Photo-real portraits of Roman emperors

[Pax Augusta]

Dan Voshart is now virtue signalling like crazy and demonstrating his wokeness. He stated Black lives matter on Twitter and updated the photo-real portraits of Roman emperors and depicted several emperors including Hadrian with SSA skin tones. He depicts Severus Alexander who was Syrian and even Hadrian with dark brown skin in order to counter white supremacy and show diversity. The thing is that Severus looks like a Somali and not like a Syrian that he was. Truly pathetic when people can‘t keep their ideology, emotions and politics out of their work for the sake of objectivity and professionalism. Voshart claims that Septimus Severus was black and arrogantly dismissed the complaints of North Africans and Middle Easterners who try to educate him about the fact that their historical people were not dark-brown folks but looked like them. He told them to deal with it and insisted on Septimius being black. So disrespecting and distorting the history of Non-European people is fine as long it happens in the name of wokeness and anti-white supremacy.







Septimius was black according to Voshart on twitter, and he justifies making Macrinus and his son looking dark- brown cause he think he was whitewashed.




https://twitter.com/tonyapc42/status...02486221139968

https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1296664860563058693

https://twitter.com/tonyapc42/status...02486221139968


https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/...136193/photo/1

https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1296664872357367814


On Voshart's twitter account one woman wrote Italians can't naturally and genetically display white skin like Northern Europeans. It's getting ridiculous now. I think Voshart needs someone who talks some sense into him.

Dan Voshart has even had too much luck with his reconstructions that have become much more famous than they really deserved.

Dan Voshart is just a North American graphic artist with almost no knowledge of ancient history, ethnography and genetics. And like all ignorant people in his answers he shows great arrogance and great prejudice.

[Pax Augusta]

The romans were mostly Central European actually according to Moots paper...R1b and 30% circa steppe

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

Your'e wrong, first of all those are the Latins and not the Romans and 30% Steppe is what the Iberians/North Italians/Tuscans can have. Also Albanians and northern Greeks can have 30% Steppe. Central Europeans have more than 30% Steppe.

[Cato]

Your'e wrong, first of all those are the Latins and not the Romans and 30% Steppe is what the Iberians/North Italians/Tuscans can have. Also Albanians and northern Greeks can have 30% Steppe. Central Europeans have more than 30% Steppe.

Ok but that steppe admixture came from Central or Eastern Europe north of the Alps. I'm dark haired I m not a blond supremacist lol

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

[real expert]

Dan Voshart has even had too much luck with his reconstructions that have become much more famous than they really deserved.

Dan Voshart is just a North American graphic artist with almost no knowledge of ancient history, ethnography and genetics. And like all ignorant people in his answers he shows great arrogance and great prejudice.

I agree with your statement. The thing is there were people who tried to educate and correct Voshart, but he refused to listen. The reconstruction of ancient Roman emperors was not diverse enough, and "too white" for the taste of SJWs and woke folks. So he is wilfully ignorant. Anyway, this is beyond me. What the heck does ancient Roman history have do with the cultural war and the identity politics in the USA today?

Regular North Africans and Syrians back then (like today) didn't display such dark skin tone.





Here, for example, the skin tone of Peninsular Arabs when not overexposed to the sun.




Vorshart is really a left-wing moron for thinking that Hadrian from Iberia and Alexander Severus were much darker than Peninsular Arabs. Zero common sense. Besides, Maximinius Thrax was a Barbarian emperor, half Goth and half Alan, so he was most likely pale, yet Voshart just decides out of the blue to make him look darker than the ancient Egyptians from Fayum for the sake of diversity and a better world. Hence not only the Romans but also Barbarians like Goth had to be dark according to him.

​

[kingjohn]

Which of the three images do I best fit in ancient Rome? Con las 3, con 2, con ninguna? The application does it but the catharsis is mine.

in my opinion
maybe the first ...
you can fit the best in Renaissance paintings

[Carlos]

in my opinion
maybe the first ...
you can fit the best in Renaissance paintings

If I chose 1 for my avatar my status in ancient Rome is clearly seen, the 2 also provokes me but evokes me, inevitably dragging me on adventures that end in drama or doom and the 3 is already when you have a very good son; although who knows, maybe it's the worst of the three


My God how is it possible I can say that I have been in ancient Rome my results and my images are showing it much better than those of that type. I have had to do with ancient Rome which others cannot say.

[Ygorcs]

I agree with your statement. The thing is there were people who tried to educate and correct Voshart, but he refused to listen. The reconstruction of ancient Roman emperors was not diverse enough, and "too white" for the taste of SJWs and woke folks. So he is wilfully ignorant. Anyway, this is beyond me. What the heck does ancient Roman history have do with the cultural war and the identity politics in the USA today?

Regular North Africans and Syrians back then (like today) didn't display such dark skin tone.





Here, for example, the skin tone of Peninsular Arabs when not overexposed to the sun.




Vorshart is really a left-wing moron for thinking that Hadrian from Iberia and Alexander Severus were much darker than Peninsular Arabs. Zero common sense. Besides, Maximinius Thrax was a Barbarian emperor, half Goth and half Alan, so he was most likely pale, yet Voshart just decides out of the blue to make him look darker than the ancient Egyptians from Fayum for the sake of diversity and a better world. Hence not only the Romans but also Barbarians like Goth had to be dark according to him.

​

The obsession of American people (whether racist or self-purportedly anti-racist ones) with skin color is just unhealthy, and their overwhelming soft power influence over the rest of the world is unfortunately exporting these nonsensical and increasingly polarized white vs. black and light vs. dark classifications to the rest of the world, with little room for subtlety, mixed and intermediate positions. It's either X or Y, nothing in between. And the skin color thing is really getting ridiculous. EVEN IF, I mean, IF (of course this is false) ancient people of Iberian, Italian, Gothic, Alan, Syrian or whatever extraction were dark-skinned, even darker-skinned than they are shown in these reconstructions, what the hell would it change? They would still be nothing like nor even an inch more closely related to modern Africans, Indians, Arabians or whatever. All it would mean is that selection for increasingly lighter skin tones was particularly more powerful in the last 2,000 years than we'd thought before - and that's all, folks.

These people seem to be so stuck in their white-or-back mindset that they can't possibly conceive that a light-skinned European or West Asian may descend from dark-skinned ancestors who weren't even that different (in genome-wide ancestry) from them, or that dark-skinned Eurasian doesn't have to have any modicum of African ancestry to have significant skin pigmentation (after all, all Eurasians were dark-skinned until not "so long" ago, i.e. at least ~15-25 kya, and some remained so for much longer or even until today). People like Vorshart, if they are reeeeally meaning it when they say they are trying to destroy systemic racism, should start by denying the very premises around which racism was founded, so they should stop thinking about diversity as basically a matter of diverse skin colors (while they apparently couldn't care less about different ethnic, cultural and linguistic identities) and about identity as a mere matter of looks.

[Salento]

@Ygorcs
Where I live, people don't give a damn what color you are, and generally we’re very kind with each other.

What you watch on TV is the exception to the rules.

... and you, as a Brazilian should know better ... than bashing America for ... that!

... is also Election season and the bias media sensationalize stuff ...

[Carlos]

I have to make a huge effort to talk about these issues because the andaluza education I have received does not address these issues as I have discovered in the forums that deal with these issues, in fact foreigners are not usually criticized for good or bad. The most difficult to fit the vision of the younger countries of America, perhaps it is due to the enormous variety of tones they have or their history, I don't know but we should not import that way of seeing things to Europe.

http://Spaniards are not white, acco...New York Times

Spaniards are not white, according to the New York Times

The American newspaper carried out an analysis of the 922 most powerful people in the country and concluded that 80% of them are white


I imagine that the United States has a powerful Ibero-American community and when they see Spanish surnames they must have opted for a Hispanic classification that for them must be South Americans.


In Spain this article has been very bad.


These Spaniards for the New York Times are not white

Pablo Isla



John Garamendi




Neither does Devin Nunes who is of Portuguese origin

[kingjohn]

I have to make a huge effort to talk about these issues because the andaluza education I have received does not address these issues as I have discovered in the forums that deal with these issues, in fact foreigners are not usually criticized for good or bad. The most difficult to fit the vision of the younger countries of America, perhaps it is due to the enormous variety of tones they have or their history, I don't know but we should not import that way of seeing things to Europe.

http://Spaniards are not white, acco...New York Times

Spaniards are not white, according to the New York Times

The American newspaper carried out an analysis of the 922 most powerful people in the country and concluded that 80% of them are white


I imagine that the United States has a powerful Ibero-American community and when they see Spanish surnames they must have opted for a Hispanic classification that for them must be South Americans.


In Spain this article has been very bad.

maybe because the anglo-saxon world only consider themselfs as white ....
who knows .....
i never been to spain so i can't judge
but i did visit england and they are( native british ) very very pale

[Jovialis]

I have to make a huge effort to talk about these issues because the andaluza education I have received does not address these issues as I have discovered in the forums that deal with these issues, in fact foreigners are not usually criticized for good or bad. The most difficult to fit the vision of the younger countries of America, perhaps it is due to the enormous variety of tones they have or their history, I don't know but we should not import that way of seeing things to Europe.

http://Spaniards are not white, acco...New York Times

Spaniards are not white, according to the New York Times

The American newspaper carried out an analysis of the 922 most powerful people in the country and concluded that 80% of them are white


I imagine that the United States has a powerful Ibero-American community and when they see Spanish surnames they must have opted for a Hispanic classification that for them must be South Americans.


In Spain this article has been very bad.


These Spaniards for the New York Times are not white

Pablo Isla



John Garamendi




Neither does Devin Nunes who is of Portuguese origin

It seems that for many Leftists, Spaniards are white when they talk about New World colonization. They become non-white, when they want to court them for solidarity against Anglo-Americans. I think nordicist racists almost have a similar mentality. Both of them think in terms of outmoded 19th, and 20th century physical anthropology, and political polarization.

[Carlos]

maybe because the anglo-saxon world only consider themselfs as white ....
who knows .....
i never been to spain so i can't judge
but i did visit england and they are( native british ) very very pale

It seems incredible to me that you say that you have never been to Spain to give an opinion. Truly throughout the American continent from top to bottom there are criteria on this subject that are not the ones we have in Western Europe, perhaps in Eastern Europe they are also different or it is convenient for them to do so. I already said that I have to make an effort to talk about these issues since it is not a priority issue nor is strictly observed a white tone literally speaking since the most natural or normal here in addition to the literal white go to beige and what perhaps for A European from Eastern Europe is dark here it is not so dark, it is possible that in North America or the entire American continent it is even more strict than in Eastern Europe, I don't know, I am based on what I am seeing on the forums.

[Carlos]

It seems that for many Leftists, Spaniards are white when they talk about New World colonization. They become non-white, when they want to court them for solidarity against Anglo-Americans. I think nordicist racists almost have a similar mentality. Both of them think in terms of outmoded 19th, and 20th century physical anthropology, and political polarization.

The Spanish leftists I can not with them are distorting and manipulating everything and it is something that surpasses me since I hate the lie as my mother taught me.


Really, all the history about America we see it very far and at the same level as any other ancient era, however I see that the world has it very present and updated, perhaps the younger countries have that very latent and present period because they hardly have more history than that, but we see it very far away and when we receive so much criticism as if those events had happened before yesterday it is a problem because you realize that for them it is important and they live it as something recent but for us no, we do not say nothing and we have to play the role of the script but we find it as hard as if we had to update Rome, Visigoths, Al Andalus, etc. We must bear in mind that we are an old country in Europe and we establish ourselves quickly, I do not know if it will be possible for the younger countries to understand it, perhaps in 1000 years when they have more history.


The Spanish left supports everything, anything that is not European, they go against their own ethnic group, I don't know, it's surreal, I can't understand them.

[kingjohn]

It seems incredible to me that you say that you have never been to Spain to give an opinion. Truly throughout the American continent from top to bottom there are criteria on this subject that are not the ones we have in Western Europe, perhaps in Eastern Europe they are also different or it is convenient for them to do so. I already said that I have to make an effort to talk about these issues since it is not a priority issue nor is strictly observed a white tone literally speaking since the most natural or normal here in addition to the literal white go to beige and what perhaps for A European from Eastern Europe is dark here it is not so dark, it is possible that in North America or the entire American continent it is even more strict than in Eastern Europe, I don't know, I am based on what I am seeing on the forums.

well
i don't live in space
i saw the spanish national basketball team
to me they are white
don't know what other crazy people thinks

[MOESAN]

1- for phenotypes, true Arabs are only a variation of the 'europoid' type, 1 point! (only some mixings at the margins through SSA females mating): among Jew Arabs, this relatively recent admixture is almost = 0 -
2- the most of today 'Europoids' have a rather light skin when protected from sunlight, whatever the nuances - it's under sunlight t that differences grow up -
3- Agree that this obsession on skin colour- which accounts for very little in Humans differenciation - is boring. As if intelligence or any thing linked to positive evolution was linked to skin colour... What doesn't signify skin colour is without incidence on sexual or other choices.
4- I agree this Voshart choices are ridiculous.
5- I'm personally rather leftist in the political sense and I think "leftist" or "rightist" attractions have not their place in the research of objective knowledges, even in the sociological ones. Before making sociologic political choices, we have to try to weight reality objectively.

[Carlos]

I do not know how it can be sociologically but I could have sexual relations with someone of another race but if I have the information that someone is a pro-independence or extreme leftist who supports the pro-independence movement, they would not have sexual relations, nor would they be desperate.

[Dorquest]

""The obsession of American people (whether racist or self-purportedly anti-racist ones) with skin color is just unhealthy,""
Should be more... Multicultural. I heard the East Asian are obsessed with light skin, and a lot of people from India. Further a lot of Europeans. For me skin color is just that, nothing more. But differences do exist, doesn’t make anybody better. Not every place has to look like Queens New York or Brazil. That’s what makes the world unique, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Etc. I for one don’t want us all to blend. That destroys diversity.

[Ailchu]

It seems incredible to me that you say that you have never been to Spain to give an opinion. Truly throughout the American continent from top to bottom there are criteria on this subject that are not the ones we have in Western Europe, perhaps in Eastern Europe they are also different or it is convenient for them to do so. I already said that I have to make an effort to talk about these issues since it is not a priority issue nor is strictly observed a white tone literally speaking since the most natural or normal here in addition to the literal white go to beige and what perhaps for A European from Eastern Europe is dark here it is not so dark, it is possible that in North America or the entire American continent it is even more strict than in Eastern Europe, I don't know, I am based on what I am seeing on the forums.

don't use the term white. that simple. use westeurasian or caucasian if you have to, but there is no reason anymore to talk about "whites".

[Ygorcs]

@Ygorcs
Where I live, people don't give a damn what color you are, and generally we’re very kind with each other.

What you watch on TV is the exception to the rules.

... and you, as a Brazilian should know better ... than bashing America for ... that!

... is also Election season and the bias media sensationalize stuff ...

I'm not bashing America at all. Quit this silly nationalism. You can "bash Brazil" all you want as long as it's about racism as it really is in Brazil's historical journey. Why would I care? I want my country to get past its mistakes, not defend it where its worst social aspects just because it's my country. I'm not even talking about what people give a damn about, but about the excessive focus on skin color to determine who is white or non-white, black or non-black, with little room for other racial labels and other concepts, which makes a lot of people, even American and US-influenced blacks, suppose out of the blue that North Africans, Arabs and other generally brown-skinned people can only be "blacks that mixed too much with whites" or vice-versa. The binary dichotomy is deeply ingrained. It doesn't necessarily mean people will treat you different because of that, but the simplistic and extremely color-based racial ideas are still there, even if just lurking the public debate so subtly that people who grew up into it can't even notice it anymore (but foreigners like me, raised in other environment, are, believe me, much more likely to notice those culturally different concepts about people and the world than a local).

It's simply a fact that the kind of racism that exists in the USA has a history of a much more binary, literally black-and-white racial classification. The vast majority of the laughably simplistic reduction of the racial debate to the amount of melanin in one's skin (generally with an implied notion that white is the standard, everything else is automatically lumped together as something black or closer to black) came and still come from the USA or via USA-influenced social movements elsewhere, it's a fact, and there are very clear historical reasons for that. Nowhere else did the racial classification system get as marked by a clear-cut dichotomy as in the USA (perhaps not even in apartheid South Africa, where coloreds did get official acknowledgement as not really white, but not really black either). Don't get personal and defensive. Maybe being American you don't notice that, particularly since - you're assuring us of this - you live in such a marvelous place surrounded only by great people, so you're away from the elements of society that have spread that kind of thought about race, with its insane obsession over paleness (to the point that everything less than really white was usually supposed to imply some "hybridization" with blacks). You wouldn't get one drop rule anywhere else if a lot of people didn't already think about race in those strictly binary terms, thus serving as justifying premises for that policy.

As a Brazilian I do know better, rest assured, so I do know that Brazilian-style racism is different, and people have usually had a much more nuanced, complicated and less binary (white vs. black) system to classify other people, so people have always been perfectly capable of always getting that having dark skin doesn't mean you're black in the sense of someone of African origin. Hardly would a Brazilian progressive trying to be "woke" believe that they'd making a huge favor to black people''s role in History simply by depicting people of Iberian, Italian or Gothic origin with much more melanin than they certainly had, because it'd still be obvious to most of us that that doesn't make them "black", just darker-skinned Europeans that are not ancestral to any discriminated against minority today, but just ancestral to the Europeans. In a Brazilian mindset people are used to the idea that there are lots of different races and skin tones since the colonial era, even siblings can be said to be "different" racially. Skin color and racial/genetic origin are conceptualized as more clearly distinct things. It's a racist country, but racist in a different way and on a distinct historical basis. So, you can talk about Brazilian racism. I have no problem with that. I actually want people to talk more about it. Problems are not solved if we just keep telling us that it's all past and only some random and rare exceptions.

[Ygorcs]

""The obsession of American people (whether racist or self-purportedly anti-racist ones) with skin color is just unhealthy,""
Should be more... Multicultural. I heard the East Asian are obsessed with light skin, and a lot of people from India. Further a lot of Europeans. For me skin color is just that, nothing more. But differences do exist, doesn’t make anybody better. Not every place has to look like Queens New York or Brazil. That’s what makes the world unique, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Etc. I for one don’t want us all to blend. That destroys diversity.

I'm not talking about that kind of "obsession" (which is more aesthetic than racial, i.e. East Asians don't believe they can classify people as different races simply based on how much melanin they have, they don't see their darker-skinned fellows as "another race" or a "hybrid with blacks"). I'm rather commenting about the debate and attitudes about race and ethnicity (actually, even the utter conflation between the two so common in the Anglo-Saxon world is another proof of what I'm saying), which is right under the surface still very influenced by a very polarized black vs. white racial dichotomy even in groups that claim to be fighting racism. E.g. just yesterday I saw some black activist claiming Egypt was black even if they had indeed come from a heavily Natufian-like population because Natufians were black Africans... his main point? The Mahra/Mehri people are dark-skinned and have curly hair, so apparently that makes them black Africans instantly; another one was claiming that if you're dark-skinned then you're black - hmm, so apparently racial origin = melanin -, so all the world was black until the "pale invaders" or something crazy like that came and stole their legacy; and the same comments, always still marked by a kind of thought steeped in "one drop rule" and a very simple racial dichotomy, are seen in comments by white "nationalists". Only such a kind of deeply ingrained and underlying conceptualization of race, extremely obsessed about paleness vs. darkness (darkness being anything less than reeeeeally white), can explain the kinds of things we read and see, like these ridiculously dark-skinned reconstructions of Roman emperors: it's obvious that the author thinks he's promoting diversity and black pride simply by making ancient Europeans have more melanin.

[Carlos]

don't use the term white. that simple. use westeurasian or caucasian if you have to, but there is no reason anymore to talk about "whites".

They are terms that are used so that we can understand each other according to the context, whether or not they are more or less current, otherwise any topic will be impossible to deal with. Is it the crystal generation or what is this? It must be global from what I see. In generations ago people hunted things and concepts on the fly, these generations now have to give it all chewed up and you can't use your imagination and you pretend not to understand this or that, well, the older generations can also start to demand little things. to the crystal generation to see what happens.

I will use the terms that I deem appropriate at all times.

In any case, in this part of the world, I think that the morphology or structure of the face is more recognizable for Europe.


I trust that the patterns and way of looking at these issues will be rejected in Europe Although perhaps for socio-economic reasons Eastern Europe will be interested depending on its relations socioeconomic with the U.S.A.

Since the American countries seem to be eager for Europeanity, ok that they take away Spain and Portugal and some more and they put themselves with a bridge or a tunnel.

[ihype02]

White in terms of race is a non scientific term.

[[email protected]]

White in terms of race is a non scientific term.

When I was a youngster I was taught that race did not exist as a scientific concept. That was the liberal/progressive viewpoint as well. What changed?

[Ailchu]

When I was a youngster I was taught that race did not exist as a scientific concept. That was the liberal/progressive viewpoint as well. What changed?

white as a racial category makes only sense if it means westeurasian. otherwise it is not a racial group and more based on culture. in the US it is used for westeurasian at least officially. unofficially i'm not that sure, i mean, why would people still use the term white when caucasian or westeurasian is way better? but in europe it certainly is not the same. so in europe it is 100% having 0 sense as a racial category. you can see that very well because everyone has a different opinion on who is white and who isn't but in terms of beeing caucasian or westeurasian it is more clear. not completely clear either but certainly better.

[Ailchu]

They are terms that are used so that we can understand each other according to the context, whether or not they are more or less current, otherwise any topic will be impossible to deal with. Is it the crystal generation or what is this? It must be global from what I see. In generations ago people hunted things and concepts on the fly, these generations now have to give it all chewed up and you can't use your imagination and you pretend not to understand this or that, well, the older generations can also start to demand little things. to the crystal generation to see what happens.

I will use the terms that I deem appropriate at all times.

In any case, in this part of the world, I think that the morphology or structure of the face is more recognizable for Europe.


I trust that the patterns and way of looking at these issues will be rejected in Europe Although perhaps for socio-economic reasons Eastern Europe will be interested depending on its relations socioeconomic with the U.S.A.

Since the American countries seem to be eager for Europeanity, ok that they take away Spain and Portugal and some more and they put themselves with a bridge or a tunnel.

but "white" doesn't equal european in the US, where it is mostly used. first it was meant only for anglos then it opened up and included more and more people until it included most westeurasian people. that's probably because you can't just stop somewhere since there are too many overlaps. and honestly if you think europeans form a seperate racial group then i think it is not that much more illogical if someone else tries to exclude spaniards from that group while including all the other westeurasians or if he thinks that for example anglos form a seperate racial group.