I am entirely confused about this post.
1. You spend the middle paragraph arguing that I "know Troy never existed." Let's check the tape on that one, here's my quote: "Separately, Troy (which probably existed in some form) was in modern day Turkey." Yes, the historical understanding is that Troy existed in what is modern day Turkey, so we agree.
2. Let's see what AI tells us about our best understanding of who lived in what we believe to be Troy.
Based on archaeological and historical analysis of the Late Bronze Age (roughly 1400–1200 BC), the inhabitants of Troy (often referred to as Wilusa in Hittite texts) were likely a
distinct Anatolian people, rather than ethnic Greeks.
While Homer's
Iliad portrays the Trojans as having similar gods, customs, and language to the Achaeans (Greeks) for dramatic purposes, the historical reality indicates a different cultural group.
Key Aspects of the Population in Troy:
- Luwian Identity: Most scholars suggest the Trojans were part of the Luwian people, a group belonging to the Anatolian branch of Indo-European languages that inhabited western and southern Asia Minor.
- Hittite Connections: The city of Wilusa (Troy) was often in a vassal relationship with the Hittite Empire to the east. Hittite records mention a ruler named Alaksandu, which corresponds to the Greek name for Paris, Alexandros.
- Multiculturalism: As a major trading hub at the mouth of the Dardanelles, Troy was likely a mix of local Anatolian, Balkan, and potentially Thracian influences.
- Distinction from Greeks: Although they interacted with Mycenaean Greeks through trade, the Trojans were seen as a separate entity. The Trojans in the Iliad are often depicted as having allies with varied languages, implying a diverse, multicultural, and multilingual confederation.
- Later Greek Influence: It is crucial to distinguish the Bronze Age city from the later Greek city of "Ilium" (Troy VIII–IX), which was established by Greek settlers around 700 BC, long after the legendary Trojan War.
Back to Doug ... so Trojans were an "Anatolian people," by which we'd view them as something akin to modern day Turks. Technically, that's a "white" racial classification (the US government classifies Middle Easterners as "white," interestingly enough, but the actual physical realities are probably most akin to someone who looks like "Princess Jasmine" from Aladdin.
3. Homer's works are not historical fact. They are epic poems (which is basically historical fiction as we see it today). They were in no small part based on the myths of Greek storytelling. It feels to me like they fit the Shakespearian mold. As I said, King Lear was white, and Othello was black, but it's basically an irrelevancy in who plays them today. Neither actually existed, in the same way neither Achilles nor Odysseus actually existed.
4. How woke is the take that a black actress can't play a "maybe sorta white" role when the wokesters themselves have decreed that a "white actress" can't play a non-white role? It's acting, you can cast the story as you see fit. The quality of the story and acting is going to determine the quality of the production. Hamilton is pretty great, and the real characters were actual, indisputable whites (the actors are not). Ben Affleck played a Mexican American guy in Argo (did we even know that, it was a great movie)?
