White actors always played Jesus, hypocritical?
Now the ''anti-woke'' brigade are crying into their Trump manuals because it's happening in reverse (which I find annoying anyway, btw). Lol
shareDo you think all the historians, Egyptians, and professional critics questioning this show's historical accuracy, are 'Trump supporters'? 🤦♂️
shareAddress the hypocrisy! Jesus was NOT a white WASPy European with long blond hair and blue eyes.
Egyptians have also complained about European and Hollywood whitewashing their history with white actors by banning a number of movies.
I won't address the whataboutery, because NO-ONE here, least of all me, is defending the idea of Jesus as a white WASPy European with long blond hair and blue eyes. I've LONG criticised that practice. But why compare Cleopatra to what is possibly a *fictional* fantasy character? And one, who if he did exist, certainly didn't perform the *literal* miracles attributed to him?
shareThe topic is about racist hypocrisy among whites.
You defend WASPy Jesus and WASPy Ancient Egyptians when you don't speak up about it. Link to one of your post complaining about Hollywood whitewashing?
Racists have complained about black actors as "fictional" characters like The Little Mermaid and Finn in Star Wars, too.
"You defend WASPy Jesus and WASPy Ancient Egyptians when you don't speak up about it. Link to one of your post complaining about Hollywood whitewashing?"
Give me a *recent* example, and I'll *gladly* complain about it. Like I say, I find the practice abhorrent.
I did recently call out On the Basis of Sex for casting a gentile English actor as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, instead of a more appropriate Jewish actor.
I've complained about The Impossible, as good a film as it is, focusing on a white couple, in view of how many thousands of Asians were affected by the 2004 tsunami, and to make matters worse, by casting the very WASPy Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor as the real-life Spanish couple at the heart of the story (which is by no means the worst type of whitewashing, but as someone of Iberian ancestry, I do find it annoying when stories invariably focus on English or WASPy American families, when there's a genuine opportunity to show some non-English/American characters for once).
But I see little point about complaining about films made in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, because that was clearly a different era, and I'm more concerned about whitewashing *today*, but I will certainly criticise the casting of Willem Dafoe in the otherwise brilliant The Last Temptation of Christ (as excellent as Dafoe is, in terms of performance/temperment in the role), because ideally that part should have gone to a darker-skinned actor. Likewise, Jim Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ (at least he's a bit darker/more ethnic-looking than blond, blue-eyed Dafoe, but still very very white; maybe Hollywood will *eventually* get it right).
Unfortunately, you're the exception. I'm going to answer your earlier question. First some context.
Whitewashing serves a purpose. It supports the dominant cultures' bigoted narrative especially around history. Narrative: Only whites have a history and made all contributions while blacks accomplished nothing. Conclusion: Only role for inferior blacks is subservience to the superior white race which justified slavery, Jim Crow and present racism. Without knowledge of black history, the majority believes the lie and a racial hierarchy remains.
I've heard people deny Jesus was Jewish and films with WASPy (and Italian) actors only reinforce it.
The Egyptian government and society are dominated and controlled by Muslim Arabs. They control education, mass media and culture in Egypt since they invaded in the 7th century. Basically, they have been saying that Arabs built the pyramids. ARABS WERE NOT IN ANCIENT EGYPT! Meanwhile, they deny the existence of the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians and persecute them. Anti-black, colorism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity bigotry are rampant in Egypt although they deny it.
Egyptians are being miseducated on purpose to support their hierarchy. The native Egyptians who built the pyramids are oppressed and second-class citizens.
All dominant cultures build-up their own accomplishments and history while denying those of the marginalized groups.
Re: the show
Most historians have said Cleo's mother was unknown. The show is only speculating what if she were 1/2 or 1/4 Egyptian. That's all. They were likely inspired by the discovery of Cleo's half sister's tomb and skull which was identified as bi-racial (black mother).
Past white historians were just as racist as everyone else. Many present white historians and Egyptologists are denouncing the past racism and are becoming more honest about Egypt's history. I'm encouraged. Most historians said Cleo was not white and likely tan or mixed. The Cleo actress is a light-skinned black - racially mixed.
The Egyptian government is furious toward black Americans who repeatedly say Arabs had nothing to do with the pyramids and invaded Egypt. They're outing Egyptian lies! LOL!
Critics are idiots who know nothing and base their reviews on societal expectations.
I see it's part of a series about African queens. The first season covered Queen Nzinga.
"Producers of the series stated that "[Cleopatra's] ethnicity is not the focus of Queen Cleopatra, but we did intentionally decide to depict her of mixed ethnicity to reflect theories about Cleopatra’s possible Egyptian ancestry and the multicultural nature of ancient Egypt." Adele James questioned the validity of the concept of "blackwashing" and expressed her disappointment with racial perceptions "that people are either so self-loathing or so threatened by Blackness that they feel the need to do that, to separate Egypt from the rest of the continent".
I really thought it was wrong for John Wayne to play Genghis Khan. And Warner Oland to play Charlie Chan. If they were recent examples, I would have complained about them on the internet.
shareWhitewashing has never stopped.
shareAnd now they're getting their own back by blackwashing instead, and even blacks don't like it.
It's flawed logic. The aim should be to end all wrongs. NOT to counterbalance one wrong with *ANOTHER* wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of people think this way (i.e. "well, YOUR people did X to MY people. Time for payback.") When will this bullshit end? The South Africans (i.e. Truth and Reconciliation) and Northern Irish (i.e. the Good Friday Agreement/power-sharing), to their credit, have recognised how stupid this approach is.
shareApples and oranges.
Whites pretend that POC historical people/persons are white which is white supremacy: Jesus, Egyptians, cowboys
Blacks are just doing an acting role.
[deleted]
Anglo-Saxons weren't around until the 5th century Ina completely unrelated country, an protestants not until the 16th, so it's a bit of a stretch of the imagination to think the ancient Egyptians would aspire to be of a completely different race/religion a century and a half in the future.
share"Hollywood likes to pretend that ancient Egypt was full of white people"
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/4/5955253/Hollywood-egypt-white-people-exodus-gods-and-kings
The key word here is 'pretend'.
shareI don't know why my post was deleted, but I'm still waiting on a response from you about this. Remember don't be a hypocrite.
https://freeimage.host/i/HUQGLRR
They are all black originally :D
shareApples and oranges!
Whitewashing is done to support a racist and white supremacist narrative that only white people have a history and made contributions. The majority of whites (and others) don't know any black history so they believe the racist narrative. History of oppressed people is always denied by the dominant culture to reinforce its hierarchy.
Black actors are only playing a role.
That dumb. John Wayne was picked to play Khan because he had huge box office draw. No one in 1956 America was worried about maintaining White dominance of America, when whites were over 88% of the population.
I know, right?
And historical depictions of Jesus as white are not about "white supremacy," they are simply a continuation of a tradition of Jesus being portrayed as European by European artists, because most of them were unfamiliar with non-Europeans, and portrayed people to look like the people they knew, not only geographically, but in time as well. Have a look at this painting of Sabothai bearing a cup to King David:
https://www.alamy.com/sabothai-bearing-water-to-king-david-1440-image184280156.html
Now whatever the real 11th/10th century BC King David looked like, it sure as hell wasn't a 15th century European knight, complete with full plate armor. The artist had no idea what David would have looked like, or what the material culture of the ancient Israelites looked like, so he painted David to look like the kings he knew from his own time.
Or look at this object, which I've seen in person. It's Muiredach's cross, in County Louth. It dates from the 10th century.
http://irisharchaeology.ie/2017/05/muiredachs-high-cross-monasterboice-co-louth/
Scroll down to the third photo, which shows a panel depicting the arrest of Christ by Roman soldiers. The soldiers are basically shown as Vikings, with long mustaches and everything. The 10th century Irish monks had no idea what a 1st century AD Roman legionary looked like, but they did know what the Vikings, who during that very period were raiding and looting their monasteries looked like, so... when they needed to portray soldiers bent on victimizing the Savior, they fell back on villains they knew personally.
These are just two examples; there are thousands from medieval or renaissance art I could cite. This, not racism, is where the tradition of depicting Jesus as white comes from.
Well, made my point far better than I did, thanks!
shareI can't believe they picked a SERIAL KILLER to play Genghis Khan! Oh wait, maybe I CAN believe it...!
Well, a lot of people have said that 'The Duke' was a clown, so... 🤷♂️
shareI was only kidding, to be honest. I just realised that John Wayne has the same first two names as Gacy, and thought I'd pretend I'd misread the name before commenting. But since it makes me look poor-sighted, I'll give up on that game right now. I haven't got the stamina for such things, nor does sarcasm travel well in internet posts.
I know you were kidding.
Why else would I have said The Duke (i.e. John Wayne) was a clown (i.e. John Wayne Gacy)?
I thought your joke was funny, and was simply going along with it.
You don't know history. The KKK was about maintaining white dominance through terrorism while the thousands of Jim Crow laws and policies were about maintaining it legislatively. The U.S. is a race-based hierarchy from the start with its declaration that blacks are only 3/5 human in the Constitution.
share1. Sure the KKK was about that. John Wayne was a massively successful movie star that was about making movies that people liked. That you conflate the two, is you being weird.
2. That 3/5s bit, was a move by anti-slavers to undermine the political power of slave states. That you attack them for thier actions, is.... terrible. Really the only people today that should be attacking them for that would be the KKK and nazis.
1. Marion was a draft dodger and racist.
2. Slave states shouldn't have had slavery. The U.S. was founded on racism, classism and misogyny.
1. Irrelevant. John Wayne was not cast in that role to support w.s. He was cast to make a movie that people would enjoy and pay more for. That is the point. Your claim that it was for another reason was wrong.
2. You attacked people who were fighting against slavery. You stated that their action was about maintaining "white dominance" when it was all about fighting against slavery. The slaver owners wanted to count slaves as full people, so that they could use the existance of those slaves to have MORE POLITICAL POWER, so that they could protect and expand their system of slavery. They wanted to use the exists of slaves to empower slavery though "democracy".
That is a horribly cruel thing to have wanted to do.
It is morally and intellectually bankrupt on a scale of massively evil proportions.
And you are on the side of the slaver owners....
Would you like to discuss why your/their pro-slavery position was horribly immoral and wrong?
I personally thought these issues were settled and clear, but I would be happy to go into detals since you brought it up and took the pro-slaver position.
U.S. was founded by oligarchs.
shareAnd some of those "oligarchs" were anti-slavery and some where pro-slavery.
You attacked the anti-slavers for their attempt to politically weaken slavery.
That is your world view.
In MY world view, such people should be celebrated and held up as Heroes.
I am anti-slavery and you are PRO-SLAVERY.
(yes, historical discussion, but that is the side you have taken)
It’s the other way around. Whitewashing back then was done either out of limited actor resources, and/or the actors were box-office draws as another commenter said. Also, as another commenter pointed out, the white actors tried to look the part, so the characters themselves weren’t portrayed as white. Basically, they were just playing a role.
Blackwashing now is done out of revenge-casting and pushing afrocentric black-supremacy, and the characters are portrayed as black.
Neither is ok if we’re being fair, however you’re right about one thing: it is apples and oranges. The former was done out of convenience, the latter is done out of racism.
Spot on. And isn't it amusing how the same lefty crowd that howls so loudly about cultural appropriation is just fine with trying to appropriate other people's history and write them out of it?
shareThat's nonsense! The U.S. was always multi-cultural. Maybe your area is lily-white, but the rest of the country isn't.
Whitewashing STILL exists! What's your excuse now?
https://cassavafilms.com/list-of-9/nine-decades-of-asian-whitewashing-in-cinema
The U.S. has always been overwhelmingly white. There were even less POCs back then than now, and none of them back then were box-office draws, which Hollywood needs to profit from their investments.
That hilariously uninformed article not only proves all of my points, it strengthens them by including comedy and parody films, where "color-face" was the point. As for the 2010s section, a quick searched showed that the only movie with white-washing was Doctor Strange, and that was only done to not offend the Chinese. Kevin Feige later apologized for that (but not for all the blackwashing in the MCU, interestingly enough). Clearly the writer of the article didn't do proper research.
I stand by what I said: whites were just playing a role, while blacks are appropriating culture. What now?
Not overwhelming. You must live in a homogeneous region which has clouded your perception.
Still happening. Whitewashed Cleo film with Gal Gadot. Now we get to see WASPy Egyptians again for the zillionth time even though they painted themselves with brown and tan skin.
"Gal Gadot's Cleopatra film sparks 'whitewashing' claims"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54529836
Cultural Appropriation is Europeans stealing Asian, African and American artifacts!
"Five relics Egypt wants back from foreign museums"
https://www.middleeasteye.net/discover/egypt-five-relics-want-back-foreign-museums
lol Gal Gadot isn't even white, she's Israeli. Where I live is irrelevant, just look up the demographics; there's more white people in America than all non-whites combined. Museums don't appropriate anything, they preserve artifacts and help bring awareness and education to the world. Those relics would've been lost to time if they weren't recovered.
Just admit it, kid. You lost this round. With every post you make, even if you’re just trolling, you keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, and keep proving me correct.
You should stop arguing with this racist troll. He has an agenda and it's failing. He lost every debate he's has on here about whiteashing, and when I show him proof of blackwashing he claims that they are playing roles. He's a hypocrite and and just keeps using race cards for everything, especially when he gets stumped. Move on this bigot feeds on responses.
share"Gal Gadot isn't even white, she's Israeli."
Then, neither is Jesus and he shouldn't be played by white actors.
No matter how you spin it, stealing POC artifacts is still cultural appropriation.
You know, da Vinchi's The Last Supper was painted around 1495 depicts Jesus (and everyone else) as white, while Michaelangelo's depiction of God and Adam on the Sistine Chapel (1510) as also... white. Who would have thought that 2 of the most famous renaissance artists that ever lived were racist?
shareIt's apples and oranges, when it has to fit your narrative. The white actors are also playing roles. You're deck of cards must be running our of those race cards because you've been using them alot.
Also how bold of you to say that the majority of whites don't know black history, how do you know this? What's that term called when you group a whole race of people and base all of them on a few?
"The white actors are also playing roles."
No they're not because they're supporting the lie that the historical people/person they play were white. It maintains the lie of white supremacy. Whites believe the Ancient Egyptians, Vikings, cowboys, Jesus, etc. were all white.
Blacks are just playing a role.
So, sir lancelot was black? Achilles was black? Joan of Arc was black? Julie Cesar was black? Is that not lying about historical facts? How come that's considered just roles? Your logic is idiotic and you sound lost, just like all of your arguments. Second place ✌🏽
shareAncient Egyptians:
The French historian Count Constantine de Volney travel to Egypt and wrote this during the late 1780's,
“Just think, that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!”
Vikings:
"A striking feature of the early Vikings’ success was their ability to embrace and adapt from a wide range of cultures, whether that be the Christian Irish in the west or the Muslims of the Abbasid Caliphate in the east. Viking crews would frequently lose members and pick up new recruits as they travelled, combining dissident elements from different backgrounds and cultures. The cultural and ethnic diversity of the Viking Age is highlighted by finds in furnished graves and silver hoards from the ninth and tenth centuries."
Cowboys:
"Classic Westerns have cemented the image of cowboys as white Americans, but the first wave of horse-riding cow wranglers in North America were Indigenous Mexican men. First trained by the Spaniards who arrived in 1519, on land later known as Mexico, the original vaqueros were largely Indigenous American men who were trained to wrangle cattle on horseback...After the Civil War, 20% to 25% of cowboys were Black, Indigenous and Mexican, depending on geography."
Jesus:
"Scholars consider this image—around five feet tall, with darker skin, dark eyes, and shorter, curlier hair—to be more accurate than many artistic depictions of the son of God....Taylor used archaeological remains, historical texts and ancient Egyptian funerary art to conclude that, like most people in Judea and Egypt around the time, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. He may have stood about 5-ft.-5-in. (166 cm) tall, the average man’s height at the time.... Cargill agrees that these more recent images of Jesus—including darker, perhaps curlier hair, darker skin and dark eyes—probably come closer to the truth."
HELLO! He was from the Middle East! His complexion was brown!
shareNot necessarily it wasn't.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-blonde-Arab
There are fair-skinned Middle Easterners, and even blonde and red-headed ones.
A guy I work with and have known for twenty years is Lebanese and blonde.
Jews in Judea in that era had tan to brown skin, dark curly hair and dark eyes.
There are no pure races. Your work colleague can have European ancestry. You should ask him if he did a DNA test.
"I was born and always have lived in Lebanon, Beirut. I haven't studied history or taken any courses except a brief one back in high school.
During the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon which lasted from 1923 till 1946, thousands of French (even Italian) settlers lived in Lebanon as party of mandate. Even after the Independence of Lebanon in 1943, thousands of these settlers stayed in Lebanon. That is a big starter for me to remember on why there would be an ethnic diversity in Lebanon.
I was only born in 1992, and from what I can personally observe around me, there are people of all “colors” here. Whether they are being treated equality and justly, that’s another question.
A lot of my friends are born to a Lebanese parent and another parent who comes from either France, Germany, Italy, the USA, Philippine, Armenia, Syria, Brazil, Iraq, and a long list of other countries."
I'm repeating my comment from another poster:
Jesus:
"Scholars consider this image—around five feet tall, with darker skin, dark eyes, and shorter, curlier hair—to be more accurate than many artistic depictions of the son of God....Taylor used archaeological remains, historical texts and ancient Egyptian funerary art to conclude that, like most people in Judea and Egypt around the time, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. He may have stood about 5-ft.-5-in. (166 cm) tall, the average man’s height at the time.... Cargill agrees that these more recent images of Jesus—including darker, perhaps curlier hair, darker skin and dark eyes—probably come closer to the truth."
The "woke brigade" blubbers endlessly about things like racewashing, yet doesn't mind when specific races replace others. That's the real hypocrisy. Either you think it's wrong or you don't. If you think it's wrong then apply that principle across the board without exception.
share