3 ms·
> that would commit to what shade of "bronzed" they're actually talking about. Um bronze metal. They would gold leaf or cover in bronze statues. Wasn't becaus
by baldfat 8y ago
> that would commit to what shade of "bronzed" they're actually talking about.
Um bronze metal. They would gold leaf or cover in bronze statues. Wasn't because we are talking about the different skin tones of modern Greece with modern Greece. It was that it wasn't the thing that defined people. Your origin was much what defined you and not your skin color.
> This sounds like an attempt to make something out of nothing,
I studied and even read Classical Greek for a few years in college. I can tell you that if you take that point with women it is absolutely true and this idea is more universal in Ancient Near East. Most cultures prized pale skin woman who did not have a tan since only the wealthy could afford such a life style. The Song of Solomon in the Bible even states that.
Song of Solomon 1:5-7
How right they are to adore you. 5 I am dark but beautiful, O women of Jerusalem dark as the tents of Kedar, dark as the curtains of Solomon’s tents. 6 Don’t stare at me because I am dark the sun has darkened my skin. My brothers were angry with me; they forced me to care for their vineyards, so I couldn’t care for myself my own vineyard. 7 Tell me, my love, where are you leading your flock today? Where will you rest your sheep at noon? For why should I wander like a prostitute among your friends and their flocks?
Your wealth was seen by your lack of tan similar to how we view people wealthy based on cars and homes.
- lmm 8y ago> Um bronze metal. They would gold leaf or cover in bronze statues. Bronze metal doesn't look at all like what we generally call "bronzed skin"; Kennedy knows she is talking to a modern (popular) audience, so it's unlikely that the shade of bronze metal is what she means. > It was that it wasn't the thing that defined people. Your origin was much what defined you and not your skin color. This claim keeps being repeated, but it doesn't seem to be backed up by the actual sculptures. If there were people the Ancient Greeks considered Greek who had a skin tone that modern people would not consider "white", why don't any of the statue pigments that this whole article is supposedly about show those skin tones? (The "African boy" is clearly not "white" to modern eyes, but it doesn't sound like he was "Greek" to the ancients either).
- baldfat 8y ago"There are also reconstructions of naked figures in bronze, which have a disarming fleshiness: copper lips and nipples, luxuriant black beards, wiry swirls of dark pubic hair. (Classical bronze figures were often blinged out with gemstones for the eyes and with contrasting metals that highlighted anatomical details or dripping wounds.) Throughout the exhibition, the colored replicas are juxtaposed with white plaster casts of marble pieces—fakes that look like what we think of as the real thing." The other context of bronze means tanned, but they actually covered part or the whole statue in metal sometimes.
- baldfat 8y agoWhat your trying to do is make White an issue. The thing is White isn't the issue and wasn't even a way a person would categorize or see themselves. I can't give you a short clip or a sound bite because this is history and is just a given understanding that the idea of whiteness is a fairly new way for people to think of themselves. That is why the Alt-Right and White Nationalist are just 100% wrong. It's due to a small worldview. The average person never went more then 14 miles from where they were born their whole life.
- lmm 8y agoAgain, the article is trying to make white the issue, starting right from the title.