to this. And throughout, the Persian people are portrayed more positively such as his father in law Oxyartes and his eunuch boyfriend Bagoas who acts as a translator. I guess it bombed here because of the gay subtext and that the Persians weren’t the automatic bad guys. Hitting Google, it looks like the movie came out in 2004, right when we were in the midst of escalating bombs on Iraq (and still in the fallout from 9/11). A movie that portrayed Persia positively had no chance of doing well at the time.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 21, 2020 10:53:46 GMT -5
I hated 300, it was bad history and so over the top with violence and it felt like a comic book come to the big screen. The violence was sickening and there were rape scenes, I don’t mind violence but I do mind extreme violence rendered in green screen, plus the rape scenes weren’t necessary. I was facepalming the whole film since the Persians were portrayed as Oriental weirdos, the orgy scene with the goat head would have actually been more appropriate to Greece since Pan and Dionysus had cults where people engaged in orgies and wore animal skins. The sequel was just as bad, the only reason I watched either film was because my brother wanted to and I thought maybe there’d be actual Greek history.
Not to mention in Alexander there was a heavy gay subtext between Alexander, his second in command Hephaistion and the Persian eunuch Bagoas, which is historical fact. That freaked out a lot of people since there’s scenes where Alexander is kissing both of them and they’re often in bed together, Americans were horrified but it did better in Western Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2020 11:28:11 GMT -5
Ugh, 300. what a rubbish movies. I've seen paintings of Xerxes and he most certainly looked nothing like the movie portrayed him.
I've also seen Alexander and I think it's a good movie and Oliver Stone should be proud of it.
As for the gay stuff, so what. Being gay wasn't the big taboo in Alexander's time like it was in the 20th Century.
|
|
|
Post by Melinda Halliwell on May 21, 2020 13:07:23 GMT -5
In Greek times incest was ripe so it was no different then.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 21, 2020 16:10:57 GMT -5
In Greek times incest was ripe so it was no different then. Thankfully not to the extent in the Egyptian pharaohs where brothers married sisters, which went on even into the Ptolemaic pharaohs, Cleopatra was married to two of her brothers😣 But Alexander’s sister was married to their uncle, it was primarily to keep power in the family and apparently no one was aware of inbreeding. The ancient Greeks didn’t really have a problem with being gay as long as men eventually married women and had children, in fact sometimes gay relationships were seen as more loving than being married to one’s wife. A guy who had sex with another guy but who also had a wife and kids wasn’t seen as weird, especially among the upper class. Alexander had three wives in addition to his boyfriends Hephaistion and Bagoas, although in the film we only see two of his wives Roxana and Stateira. The Macedonians were polygamous, his dad Philip had nine wives. I knew this so none of this freaked me out but Americans were squicked out, people don’t realize that sexual mores back then aren’t the same as now.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2020 17:02:15 GMT -5
I wonder how things in the Middle East would have worked out, had Britain and France stayed out after WW1.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 21, 2020 17:09:25 GMT -5
I wonder how things in the Middle East would have worked out, had Britain and France stayed out after WW1. Maybe there wouldn’t have been all these problems since the different ethnic groups would have been living in their native territories, instead of having arbitrary boundaries drawn through traditional lands. The same thing happened in Africa with colonialism and the Soviet Union with their Central Asian republics, people are cut off from their traditional lands and countries end up with large minorities of hostile groups.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2020 17:15:37 GMT -5
Sad that so many were victims of short sighted politicians.
|
|
|
Post by ladyfiaran22 on May 21, 2020 17:23:04 GMT -5
In the Soviet Union it was deliberate so that the different ethnic groups would fight each other instead of banding together to fight the Soviet regime. That’s why you have countries like Uzbekistan which has large minorities of Tajik and Russian peoples, the Tajiks are Persian and the Russians are Slavs while Uzbeks are a Turkic people, none of the groups get along.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 21, 2020 17:28:22 GMT -5
And many of groups are still fighting, nearly thirty years after the USSR collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by Squad 51 on May 22, 2020 8:24:36 GMT -5
We shouldn't also forget that the Arabian world saved many old tomes from Greece and Rome during the Middle Ages. They brought us the numbers with 0 and all and also modern words in all languages. It's hard to say why they suddenly fall back.
|
|