Netflix's Cleopatra

[Roma_Victrix]

It's already been established by other credible documentaries that Achilles was in fact black, just like most ancient Greeks:
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/...rs-greek-myth/
Stop whitewashing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Funny thing about that article is that it points out Memnon was Ethiopian, but the show Fall of Troy didn't have him as a character at all. Instead it made Achilles into a black dude, while the article even admits that Homer described the hair of Achilles as "xanthe" (golden, an obvious term for blond or at least blondish brown hair). The article really trips over itself to try and say this can be interpreted in various ways and is too ambiguous. The Greeks didn't have a conception of modern racial color categories or attach modern prejudices to those, but they were very much aware that people from various parts of the world looked different. Greek authors like Roman-era Arrian of Nicomedia even point this out with Egyptians looking darker than Greeks but "Aethiopioi" (Nubians, Aksumites, plus other East Africans) being even darker than them, comparing their relatively darker skin tones to those of people in northern versus southern India. The Greeks had some redheads like Pyrrhus of Epirus and blonds like Alexander, but they were quick to point out how the Thracians of nearby ancient Bulgaria and Romania were stereotypically ginger haired.

Achilles wasn't Greek though, unless the Olympian Pantheon had managed to obtain the Greek nationality. The rules are pretty strict, you don't necessarily get it, even if you are born here, so I doubt it. In all seriousness, BBC's Achilles was part of a TV-series about a fictional event, full of mythical figures, and not a documentary on a historical queen/king, so I don't think the same rules apply. It's fair to criticize historical documentaries for their inaccuracies or distortions, like in regards to Hannibal or the black legionary in Roman Britain (although I find it a tad suspicious that the criticism usually does not extend to the rest of the shows' inaccuracies), but that kind of reactions are hardly justified, when it comes to works of fiction, be it the Little Mermaid or the Iliad.

Hannibal should always be depicted like a Levantine Semite, with either a modern Jewish or Arab actor being the most suitable, or even a North African Arab-Berber actor would do since they are Afro-Asiatic like the Semites. Depicting him like he was some guy from the southernmost tip of Morocco wouldn't make any sense, since Carthaginians emanated from what is now Lebanon. They did, however, have plenty of Mauritanian natives of the Maghreb who were brown and even black folk fighting for them as allies/auxiliaries.

Putting aside the fact that Roman Britain once had a North African Berber governor (Quintus Lolicus Urbicus, perhaps a brown/olive skinned guy), there actually is evidence of an East African black Roman legionary serving at Hadrian's Wall at one point during the reign of Septimius Severus. The emperor was partially Punic/Carthaginian in origin, born in Roman Leptis Magna, what is now Libya, and he was apparently shocked to find an "Ethiopian" soldier at Hadrian's Wall during his campaign against the Picts of ancient Scotland. According to the Historia Augusta, the Ethiopian legionary was apparently something of a goofball who joked around like a jester, and the emperor considered his presence to be something of a bad omen for the campaign. Probably goes to show how rare it was for Romans even from parts of North Africa to run into East Africans on average.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Achilles wasn't Greek though, unless the Olympian Pantheon had managed to obtain the Greek nationality. The rules are pretty strict, you don't necessarily get it, even if you are born here, so I doubt it. In all seriousness, BBC's Achilles was part of a TV-series about a fictional event, full of mythical figures, and not a documentary on a historical queen/king, so I don't think the same rules apply. It's fair to criticize historical documentaries for their inaccuracies or distortions, like in regards to Hannibal or the black legionary in Roman Britain (although I find it a tad suspicious that the criticism usually does not extend to the rest of the shows' inaccuracies), but that kind of reactions are hardly justified, when it comes to works of fiction, be it the Little Mermaid or the Iliad.

Exactly. You could cancel whole Shakespeare and most operas then, as they aren't accurate, when it comes to mythological events.

The one is history, the other is art, which is and must be free in itself to express and develop their message into modern times.

I would not watch Aischylos or Sophokles, if it were still the same male actors in ancient cloths even for the female roles with the same auhentic greek choros as background music.

[Roma_Victrix]

Exactly. You could cancel whole Shakespeare and most operas then, as they aren't accurate, when it comes to mythological events.

The one is history, the other is art, which is and must be free in itself to express and develop their message into modern times.

I would not watch Aischylos or Sophokles, if it were still the same male actors in ancient cloths even for the female roles with the same auhentic greek choros as background music.

Yes, people should always have free range for artistic license and there's nothing wrong with plays like Hamilton where nearly every cast member is black. Or for that matter black Shakespearean acting teams that have been around for a long time. As pointed out by commentators like "Metatron" on Youtube, the major problem most people have with the new Cleopatra series on Netflix is that it purports to be a documentary on the subject. It's a hilarious claim considering Cleopatra VII is not just depicted as a black Nubian woman with an entirely black family, but also a warrior trained how to use anachronistic Egyptian-style weaponry and swords, and in a setting that seems entirely devoid of Hellenistic Greek trappings despite being in the middle of Alexandria, the most prominent Greek polis outside Athens or Rhodes.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, that's certainly valid for the Little Mermaid, given that isn't human (really, she should be countershaded like most pelagic animals). Achilles is a bit different, since while he is a mythical figure, his father at least is stated explicitly in the text to be a Greek king (his mother is a water nymph, so anything goes there). Peleus at least therefore (and presumably by extension Achilles) would look Greek. A similar point could be raised e.g. for Beowulf, who is mythical figure but one who is explicitly a member of the Geats, a historical Norse tribe in southern Sweden, so it would be strange for him to be anything other than Northern European in appearance. Depictions of gods and the such are fair game though since they aren't human.

Peleus' parents were a nymph and Aeacus, himself the offspring of yet another nymph and Zeus. So, Peleus is himself of purely divine descent. Of course, pretty much every mythical prominent figure of the Greek mythology is descended from the gods, similarly to how the various aristocratic houses of Greece, Epirus and Macedon were also supposed to originate from gods and heroes. In any case, as Morticia said, it's a work of art, which have always been adapted to contemporary conditions. Otherwise they would be unbearable. Aristophanes' obscene humour hasn't aged very well after the first two millennia. Controversies about the skin colour of mythical figures seem a bit absurd and probably take advantage the public's complete lack of familiarity with how ''classical'' works have always been more or less edited to better suit the tastes of the modern audience. In regards to BBC's Achilles, if I remember correctly, the performance of the actor was one of the few things that received praise in an otherwise mediocre show. Hiring the best professional at the expense of an irrelevant detail with no actual role to the story looks like a good tradeoff to me.

Putting aside the fact that Roman Britain once had a North African Berber governor (Quintus Lolicus Urbicus, perhaps a brown/olive skinned guy), there actually is evidence of an East African black Roman legionary serving at Hadrian's Wall at one point during the reign of Septimius Severus. The emperor was partially Punic/Carthaginian in origin, born in Roman Leptis Magna, what is now Libya, and he was apparently shocked to find an "Ethiopian" soldier at Hadrian's Wall during his campaign against the Picts of ancient Scotland. According to the Historia Augusta, the Ethiopian legionary was apparently something of a goofball who joked around like a jester, and the emperor considered his presence to be something of a bad omen for the campaign. Probably goes to show how rare it was for Romans even from parts of North Africa to run into East Africans on average.

Yeah, even if we disregard this reference, statistically speaking, there must have been a few black soldiers during the entirety of Roman rule in Britain, but BBC's choice felt forced, because it would have been a comparatively tiny demographic. And also unnecessary, because multiculturalism and miscegenation should not be tolerated, solely because there may have been a precedent for that in the ancient past. That's the line of reasoning of nationalists and racists.

[Alastor]

Peleus' parents were a nymph and Aeacus, himself the offspring of yet another nymph and Zeus. So, he's himself of divine descent. Of course, pretty much every mythical prominent figure of the Greek mythology is descended from the gods, similarly to how the various aristocratic houses of Greece, Epirus and Macedon were also supposed to originate from gods and heroes. In any case, as Morticia said, it's a work of art, which have always been adapted to contemporary conditions. Otherwise they would be unbearable. Aristophanes' obscene humour hasn't aged very well after the first two millennia. Controversies about the skin colour of mythical figures seem a bit absurd and probably take advantage the public's complete lack of familiarity with how ''classical'' works have always been more or less edited to better suit the tastes of the modern audience. In regards to BBC's Achilles, if I remember correctly, the performance of the actor was one of the few things that received praise in an otherwise mediocre show. Hiring the best professional at the expense of an irrelevant detail with no actual role to the story looks like a good tradeoff to me.

I don't consider this a good argument. Yes he had divine origin, but so supposedly did numerous historical people and they didn't look any different to their contemporaries. Achilles is a Greek hero. Why then should he be depicted as anything but that? As for the art justification, first the Illiad is more than just art, it's a collection of legends tightly connected to the ancient Greek and as a result greater European identity, second art includes descriptions and those descriptions do become part of the characters and plot often enough. If I go see an Othello performance starring some white blue-eyed north Italian as Othello I won't be very impressed. You want to make an adaptation? No problem make an adaptation, but adapt everything to make it fit, not just a skin colour here and there. Besides, in these strange times we live in where nothing is colourblind, to claim this type of colourblindness is good when it conveniently excuses the rampant blackwashing pushed by a certain group of mainly Americans wannabe leftists is rather counter-productive. If you read the article I shared and see the mental gymnastics employed, you will likely come to agree with this point.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Yes, people should always have free range for artistic license and there's nothing wrong with plays like Hamilton where nearly every cast member is black. Or for that matter black Shakespearean acting teams that have been around for a long time. As pointed out by commentators like "Metatron" on Youtube, the major problem most people have with the new Cleopatra series on Netflix is that it purports to be a documentary on the subject. It's a hilarious claim considering Cleopatra VII is not just depicted as a black Nubian woman with an entirely black family, but also a warrior trained how to use anachronistic Egyptian-style weaponry and swords, and in a setting that seems entirely devoid of Hellenistic Greek trappings despite being in the middle of Alexandria, the most prominent Greek polis outside Athens or Rhodes.

I'm with you if its about historical persons, i differ, if it comes to mythological or fictional stuff like literature.

At the weekend i watch the first four episodes of The Sandman. And it was refreshing, that there was a female Lucifer Morningstar and The Sandman has a good bizarre plot in any case.

Sometimes you must break conventions to spice things up.

[Alastor]

I'm with you if its about historical persons, i differ, if it comes to mythological or fictional stuff like literature.

At the weekend i watch the first four episodes of The Sandman. And it was refreshing, that there was a female Lucifer Morningstar and The Sandman has a good bizarre plot in any case.

Sometimes you must break conventions to spice things up.

I actually disliked the female Lucifer quite some. Not necessarily because it was a change but because I liked Tom Ellis in the role a lot more. His interpretation being quite a departure too.

Speaking of Sandman though, my primary pet peeve wasn't the Lucifer genderswap, but the blackwashing of Death.

[Infidel144]

Yes, people should always have free range for artistic license and there's nothing wrong with plays like Hamilton where nearly every cast member is black. Or for that matter black Shakespearean acting teams that have been around for a long time.

Quite, though people using that "artistic license" should acknowledge that, and not claim that they are remaining true and faithful to the source ('back to the books, back to the books, back to the books').

[conon394]

I don't consider this a good argument. Yes he had divine origin, but so supposedly did numerous historical people and they didn't look any different to their contemporaries. Achilles is a Greek hero. Why then should he be depicted as anything but that? As for the art justification, first the Illiad is more than just art, it's a collection of legends tightly connected to the ancient Greek and as a result greater European identity, second art includes descriptions and those descriptions do become part of the characters and plot often enough. If I go see an Othello performance starring some white blue-eyed north Italian as Othello I won't be very impressed. You want to make an adaptation? No problem make an adaptation, but adapt everything to make it fit, not just a skin colour here and there. Besides, in these strange times we live in where nothing is colourblind, to claim this type of colourblindness is good when it conveniently excuses the rampant blackwashing pushed by a certain group of mainly Americans wannabe leftists is rather counter-productive. If you read the article I shared and see the mental gymnastics employed, you will likely come to agree with this point.

Depends on the Othello. If you mean not a movie but live Theater, Opera, Musical... the want the best potential talent for a a live performance in each role - given the constraints of the performance company.

I have less sympathy for any kind of large TV/Movie production.

Of none of that matters for something claiming to a documentary.

[Kyriakos]

Achilles wasn't part of the pantheon. He is even dead in the Odyssey and in the underworld like every other mortal.
No need to conflate olympian gods with lesser deities (Achilles' mother) or mortals who just have one parent be such (Achilles). Achilles obviously is the archetypical Greek hero.

Then again, it is a far worse issue when you present a historically existent person (such as Cleopatra) in a documentary, in a completely made up way.

[Laser101]

Peleus' parents were a nymph and Aeacus, himself the offspring of yet another nymph and Zeus. So, Peleus is himself of purely divine descent. Of course, pretty much every mythical prominent figure of the Greek mythology is descended from the gods, similarly to how the various aristocratic houses of Greece, Epirus and Macedon were also supposed to originate from gods and heroes. In any case, as Morticia said, it's a work of art, which have always been adapted to contemporary conditions. Otherwise they would be unbearable. Aristophanes' obscene humour hasn't aged very well after the first two millennia. Controversies about the skin colour of mythical figures seem a bit absurd and probably take advantage the public's complete lack of familiarity with how ''classical'' works have always been more or less edited to better suit the tastes of the modern audience. In regards to BBC's Achilles, if I remember correctly, the performance of the actor was one of the few things that received praise in an otherwise mediocre show. Hiring the best professional at the expense of an irrelevant detail with no actual role to the story looks like a good tradeoff to me.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. If you are portraying an actual historical figure like Cleopatra or Hannibal, especially in a purported documentary, you should probably try to match their actual phenotype as best as possible. On the other hand, you have considerably more leeway when it comes to a purely mythical figure like Achilles, even if your portrayal is almost certainly not intended by the original text.

[Alastor]

Depends on the Othello. If you mean not a movie but live Theater, Opera, Musical... the want the best potential talent for a a live performance in each role - given the constraints of the performance company.

I have less sympathy for any kind of large TV/Movie production.

Of none of that matters for something claiming to a documentary.

If it's an amateur production sure. The expectations I have from a school play aren't the same as those I have from broadway. Obviously. But for pro productions no, I expect their casting choices to make sense. Othello being a moor is rather crucial to the plot. And blackface isn't exactly allowed anymore. So they should find an actor that looks the part.

A proper adaptation of Othello would retain this otherness. Having him be a successful Indian in Saudi Arabia for example. But it wouldn't be convincing if it retains the same setting and simply whitewashes the character.

[conon394]

Double

[conon394]

If it's an amateur production sure. The expectations I have from a school play aren't the same as those I have from broadway. Obviously. But for pro productions no, I expect their casting choices to make sense. Othello being a moor is rather crucial to the plot. And blackface isn't exactly allowed anymore. So they should find an actor that looks the part.

A proper adaptation of Othello would retain this otherness. Having him be a successful Indian in Saudi Arabia for example. But it wouldn't be convincing if it retains the same setting and simply whitewashes the character.

I can see your point but still going to argue Live theater is different. You need to prioritize some aspects maybe of over looking the best like the character. I willing to cut slack for the best thespian or opera singer over appearance. Also I think Othello is a bit of an extreme example. What is feeling on the The Mikado? If casting L'italiana in Algeri do I need a North African decent Bass to fill the roll of Mustafa or just the best I can find ?

[Laser101]

So I found another article about this. Aside from the usual comments, there this part:

This historical reality is what makes Egypt’s nationalist anger over the Black Cleopatra TV series so intriguing. Cleopatra governed Egypt, yet she was not Egyptian; rather, she was the last descendant of Greek colonizers. So, historical accuracy and accusations of racism/colorism aside, Egyptian nationalists’ protectiveness over the representation of a Greek conquering tyrant is somewhat ironic.
At the risk of sounding reductive, Cleopatra was a foreign occupier who cared only about maintaining her hold on power. She (allegedly) had sex with a brother whom she later killed, brought in Roman forces to secure her throne, murdered her sister for opposing the invasion and had her dead body paraded all over Rome. Furthermore, her claim to historical infamy was partially based on seducing two Roman generals, causing one to be murdered and the other to kill himself. What is there to be proud of here?
This fight over Cleopatra may be indicative of something deeper: how modern-day Egyptians process the generational trauma of their colonization.
Modern Egypt is peculiar in that it has endured some 2,400 years of nearly uninterrupted colonization. Not only are those years lumped together with the rest of Egyptian history as part of the post-1952 military coup nationalist narrative proclaiming 7,000 years of civilization, but none of those occupiers seem to trigger the appropriate feelings of hostility they deserve. If anything, modern-day Egyptians seem to have developed a collective Stockholm syndrome-esque sense of affinity toward the foreigners who occupied and ruled us, both as rulers and as nations.
This affinity shows its face in the many Egyptian proponents of both the pan-Islamist and pan-Arabist identity movements, in Egyptian upper and middle-class pride in white ancestry (whether Ottoman or Western European in origin), and even in the outpouring of social media mourning over the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the same monarch whose army four years into her reign waged war on Egypt during the Suez crisis. It may seem baffling that the subjects of brutal colonization may develop such feelings for their colonizers, but after 2,400 years of multiple uninterrupted colonization, what is national identity?
Of course, not all colonizers are viewed with equal reverence. Napoleon, for instance, couldn’t hack it. He commands little respect or affinity, having fled the country after just three years of attempting to occupy it. Nonetheless, the French campaign’s cultural colonization of Egyptian intellectuals remains highly influential to this day, with many Egyptians proudly identifying as Francophiles.
The French are not unique in this. The Turkish Ottoman occupation’s end is regretted by Islamists as the time of the last caliphate. Soviet influence over Nasser’s regime in the 1960s? A time of power and unity with a “sister country” that many hope would return. The British are not particularly maligned despite decades of colonization. This phenomenon is not particularly unique to Egypt, and shades of it may be found in other nations that endured colonization in the Global South, the focus of those complicated emotions is usually the last occupying power. Egypt is unique in claiming the legacy of all its colonizers.
This is what makes the rise of anti-American sentiment among the Egyptian population during the Hosni Mubarak years so fascinating. For decades, and to this day, many Egyptians viewed the United States as the ultimate example of imperial power, a view that preceded the Iraq war by decades. This is rather puzzling since the Americans never occupied Egypt. I suspect that if we can figure out this puzzle, we might just begin to understand why Egyptians care so much about a Greek occupier being portrayed as Black.

I think this is a good case of the term 'colonial' (and 'trauma' for that matter) being rather overused in modern academia. Egypt is hardly the only country to have had a foreign (in origin) ruling elite in its history. An obvious European comparison would be Richard I of England; he's still one of England's more famous kings despite the fact that he only ever spoke French or Occitan and spent (IIRC) all of 6 months of his reign actually in England. Many other European countries have had foreign dynasties or monarchs.
The 'trauma' part here is kind of overrated. For most of history, the change to 'foreign' rule generally didn't mean much to most of the Egyptian populace (who were rural farmers like in almost any other pre-industrial society). What mattered was that the rulers maintained the appropriate functions, which the Ptolemies were very careful to do (hence why there are depictions of Ptolemaic rulers in the traditional Egyptian style).

[Kyriakos]

I agree, that article seems to be rather terrible. Besides, the author could have bothered to check what current egyptians think of Greeks, let alone what the view of the Greek civilization is in the arab world - general reverence.
One incident I particularly like, is the offer by one caliph to sign peace if a prominent mathematician was sent to his realm for a little time. But the answer was no ^^
PS: it was the person who manufactured the famous Byzantine automata, like the roaring statue of a lion, the singing mechanical birds and the rising throne. Later on took the title of bishop of Thessalonike.

[Roma_Victrix]

So I found another article about this. Aside from the usual comments, there this part:

I think this is a good case of the term 'colonial' (and 'trauma' for that matter) being rather overused in modern academia. Egypt is hardly the only country to have had a foreign (in origin) ruling elite in its history. An obvious European comparison would be Richard I of England; he's still one of England's more famous kings despite the fact that he only ever spoke French or Occitan and spent (IIRC) all of 6 months of his reign actually in England. Many other European countries have had foreign dynasties or monarchs.
The 'trauma' part here is kind of overrated. For most of history, the change to 'foreign' rule generally didn't mean much to most of the Egyptian populace (who were rural farmers like in almost any other pre-industrial society). What mattered was that the rulers maintained the appropriate functions, which the Ptolemies were very careful to do (hence why there are depictions of Ptolemaic rulers in the traditional Egyptian style).

Thanks for sharing and I agree with your retort to the article. The Ptolemies did deal with native rebellion against their rule, for instance, a brief period where they lost much of Upper Egypt to a rival native pharaoh claimant to the throne, but overall they maintained a carefully curated pageantry of occasional costume play in Memphis (during coronations) or in temple rituals aimed at appeasing their Egyptian subjects. This was particularly the case for the Egyptian priesthood, who received the benefits of Ptolemaic rule and staunchly stood by the Ptolemies in a perpetual client-patron relationship. Alexander the Great was generally looked upon as a revered and divine figure by the Egyptians who liberated them from the far more aloof satrapy governance of Persian rule. That being said, the article shared above isn't entirely bad, they make a few salient points.

On a different note, one should be careful when viewing things in the opposite direction. On Youtube, Twitter, and elsewhere I have noticed a lot of extreme far-right grifters and white supremacists/racists/nationalists have been jumping on the hate train for the show, which deserves its criticism and scorn, but it certainly doesn't need the input of these charming groups. They're the sort of folk who would downplay or deny Nubians even exist or were black and would regularly be hateful towards Egyptian nationals while pretending to be on their side in this moment (especially the ones who erroneously claim Ancient Egyptians were as white as Brits instead of MENA brown folk). Wading through the garbage, there are some very good and reasoned takes, though. For instance, these two offer excellent breakdowns, analyses, and reviews, providing historical details about Cleopatra while also criticizing the Netflix showrunners:

[Laser101]

Thanks for sharing and I agree with your retort to the article. The Ptolemies did deal with native rebellion against their rule, for instance, a brief period where they lost much of Upper Egypt to a rival native pharaoh claimant to the throne, but overall they maintained a carefully curated pageantry of occasional costume play in Memphis (during coronations) or in temple rituals aimed at appeasing their Egyptian subjects. This was particularly the case for the Egyptian priesthood, who received the benefits of Ptolemaic rule and staunchly stood by the Ptolemies in a perpetual client-patron relationship. Alexander the Great was generally looked upon as a revered and divine figure by the Egyptians who liberated them from the far more aloof satrapy governance of Persian rule. That being said, the article shared above isn't entirely bad, they make a few salient points.

I would assume that said revolt was dominated by the Upper Egyptian elite though (presumably because they felt slighted by the new regime).

On a different note, one should be careful when viewing things in the opposite direction. On Youtube, Twitter, and elsewhere I have noticed a lot of extreme far-right grifters and white supremacists/racists/nationalists have been jumping on the hate train for the show, which deserves its criticism and scorn, but it certainly doesn't need the input of these charming groups. They're the sort of folk who would downplay or deny Nubians even exist or were black and would regularly be hateful towards Egyptian nationals while pretending to be on their side in this moment (especially the ones who erroneously claim Ancient Egyptians were as white as Brits instead of MENA brown folk). Wading through the garbage, there are some very good and reasoned takes, though. For instance, these two offer excellent breakdowns, analyses, and reviews, providing historical details about Cleopatra while also criticizing the Netflix showrunners:

Well, Nubians definitely exist of course, although it should be said that Egyptians and Nubians are two distinct groups with different ancestries. Compare this Egyptian football team to this Sudanese one, for example. Actually, the Sudanese team appears to have both 'MENA brown' and 'black African' players (unsurprising given Sudan's history).

Ancient Egyptians definitely were not northern European white, and the Greeks and Romans weren't either; they were aware of a difference between them and the Celtic and Germanic peoples to the north.

[Infidel144]

Modern Egyptians are:
Geno 2.0 findings:
"Mediterranean – 65%
Southwest Asian – 18%
Sub-Saharan African 14%"


and Geno 2.0 Next Gen findings:
"Northern African (68% of the Egyptian genetic pool), Southwest Asia & Persian Gulf (17%), Jewish Diaspora (4%), Asia Minor (3%), East Africa (3%), and Sothern Europe (3%)."


National Geographic Genographic Project, excerpted from Coptic Literature's critique:
https://copticliterature.wordpress.c...ptian-results/
(the criticism in itself seems to boil down to: not enough real Egyptians, i.e. Copts, utilized)

[conon394]

@ R_V

On a different note, one should be careful when viewing things in the opposite direction. On Youtube, Twitter, and elsewhere I have noticed a lot of extreme far-right grifters and white supremacists/racists/nationalists have been jumping on the hate train for the show, which deserves its criticism and scorn, but it certainly doesn't need the input of these charming groups.

I agree its unfortunate Amazon backed this its like tossing kerosene onto the internet for those kinds of sites. JUst seems like a really unfortunate waste of money and providing people with something to point to and say see see thay have agenda and that buries facts.