Don’t get me wrong here, I love Denzel. I’m a black man myself. But, Denzel in ancient Rome, playing a rich aristocrat?!? How historically accurate is that? Most blacks at the time didn’t have prominent positions. This smacks of woke propaganda and pandering to minorities and even I can recognize it.
shareI asked chatGPT: "Is Macrinus racially black?"
The AI answer is: "No, Macrinus was not racially black. He was of Syrian descent and served as the Roman Emperor from 217 to 218 AD."
I love Denzel but based on history no emperor would be black.
shareIf only it was sarcasm. But look at it — besides the usual preaching to its own up on this place, it is rewriting both film and real world history. Such an original and o real post, ey?
But yes, broflakkke. It’s the WOKEY BOOGEYMAN agenda that inconveniences thy bigot chuds. The caucasity! And guess what? You can’t do nothing about it! Lol. Cuz even in this new (but not-so-new) era that has no shortage of fascistic fReE ThInKerRs, clearly wokey dokey Hollywood isn’t gonna appease yer klan. Cry more
Don't worry, fascism is coming. We’ll do to the Wokes in Hollywood what we did to the communists in the '50s. Trump was just the beginning — he’s not even a real fascist. The real purge will begin once we establish congressional hearings and committees on 'un-American activities.' That's when the reckoning will start.
The purge has already begun in government; the next phase is the workplace, followed by academia, and then Hollywood. The Wokes will have nowhere to hide. They will be hunted down wherever they go. There will be no sanctuary, no escape. If they're lucky, they’ll be forced to live in the shadows, like the rats they’ve become, cut off from all influence and power. And that's only if they’re lucky.
Of course CNN and MSNBC will say all of that is bad(While they are still operational). Send Joe and Mika to the Gulag. Rachel Madcow can just be "disappeared".
shareDidn't you hear? Joe and Mika are card-carrying MAGA now. They've gotten the memo: it’s time to kneel and kiss the ring. Anything less, and they might just find themselves shipped off to the gulag.
shareholy based
shareAs I understand it, Romans just saw Romans as Romans, and there's evidence of black people in every level of society - slaves, officers, magistrates, artisans, and merchants. Could be wrong.
shareRomans were quite liberal, even by today's standard, at least according to this article: https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/black-people-in-ancient-rome/
At least 2 Roman emperors were of African origin, Septimius Severus and Macrinus in this movie, though neither was actually black.
though neither was actually black.
I think Romans were multicultural, they had to be due to the vastness of the Roman empire.
But the key to Roman status was not related to race, was actually its citizenship structure, which is very similar to what was in the movie "Starship Troopers".
There was Roman citizenship, or full citizenship, only they have the right to vote (yes, Romans have elections) and hold political office.
There were women, freemen and conquered client state citizenship, they have the right to marry, hold property, right to trade with Roman citizens, right to migrate, etc.
Then there were slaves.
They all have the right to progress to Roman citizenship by serving the Roman empire, mostly through military services, etc. Like a gladiator was actually a slave, they can be granted freemen status if they were exceptional, and as freemen they can be granted Roman citizenship if they were deemed to have served exceptionally towards the interests of Roman empire.
The hierarchy was kind of fascinating.
Though if your parents were Roman citizens, you were automatically a Roman citizen. In "Starship Troopers" everyone was born civilian, citizenship has to be earned.
I heard in the recent US election they were people pushing unconscious relatives to voting booth, and voted on their behalves. I kind of feel there was something wrong about that. I mean even people in vegetative state are allowed to vote.
I think Romans were multicultural, they had to be due to the vastness of the Roman empire.
Well, at least 2 of Roman emperors were Africans, they were not black, but they were not white either, mostly likely they were middle-easterners.
sharewhy would romans be whitest of the white? even italians today have many people with black hair and dark skin. italians arent anglo saxons.
sharewhy would romans be whitest of the white?
italians arent anglo saxons.
you had some credibility until you were 100% sure jesus looked anglo saxon. you are a fucking retard. shut the fuck up.
shareI never said that Jesus looked "anglo saxon". I said he looked like the way he's depicted in western culture, which can vary in different places but he does not have blonde hair and Nordic features on every painting and statue. 2000 years ago you did find people that looked like Jesus (white) in Israel. He was not black or brown as all the insufferable minorities keep telling us.
The problem with you low IQ Americans is that you think whites can only be "Anglo Saxon". That is an archaic term used by British & German immigrants in America to differentiate themselves from the Irish, Slavs, Jews & Italians who arrived with them, whom they saw as beneath them. Since then, you morons think that the definition of a white is now just "Anglo Saxon". No, that's not true. South Europeans, Slavs, Jews and Irish are white, too.
You know what I find interesting about this site? So many of you insufferable, anti-social rejects who post on here make me feel intelligent.
Anyway, another fucking idiot to add to my ignore list. Sayonara, shitstain.
>I said he looked like the way he's depicted in western culture
that is anglo saxon you dumb asshole. i stopped reading right there. rub two braincells together before talking to me.
Africa is a very big place and those from Northern Africa aren't "black" how we typically think of it. They are a much lighter shade than say blacks from the sub-Saharan region.
shareBy ‘black’ you actually mean negroid. Yes, North Africans, are certainly dark skinned but they are not negroid.
shareblacks are holding onto "egyptians were black" for dear life just because egypt is on the same continent and is the only african civilization in world history that was not a shit hole. hahahahah. like they TRULY believe it's true too. i've met black people in real life who told me. i had a close friend in high school who was black and told me that. back then i didnt know shit about black people and all this racist shit.
sharewe wuz romans
shareromans were liberal? youre talking about the most brutal militiraized sociaty that ever existed. they litterly crucify you for saying anything they dident liked. and also they were very patriarchal. not liberal in the slightest
shareTheir emperors were elected, annually.
They were not racists, Macrinus in this movie was not black, but I don't think he was white either, most likely he was middle eastern since he was Syrian descent and was born in north Africa. There were at least 2 Roman emperors were Africans, can you say that about US?
Today US is also a quite militarised society (Go and try insulting military in US, I dare you), US soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in middle east, even mainstream media admitted that.
Remember Julian Assange, yeah, he was the guy let us know hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in middle east by US government's own estimate.
And Edward Snowden, they were both brutally prosecuted and had to seek refuge in foreign countries.
Romans were of course patriarchal, but even without voting rights women were allowed to trade and hold property, there were female entrepreneurs. Considering the time period I think they did pretty well in that department too.
bla bla bla talking about modern politics like it has anything to do with rome
no, the romans WERE NOT LIBERAL. they owned slaves, they were VERY RACIST basically hated anyone who isnt like them and worship their gods. they oppressed many people across the world, each settelment that was roman owned the citizens had to pay huge amount of taxes and they would crucify anyone who even did the slightest thing.
only roman citizens had rights. you are clearly trying to twist history to serve your political ideas. romans were liberal... lol. yeah right. no idea where you heard that. romans were the exact opposite of liberals. they were like china if china ruled the entire world
"Their emperors were elected, annually."
No, they weren't and certainly by the time of Caracalla and Geta, the Senate played virtually no role in proclaiming the emperor. Their Punic father was never popular with the Senate and seized power only thanks to the army. Caracalla and Geta were named co-rulers by their father and the legitimacy of their title was due to the support they received from the troops.
I think that is the background of this movie, Caracalla was the incumbent emperor, he was gone only by assassination, his successor was Macrinus (Denzel Washington), and only served one term.
So I think election resumed.
Macrinus belonged to an influential local Berber family who was granted equestrian status, which allowed him to elevate his status in Roman society.
He had Caracalla murdered and proclaimed himself emperor with the backing of the army. Two reasons why the Senate felt no choice but to accept his proclamation (I don't think any emperor was ever "elected" or served "terms".) However, the Senate always had an issue with his mere equestrian background.
Well, he was accepted by the senate.
But I guess elections at that time were heavily influenced by power brokers, kind of like Harris and Biden today, though power transfers today were not as bloody as the ancient Rome.
He was accepted with a lot of reluctance. The fact that he lasted only a year before being executed kind of says enough.
shareAt the time the loyalty of military played a big role, just like today US presidents need the loyalty of military industrial complex.
shareBut today there's a democratic process to elect the president. No emperor elections in those days.
shareI thought the Roman emperors still needed to be elected by the senate, at least in the early days of the Roman empire.
shareNo, they were not "elected" as such, all that was really needed was for the Senate to just accept the proclamation, which, as far as I know, they always did, even if reluctantly.
I mean, Didius Julianus, the successor of Commodus, bought the title in a freaking auction held by the Praetorian Guard.
I guess elections ended with the Roman republic, I did not know that.
Thanks for pointing that out.
There is still a bit of details in wikipedia:
The reign of Caesar Augustus saw the final decline of democratic elections in Rome. Augustus undermined and lessened the significance of the election results, eventually eliminating elections entirely. He also diminished the importance of the offices themselves. He could nominate senators freely and essentially controlled all membership of the senate, so the senate was full of his supporters and candidacy was based on flattery and not merit. Augustus had extensive influence over the magistrates as well; he was given the power to grant commendation to candidates for office, which became a guarantee of winning the election.
Yes, that is true. The Senate's power kept being hollowed out more and more.
The emperor Nerva (who ruled between two more famous emperors Domitian and Trajan) was the first, and one of just a few, to be personally selected by the Senate due to cicrumstances.
According to my readings the Roman senate in the beginning had almost infinite power, but that power gradually declined, became insignificant after emperor Justinian abolished almost all senatorial offices in Italy.
Justinian was the Roman emperor from 527 to 565 AD, so at the time of this movie, around 217 AD, I think the senate was still somewhat powerful.
Officially they still had influence, but it had declined a lot, ever since the fall of the Republic.
These emperors ruled in a period where they heavily relied on the support of the army. I don't think the Senate ever rejected a proclamation of an emperor who was backed by the army.
julian assange was a russian puppet. russian state hackers needed an outlet for their stolen intel and assange was it. anyone who believes he did it for america or did it due to some moral stance is a fucking retard and all his opinions are to not be trusted. he's either stupid or a russian asset himself. either way, fuck off.
shareIt is easy to make statements, but without something to back it up, it is just nonsense.
Actually saying that about Edward Snowden would be more believable since he went to Russia, and now a Russian citizen.
See, you don't even know how to make shit up.
" See, you don't even know how to make shit up." the fuck are you talking about? snowden was revealing an internal problem, he was a patriot. it didnt hurt america geopolitically. it helped american citizens know about their own government's abusive practices. it doesnt matter that russia, usa's enemy, decided to jump in and give snowden asylum.
as for assange, how is it nonsense when all his wikileaks hurt usa? why did assange do it? did he just love truth or something? why in the fuck would anyone destroy their whole life to do it? what assange did was basically a suicide bomb. how come nothing in assange's past could explain why he'd trade his life for this mission? it wasn't a personal mission. when terrorists set up a car bomb, they do it because some government's soldiers killed their entire family and they're promised a great afterlife.
any american who actually morally supports assange has to be the dumbest asshole on earth. it doesnt even matter what's right and wrong. all that matters is which side are you on? if you live in america, you need to be on the american side because if america falls, you are fucked.
I guess you are just ignorant.
He was a hacker, he has been doing it since 16.
The Sydney Morning Herald later opined that he had become one of Australia's "most notorious hackers", and The Guardian said that by 1991 he was "probably Australia's most accomplished hacker".
any american who actually morally supports assange has to be the dumbest asshole on earth. it doesnt even matter what's right and wrong. all that matters is which side are you on
so you're not american? then shut the fuck up. i couldnt care less what you think. you shouldnt even be on an american website. make your own website.
shareYes, you are wrong.
shareIt's done purely for $$$. They can attract more diverse audiences if they cast a name like Denzel while at the same time meeting their obligatory diversity quotas thus killing two birds with one stone.
The original Gladiator is a more accurate depiction of what the Roman Empire would've looked like than this sequel, which is clearly hamstrung by woke ideologies that demand diversity even in historical times when there was none. It's just a sign of the times.
At least in Gladiator, Djimon Honsou’s character was a historically accurate slave
shareIts always embarrassing when someone claims to be a certain race so that it is okay for them to mock, deride or somehow demean that race.
Anytime someone starts off telling everyone that they are black, gay, Mexican, a woman etc. I brace myself for stupidity. This didn't disappoint, I especially liked the condescending "even I can recognize it." at the end as though he's less intelligent because he's a minority.
The stereotypical "black sounding" username is already an instant giveaway that you're likely dealing with a racist, stormf*g troll account. Indeed, OP did not disappoint.
shareI’m not for or against the OP post. I had people not believe me that I am who I am. Because I may have opposing views that doesn’t align typically with my demographic.
OP may be a black person.
why is that suprise you? even in pre civil war there were black people who reached high positions. denzel suppose to be the exception. a charming guy who reached the top regardless. that happend many times in history. see no problem with that. and back then many tribes were nomadic so i see no problem with a nubian from north africa controlled rome settelment being in rome.
shareI haven't looked too far into it, but does Denzel play the part of the Magical Negro in this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
Kind of. He is the most prominent character in the movie according to various reviews, and featured heavily in the trailers, and wasn't even in the top billings (IMDB listed stars as Connie Nielsen, Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal).
Even the gladiator on the poster was not the top billing (he is the second).
what they're doing now is they want to shoehorn woke shit but is afraid of backlash so they hide it. they'll get you if you pay for it though. they want you to think a black emperor in ancient rome wasnt gonna be in most of the scenes in the movie.
share