They make trivial to find references to black people and depict them in the manner they depict themselves in art.
Because their division was not “Greek” and “black” but “Greek” and “not Greek”, they simply didn’t document it.
Aristotle describes the ideal skin tone as halfway between an Ethiopian and a woman.
Black people were quite literally unremarkable to them, so it’s pretty easy to argue that an ancient Greek wouldn’t find it odd to travel with a black person.
I think I’d like the person who made the claim to tell us what they meant with “plenty”. A reference here and there to there having been a black person in Ancient Greece doesn’t feel like it’s proving the claim, but they might’ve meant just that when they said “plenty”.
Alright, demonstrate that the demographics are as you assert they are. I’ve shown you that they’re depicted in their arts and culture, both as they depicted outsiders and as they depicted themselves, as well as that they had unremarkable interactions with Ethiopia and beyond.
The link also details the history of using the racial composition of ancient Greece for all manner of racial weirdness that wasn’t representative of the Greeks themselves, up to and including Internet race weirdos who get bent out of shape about a black person being depicted in a movie set in the Mediterranean.
At this point you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there sufficient numbers of dark skinned people that it wasn’t remarkable. If you disagree that it would somehow have been remarkable, or that this isn’t a perfectly workable definition of “plenty”, then show some reason why beyond “well everyone knows”.
Hell, demonstrate that there were plenty of white people.
You’ve shown that Greeks had connection and knew about black people but that wasn’t disputed… The claim was that there was “plenty” of black people in Ancient Greece. Connections to people being in Ancient Greece aren’t the same…
I’m not sure why you are taking the burden of proving someone else’s claim but you’re now trying to spin that burden to me to prove it the other wat around. That’s just silly.
Are you asking me why I have an opinion on something? Because I do. You don’t need special reasons to make comments on a forum.
You aren’t listening. They depicted black people in the fashion that they depicted Greek people. They didn’t find them a weird novelty. The nature of ancient Greek prejudice wouldn’t have them depict people as Greek that they didn’t consider Greek. That intrinsically says something about the cultural integration, because that’s what the Greeks got weird over. If it was uncommon for them to be there they would have mentioned it because they mentioned all manner of uncommon things.
If they were a part of the society, and common enough that it wasn’t worth mentioning “…and then the one black guy in Athens showed up…”, then it seems clear to me that that’s “plenty”.
Nothing is being spun. I and others have given you evidence. You haven’t and are just making vacuous claims. Why do you have the opinion you do about the skin tone content of ancient Greece? Is it the enlightenment era paintings of Greek philosophers as white as could be? That the paint fell off the statues so now they’re just white marble? That all the black people in the pottery are “obviously” artistic choices, but the white people just … Are?
I’m sure you have a reason for thinking what you do, so what is it?
Neither a conversation nor a debate works by one person demanding evidence, denying it, and then refusing to elaborate In their beliefs.
I don’t think just the connections shows that they were a common feature over in Ancient Greece. It shows they were well known about, and no wonder since Greeks had plenty of contacts and even colonies over in sub-Saharan Africa, but not imo that there were plenty in Ancient Greece.
And burden of proof works exactly so that the one making the claim should provide evidence for it. I don’t think anything so far has done that, there’s just been a lot of off-topic stuff and proving connections and that sort of thing. But them being culturally connected wasn’t the claim, there being plenty in Acient Greece was.
I think this is such an emotional topic to some that it is easy to lose focus on the actual topic. But this particular chain has for me been just about that specific claim. You want me to “elaborate on my beliefs”? I don’t get it. I just wanted to see what source the other fella maning the claim had. That’s all
Do you happen to have a source for there being plenty?
Define “plenty”.
The ancient Greeks didn’t care about skin tone in the modern sense, so there isn’t some racial census data like we have now.
https://lucas.leeds.ac.uk/article/skin-colour-in-ancient-greece/
They make trivial to find references to black people and depict them in the manner they depict themselves in art.
Because their division was not “Greek” and “black” but “Greek” and “not Greek”, they simply didn’t document it.
Aristotle describes the ideal skin tone as halfway between an Ethiopian and a woman.
Black people were quite literally unremarkable to them, so it’s pretty easy to argue that an ancient Greek wouldn’t find it odd to travel with a black person.
I think I’d like the person who made the claim to tell us what they meant with “plenty”. A reference here and there to there having been a black person in Ancient Greece doesn’t feel like it’s proving the claim, but they might’ve meant just that when they said “plenty”.
That makes it sound hard to prove
Alright, demonstrate that the demographics are as you assert they are. I’ve shown you that they’re depicted in their arts and culture, both as they depicted outsiders and as they depicted themselves, as well as that they had unremarkable interactions with Ethiopia and beyond.
The link also details the history of using the racial composition of ancient Greece for all manner of racial weirdness that wasn’t representative of the Greeks themselves, up to and including Internet race weirdos who get bent out of shape about a black person being depicted in a movie set in the Mediterranean.
At this point you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there sufficient numbers of dark skinned people that it wasn’t remarkable. If you disagree that it would somehow have been remarkable, or that this isn’t a perfectly workable definition of “plenty”, then show some reason why beyond “well everyone knows”.
Hell, demonstrate that there were plenty of white people.
You’ve shown that Greeks had connection and knew about black people but that wasn’t disputed… The claim was that there was “plenty” of black people in Ancient Greece. Connections to people being in Ancient Greece aren’t the same…
I’m not sure why you are taking the burden of proving someone else’s claim but you’re now trying to spin that burden to me to prove it the other wat around. That’s just silly.
Why not trust the other guy to make their case?
Are you asking me why I have an opinion on something? Because I do. You don’t need special reasons to make comments on a forum.
You aren’t listening. They depicted black people in the fashion that they depicted Greek people. They didn’t find them a weird novelty. The nature of ancient Greek prejudice wouldn’t have them depict people as Greek that they didn’t consider Greek. That intrinsically says something about the cultural integration, because that’s what the Greeks got weird over. If it was uncommon for them to be there they would have mentioned it because they mentioned all manner of uncommon things.
If they were a part of the society, and common enough that it wasn’t worth mentioning “…and then the one black guy in Athens showed up…”, then it seems clear to me that that’s “plenty”.
Nothing is being spun. I and others have given you evidence. You haven’t and are just making vacuous claims. Why do you have the opinion you do about the skin tone content of ancient Greece? Is it the enlightenment era paintings of Greek philosophers as white as could be? That the paint fell off the statues so now they’re just white marble? That all the black people in the pottery are “obviously” artistic choices, but the white people just … Are?
I’m sure you have a reason for thinking what you do, so what is it?
Neither a conversation nor a debate works by one person demanding evidence, denying it, and then refusing to elaborate In their beliefs.
I don’t think just the connections shows that they were a common feature over in Ancient Greece. It shows they were well known about, and no wonder since Greeks had plenty of contacts and even colonies over in sub-Saharan Africa, but not imo that there were plenty in Ancient Greece.
And burden of proof works exactly so that the one making the claim should provide evidence for it. I don’t think anything so far has done that, there’s just been a lot of off-topic stuff and proving connections and that sort of thing. But them being culturally connected wasn’t the claim, there being plenty in Acient Greece was.
I think this is such an emotional topic to some that it is easy to lose focus on the actual topic. But this particular chain has for me been just about that specific claim. You want me to “elaborate on my beliefs”? I don’t get it. I just wanted to see what source the other fella maning the claim had. That’s all