Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Queen Cleopatra - The Most Hated Show Of All Time?" video.

@titanmode3888 Arabs intermixed with Egyptians, but their ethnic makeup has remained consistent since the days of Ancient Egypt, as far as we can tell. The peoples of the Mediterranean had far more in common with one another than deeper in their respective continents. Egyptians had more in common with people from Anatolia or Greece than Sub-Sahara Africa. And Greeks had more in common with other Med people than with Northern Europeans. The fact that you tried to claim "America was fully Native Indian" as if that was factual is hilarious. Those "Native Indians" had very little in common with each other outside of being from the Americas. Tribes from the Great Plains were vastly different from the Meso-American nations and city-states, and wouldn't exactly weep for each other's destruction.
151
@missmissy9622 There are a lot, actually. But very few of them became powerful or influential enough to affect world history like Jada seems to have wanted. That has more to do with Sub-Sahara Africa being generally isolated from the rest of Eurasia, though.
37
@ct5943 Most are aware that Jesus had MENA region ethnic origins. I don't think you'll be surprising many people with that. Bad bait, I think.
8
@LionClanChief That's a fair point. I'll amend my statement; people are known not only for changing the world, but also due to the stories people tell. Mansa Musa is very well known despite not changing much either, but the stories of his immense wealth spread. And Joan of Arc similarly became well known as a folk hero in a very influential nation. And I guess Cleopatra fits that mold as well.
4
@LionClanChief I'm aware of how isolated everything south of the Sahara Africa was, yes. That was my point. We also don't hear much about the specific Germanic tribes that beat back the Roman Empire either, so generally just being famous in a specific region doesn't get much attention. And in the case of this series, this woman seems to want "world changing rulers" that happened to be black women.
3
@LionClanChief "Black Queens" specifically talks about bringing to light Black Queens that changed the world or something like that.
1
@LionClanChief The ones that did are well remembered. But yes, you're right.
1
@Pushing_Pixels So you don't learn about the Indus, Mesopotamian, Meso American, and Chinese civilizations?
1
@Pushing_Pixels You: "We only learn about Med and European history" Now you: "We learn a bit about world history" I never said we learned about the vast majority of the Earth's surface. Nor should we. That's way too much information with too little time; focus on the important civilizations.
1
@Pushing_Pixels "Eurocentric" means focused on Europe. I advocated for important civilizations in world history, which very much includes the likes of China which is NOT Eurocentric at all. China gets a LOT of attention btw, throughout its multiple dynasties. Indus doesn't get much attention because outside of its initial founding it doesn't do much but stay in its corner isolated behind its Himalayas. There is also some focus on Central Asia during the Huns and other migratory empires which very much affected world history; many of which has little effect on Europe. As for Meso America, they're quite literally not important to world history until Europeans showed up. It's not like they were massively trading with Southeast Asia; they were isolated. Name one civilization that should be covered more that actually massively affected history.
1
@Pushing_Pixels China gets attention on its major dynasties, from the Han, to the Tang, to the Ming, to its civil war, to the CCP. Most don't pay attention to it. And we don't go super into details, like the An Lushan Revolt for example; but that's the case generally in world history. Eurocentric: "focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent." It says nothing about looking via a "European point of view". And to be blunt, the US is a nation born from European civilization, its impossible NOT to have a European point of view culturally speaking. You can't tell people to just not have their civilizational point of view; that's not how it works. No, the reason I don't accept certain civilizations as having a major effect on the world is because they didn't have a major effect on the world. Keep crying about Eurocentrism all you want, but that will not suddenly make a random tribe in the Great Plains something critical to talk about. China doesn't really have much importance to Western history until the late 17th century at the earliest, it was too far away to be anything but a curiosity with its connection via the Silk Road. The Scythians and the Mauryans were not important to learn about in world history. The former colonized parts of Europe and Central Asia but didn't effect much. And the Mauryans were as important as teh Guptas; not much outside of the India subcontinent. They both collapsed within a century and are only really important for those within the subcontinent as a nationalist symbol of Indian unity before the establishment of India itself. And we talk about the Golden Horde and the Umayyads, so idk why you're still whinging about this. Outside of the West people learn much less about the world's history, and you want to torture kids more with more history to learn? Not gonna happen. Focus on the important empires and civilizations.
1