NETFLIX

First topic message reminder :

Is anyone else totally addicted to some of the stuff on there?

I am fairly new to Netflix, so far I have binge watched all the Black Mirrors and am on the third series of the American Horror stories
.
Better than anything on Sky, ITV or the BBC.

Where is this child from?

She is a beauty wherever she is from, look at those eyes.

Vintage wrote:I don't think Western artists were trying to depict Jesus as particularly white, just identifiable, to an extent at least, although not ordinary, it was just the time and place, I doubt it crossed their mind to be ethnically correct. A lot of the time their depictions are not even anatomically correct - if we want to be pedantic.

What is the standard behind that identity? Jesus Christ is obviously the epitome of goodness and beauty in Christian lore. Was the way he appeared in the natural world not good enough?

Someone made a conscious effort to remake his appearance. The point is, it's the beginnings of 'otherism' when one has to stylize away from the original 'middle eastern' look because you don't "identify" goodness and beauty with that form. It's a statement that good and beauty must look like your type or kind, in order to be acceptable. That other look does not fit with goodness and beauty.

It’s really the same mental process as with racism.

Maddog wrote:

Where is this child from?

Staten Island.

Syl wrote:She is a beauty wherever she is from, look at those eyes.

She's Syrian.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:She is a beauty wherever she is from, look at those eyes.

She's Syrian.

Are you suggesting that all middle-easterners have blue eyes and light hair?  A summary of the middle-eastern look (at least of women) is found in this professional site about plastic surgery:

Amer. Soc. of Plastic Surgeons wrote:Facial anthropometry differs between Middle Eastern and Western women, and also within the region. Although subregional differences are seen, beauty is generally recognized by an oval or round face; temple fullness; pronounced, elevated, arched eyebrows; large almond-shaped eyes; well-defined, laterally full cheeks; a small, straight nose; full lips; a well-defined jawline; and a prominent, pointed chin. The relative prominence of the nose necessitates attention to the lips and the shape and projection of the chin.

* * * *

In summary, the Middle Eastern beauty icons’ faces are oval, full and symmetrical, with elevated, thick, arched eyebrows; almond-shaped eyes; straight noses; well-defined, laterally full cheeks; full lips; well-defined jawlines; and prominent, pointed chins.

Darker skin and hair is also a common difference.



I guess you are saying that a depiction of Jesus would be no different from a depiction of any western European.  You might cherry-pick around a bit and find a picture that is similar to western standards, but a specific exception does not change the generalization...Jesus Christ was likely not a blue-eyed blond.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:I don't think Western artists were trying to depict Jesus as particularly white, just identifiable, to an extent at least, although not ordinary, it was just the time and place, I doubt it crossed their mind to be ethnically correct. A lot of the time their depictions are not even anatomically correct - if we want to be pedantic.

What is the standard behind that identity?  Jesus Christ is obviously the epitome of goodness and beauty in Christian lore.  Was the way he appeared in the natural world not good enough?  

Someone made a conscious effort to remake his appearance.  The point is, it's the beginnings of 'otherism' when one has to stylize away from the original 'middle eastern' look because you don't "identify" goodness and beauty with that form.  It's a statement that good and beauty must look like your type or kind, in order to be acceptable.  That other look does not fit with goodness and beauty.

It’s really the same mental process as with racism.

How many people of the time would even know what someone from another place would look like.
This constant harking and blaming about racism in just about everything doesn't help matters, all it does is cause more divisions between people.
At worst I think they were trying to make Jesus look special but to identify with the people they were trying to reach.
Indian gods are depicted as blue, yellow and red. Many religion see specific colours as holy including white and yellow, that's not even just Christians.
Who knows for sure anyway, there's a 99% probability Jesus had typical middle eastern colouring, there's always the possibility he wasn't, its beginning to become clearer just how much ancient people and therefore their genes moved around, just look at the shades of skin tones in the middle east toady..

Are we suggesting that Jesus Christ was blue?  Yellow?  Or red?  Of course not.  None of Christian lore suggests that he looked any different from those around him.

If he had the common features of other middle-easterners, he did not look like the pictures in western bibles depict him.  That is the specific point here.  Why did western Europeans feel the need to alter his appearance? Wasn't it to avoid making him look like those 'others'?

Why would any of them know what he looked like - that's the point.
There is a gene SLC24A5 found among others for light (white) skin in Africans that has normally been associated with 'European' skin tone and colouring, this gene was introduced to Africa several millennia before colonisation - from the middle east.
This ties in with the ancient skeletons found in the cave in Israel which from their genes would have made them blonde blue eyed and white skinned.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She's Syrian.

Are you suggesting that all middle-easterners have blue eyes and light hair?  A summary of the middle-eastern look (at least of women) is found in this professional site about plastic surgery:

Amer. Soc. of Plastic Surgeons wrote:Facial anthropometry differs between Middle Eastern and Western women, and also within the region. Although subregional differences are seen, beauty is generally recognized by an oval or round face; temple fullness; pronounced, elevated, arched eyebrows; large almond-shaped eyes; well-defined, laterally full cheeks; a small, straight nose; full lips; a well-defined jawline; and a prominent, pointed chin. The relative prominence of the nose necessitates attention to the lips and the shape and projection of the chin.

* * * *

In summary, the Middle Eastern beauty icons’ faces are oval, full and symmetrical, with elevated, thick, arched eyebrows; almond-shaped eyes; straight noses; well-defined, laterally full cheeks; full lips; well-defined jawlines; and prominent, pointed chins.

Darker skin and hair is also a common difference.



I guess you are saying that a depiction of Jesus would be no different from a depiction of any western European.  You might cherry-pick around a bit and find a picture that is similar to western standards, but a specific exception does not change the generalization...Jesus Christ was likely not a blue-eyed blond.

I'm just suggesting that people of a certain region can have a somewhat varied look.

I'm not really hung up on race and ethnicity like you.

Original Quill wrote:Are we suggesting that Jesus Christ was blue?  Yellow?  Or red?  Of course not.  None of Christian lore suggests that he looked any different from those around him.

If he had the common features of other middle-easterners, he did not look like the pictures in western bibles depict him.  That is the specific point here.  Why did western Europeans feel the need to alter his appearance?  Wasn't it to avoid making him look like those 'others'?

Because they were trying to project an image of a deity that looked like them.

Same reason Thor didn't look Nelson Mandela.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Are we suggesting that Jesus Christ was blue?  Yellow?  Or red?  Of course not.  None of Christian lore suggests that he looked any different from those around him.

If he had the common features of other middle-easterners, he did not look like the pictures in western bibles depict him.  That is the specific point here.  Why did western Europeans feel the need to alter his appearance?  Wasn't it to avoid making him look like those 'others'?

Because they were trying to project an image of a deity that looked like them.

Why didn't he look like them? He had two arms, two legs, a head and feet. How much more do they need?

It's almost as if they wanted their 'otherism'.

How many people do you think in those days would know what Jesus may have actually looked like? Or even thought about it? Do you know what the majority of peoples lives were like - short and hard for all sorts of reasons, I doubt they would sit around contemplating whether an icon was a true depiction or not. Maybe two arms two legs would do a stick man perhaps although they'd better be careful what colour even the stick man was drawn in, apparently. As if a very god fearing bishop/artist/ benefactor would deliberately change the appearance of a god just to be racist and risk hell and damnation. God's are usually depicted as recognisable but different/elevated from the common herd in some way otherwise why bother to worship it, if it was only exactly like the worshippers in everyway. The paintings and icons weren't mug shots, they were trying to convey messages of probably of otherworldliness, spirituality, an etherealness.
Its sad that you try to bring racism into everything.

Vintage wrote:How many people do you think in those days would know what Jesus may have actually looked like? Or even thought about it? Do you know what the majority of peoples lives were like - short and hard for all sorts of reasons, I doubt they would sit around contemplating whether an icon was a true depiction or not.

The depictions were done by artists.  As much time and effort that they put into their skills, they might have spent some time learning about their subjects.  They weren't yet doing impressionism or cubism.  If they could properly depict clothing and surroundings, why not the people? It clearly was a conscious decision.

Vintage wrote:Maybe two arms two legs would do a stick man perhaps although they'd better be careful what colour even the stick man was drawn in, apparently.

No one is suggesting that artists should paint stick men.  All I'm saying is that arms/legs/head and feet are enough to recognize a person.  Why stop the representationalism at the point of otherism, and start depicting your own race?  To the contrary of drawing stick men, I'm saying that they should have represented the people of the biblical era as they really were.  Why change them to look like us?  Could it be that they didn’t want their religious inspiration to look like those ‘other’ other people?

Vintage wrote:As if a very god fearing bishop/artist/ benefactor would deliberately change the appearance of a god just to be racist and risk hell and damnation. God's are usually depicted as recognisable but different/elevated from the common herd in some way otherwise why bother to worship it, if it was only exactly like the worshippers in everyway. The paintings and icons weren't mug shots, they were trying to convey messages of probably of otherworldliness, spirituality, an etherealness.

Its sad that you try to bring racism into everything.

All I’m doing is suggesting the origins of racism in our western European populations: parochialism >> otherism >> racism.  Since it causes so much trouble as the world grows smaller, and we must all live together in closer proximity, we would all live a more peaceful existence if we understood what is happening, don’t you agree?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Because they were trying to project an image of a deity that looked like them.

Why didn't he look like them?  He had two arms, two legs, a head and feet.  How much more do they need?

It's almost as if they wanted their 'otherism'.

Two ears?

Vintage wrote:How many people do you think in those days would know what Jesus may have actually looked like? Or even thought about it? Do you know what the majority of peoples lives were like - short and hard for all sorts of reasons, I doubt they would sit around contemplating whether an icon was a true depiction or not. Maybe two arms two legs would do a stick man perhaps although they'd better be careful what colour even the stick man was drawn in, apparently. As if a very god fearing bishop/artist/ benefactor would deliberately change the appearance of a god just to be racist and risk hell and damnation. God's are usually depicted as recognisable but different/elevated from the common herd in some way otherwise why bother to worship it, if it was only exactly like the worshippers in everyway. The paintings and icons weren't mug shots, they were trying to convey messages of probably of otherworldliness, spirituality, an etherealness.
Its sad that you try to bring racism into everything.

Exactly. Many of them were illiterate and never saw a person much different than them. It's all they could relate too.

Quill is obsessed with race. He can take a thread about Netflix and turn it into another place to vomit his bile.

i just binged on Orphan Black

highly recommend it

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why didn't he look like them? He had two arms, two legs, a head and feet. How much more do they need?

It's almost as if they wanted their 'otherism'.

Two ears?

And two hands.

I'm not the one obsessed with white supremacy. Those that tout the white race above all other races are the ones who are obsessed. Obsession can take two forms. If another race not your own is the dominant one, one notices it right away, and perhaps speak out...that's obsession with making society better. If society goes along with one's preference in races, as western society does with the white race, one assumes everything is normal and goes along with it...although often unnoticed, that's the tacit obsession.

I'm an anomaly because I'm part of the dominant race, yet I recognize and speak up for the secondary races. To point that out is not to embarrass me, but to make me proud...proud to be righteous regardless of status. The more of an irritant I am to the unrighteous...well, I don't mind, that's for sure.

Syl, have you seen ‘Queens Gambit’? I think you’d like it.

Because this thread is about Netflix and not about depictions of Jesus in art, I'll be brief -- Christian cultures from around the world and every race tend to paint or sculpt Jesus as looking like themselves. We can do another thread about it if you want, because I do think it's an interesting topic.

Back to Netflix -- have we already mentioned The Messiah? That was really good, I hope they carry on with it.

Ben Reilly wrote:Because this thread is about Netflix and not about depictions of Jesus in art, I'll be brief -- Christian cultures from around the world and every race tend to paint or sculpt Jesus as looking like themselves.

Yes, otherism, and even racism, does seem to be a universal trait in our species. But, to suggest that it's morally righteous thereby, is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Just watched Hope Gap on Netflix, didn't really fancy it, couldn't find anything else. Turns out I rather enjoyed it.

Vintage wrote:Just watched Hope Gap on Netflix, didn't really fancy it, couldn't find anything else. Turns out I rather enjoyed it.

Check out Queens gambit and Alias Grace.

Both really good.

I don't have Netflix.

I do have one of those TV things.

Try not to use it more than once every couple of weeks.

In fact I often forget how to work the damn thing.

Maddog wrote: I don't have Netflix.

I do have one of those TV things.  

Try not to use it more than once every couple of weeks.  

In fact I often forget how to work the damn thing.

But you have a screen for watching x-rated videos, right?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote: I don't have Netflix.

I do have one of those TV things.  

Try not to use it more than once every couple of weeks.  

In fact I often forget how to work the damn thing.

But you have a screen for watching x-rated videos, right?

Well, my TV is hooked up to the internet so yeah, that, my phone and tablet could be used to look at anything available on the internet.

In fact, most of my TV viewing is youtube.

I SAID

I JUST WATCHED ALL OF 'ORPHAN BLACK'

AND IT WAS GREAT

gelico wrote:

I SAID

I JUST WATCHED ALL OF 'ORPHAN BLACK'

AND IT WAS GREAT

Simmer down.

gelico wrote:

I SAID

I JUST WATCHED ALL OF 'ORPHAN BLACK'

AND IT WAS GREAT

Lol....I hear you.

So that's Orphan Black on my Netflix list, plus Eddies suggestion of Queens Gambit, and i will make a note of the other suggestions.

I watched Ryan Reynolds in Self/less before....not bad.

gelico wrote:

I SAID

I JUST WATCHED ALL OF 'ORPHAN BLACK'

AND IT WAS GREAT

Fuck me! Who set your caps lock on fire?

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

I SAID

I JUST WATCHED ALL OF 'ORPHAN BLACK'

AND IT WAS GREAT

Fuck me! Who set your caps lock on fire?

it is really good though

better than queens gambit i think

Fucking hell Gels. Okay! We will check it out okay? Calm down. You nutty Gemini.

I have just finished watching Queen's Gambit, I REALLY enjoyed it.
So thanks for the recommendation Eddie.
It made me want to throw my draughts board away and buy a chess board instead, it really does look complicated though.

I am going to check out 'Orphan Black' next.

The problem with chess is that at the top levels, the first dozen or more moves follow a script. It's a bit like the NBA, where two teams roughly equal might as well not even play the first three quarters of the game.

Syl wrote:I have just finished watching Queen's Gambit, I REALLY  enjoyed it.
So thanks for the recommendation Eddie.
It made me want to throw my draughts board away and buy a chess board instead, it really does look complicated though.

I am going to check out 'Orphan Black' next.

I liked the actress in that - she played the part well.
Glad you enjoyed it. You should check out “Alias Grace” it’s a true story, lots of historical context too.

For some reason I never learned how to play chess.
I agree the actress played a good part, as did the younger one.
Very enjoyable to watch.

Syl wrote:I have just finished watching Queen's Gambit, I REALLY  enjoyed it.
So thanks for the recommendation Eddie.
It made me want to throw my draughts board away and buy a chess board instead, it really does look complicated though.

I am going to check out 'Orphan Black' next.

i did start watching queens gambit but i read a book by the same name which was all about Katharine Parr's marriage to Henry VIII. I put it on and thought, hang on, this doesn't look much like Tudor attire lolol.

I got to the point where she borrowed money from the janitor and won a competition. it's quite good and i'll probably go back and finish it but Orphan Black is seriously the best thing i've seen on Netflix. Hope you enjoy

Syl wrote:For some reason I never learned how to play chess.
I agree the actress played a good part, as did the younger one.
Very enjoyable to watch.

nor I

my eldest brother taught me rummy, gin rummy, backgammon but i never caught on to chess

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:For some reason I never learned how to play chess.

Syl wrote:I agree the actress played a good part, as did the younger one.
Very enjoyable to watch.

nor I

my eldest brother taught me rummy, gin rummy, backgammon but i never caught on to chess

Chess isn’t a game I can concentrate on to be honest. My mind cannot sit still enough.