yes, more racist AI blackwashing sending whites to the Googlag.

Just when you thought Google couldn't possibly get more evil.

At least they got caught with their pants down and are supposedly making changes.

https://news.yahoo.com/google-pauses-...

I might suggest that it's useful to have bad examples, but in a few generations then children so indoctrinated won't have the knowledge to realize these images are false.

Me: Is it a good choice for a black actor to play the part of Alexander Hamilton in a play?

Gemini: Whether a Black actor playing Alexander Hamilton in a play is a good choice depends on the specific context and approach of the production. Here's a breakdown of different perspectives:

Arguments for:

Color-blind casting: This approach prioritizes the actor's talent and ability to embody the character, regardless of their race or ethnicity. Hamilton's story resonates with themes of ambition, immigration, and overcoming adversity, which are relevant to diverse audiences. In this view, the focus is on the universality of Hamilton's experience and the power of storytelling, not historical accuracy.
Reframing history: The historical accuracy of Hamilton's race is debated, with some suggesting he may have had mixed ancestry. Casting a Black actor challenges traditional portrayals of historical figures and offers a fresh perspective on how we understand the past. It can spark important conversations about race and representation in history and society.
Artistic expression: Directors and producers have artistic freedom to interpret historical figures in different ways. Casting a Black actor could be a deliberate artistic choice to explore themes of race, identity, or social commentary, adding depth and complexity to the story.
Arguments against:

Historical accuracy: The vast majority of historical evidence suggests Hamilton was white. Casting a Black actor deviates from this documented reality and could be seen as misleading or inaccurate. This is particularly important when considering the educational potential of historical portrayals.
Tokenism: If the production solely casts a Black actor for Hamilton without addressing broader issues of diversity and representation, it could be seen as tokenism or pandering. It's crucial to ensure a diverse and inclusive cast and crew throughout the production.
Audience expectations: Traditional portrayals of Hamilton have established him as a white man. Some audiences might be resistant to seeing him portrayed differently, and the casting could distract from the overall performance.
Ultimately, the decision of whether a Black actor is a good choice for the role of Alexander Hamilton depends on the specific goals and approach of the production. Open and respectful dialogue about these considerations is crucial to ensure a meaningful and impactful portrayal.

Here are some additional points to consider:

The specific context of the play matters. Is it a purely fictionalized story, or does it aim for historical accuracy?
The production's approach to diversity and representation should be considered holistically, beyond just the casting of one role.
Open communication and audience engagement can help address concerns and ensure a respectful portrayal.
I hope this helps you understand the different perspectives on this complex issue.

Me: Would Tom Cruise be a good choice to play Shaka Zulu in a movie?

Gemini: Casting Tom Cruise to play Shaka Zulu in a movie would be a highly controversial decision for several reasons:

Historical Accuracy: Shaka Zulu was a real person with a unique cultural and historical background. Tom Cruise, a white American actor, does not share this background and casting him would be a significant historical inaccuracy. It's crucial to remember that historical figures deserve respectful and accurate portrayals, and this would be difficult to achieve in this case.

Cultural Sensitivity: Casting a white actor in a role that should be played by a Black actor, especially one of such cultural significance as Shaka Zulu, is a form of cultural appropriation. It can be seen as dismissive of Zulu history and culture, and it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

Representation: There are many talented Zulu actors who could authentically portray Shaka Zulu. Choosing a white actor for the role would be a missed opportunity to showcase Zulu talent and continue the fight for fair and accurate representation in Hollywood.

Precedence: There have been numerous instances in the past where white actors have been cast in roles that should have gone to actors of color. This has led to criticism and calls for more diverse casting practices. Casting Tom Cruise as Shaka Zulu would be a step backward in this progress.

Audience Perception: It's highly likely that such casting would be met with significant backlash and criticism from audiences, academics, and cultural groups. This could overshadow the film itself and potentially damage its reception.

While Tom Cruise is undoubtedly a talented actor, there are significant ethical and cultural concerns surrounding his potential portrayal of Shaka Zulu. It's important to prioritize historical accuracy, cultural sensitivity, and representation when making casting decisions, especially for roles that hold significant historical and cultural weight.

So a definitive "No" to a white actor playing a black person, but as to a black actor playing a white person, "He could potentially overcome the race and age differences through sheer talent and dedication...Denzel Washington could be a compelling choice despite the differences."

Me: Would Denzel Washington make a good actor to play Ronald Reagan in a movie?

Gemini: While Denzel Washington is an incredibly talented actor, casting him as Ronald Reagan in a movie would still raise some considerations, albeit different from those surrounding Brad Pitt as Harriet Tubman. Here's why:

Race and Age: Ronald Reagan was a white man, and Denzel Washington is a Black man. This difference in race is a significant factor, especially considering the historical context of race relations during Reagan's lifetime and presidency. While makeup and prosthetics could be used to achieve a physical resemblance, it wouldn't erase the underlying racial difference. Additionally, Reagan was significantly older than Washington (77 at the start of his presidency, while Washington is currently 68), which could also pose challenges in portraying him accurately.

Political Views: Reagan was a conservative Republican, while Washington has generally expressed more liberal viewpoints. This difference in political ideology could influence the portrayal, potentially leading to concerns about bias or misrepresentation.

Performance: However, Denzel Washington's acting skills are undeniable. His ability to embody historical figures, as seen in his roles as Malcolm X and Walter Rodney, demonstrates his ability to transform and deliver powerful performances. He could potentially overcome the race and age differences through sheer talent and dedication.

Ultimately, the decision of whether Denzel Washington would be a good choice for the role depends on the specific goals of the movie and the approach taken by the filmmakers. If the focus is on historical accuracy and avoiding potential controversy, another actor who more closely resembles Reagan's physical appearance and political views might be a better choice. However, if the focus is on exploring Reagan's complexities and nuances through a talented actor's interpretation, Denzel Washington could be a compelling choice despite the differences.

It's important to note that there is no one definitive answer to this question, and it will likely spark debate and discussion. Ultimately, the success of such a casting decision would depend on the execution and the film's overall message.

Me: Would Brad Pitt make a good actor to play Harriett Tubman in a movie?

Gemini: No, Brad Pitt would not be a good choice to play Harriet Tubman in a movie, and casting him in such a role would be widely considered inappropriate and insensitive. Here are some of the reasons why:

Historical accuracy: Harriet Tubman was a Black woman, and Brad Pitt is a white man. This is a significant historical inaccuracy that would be disrespectful to Tubman's legacy and her identity.

Representation: There are many talented Black actors who could authentically portray Harriet Tubman. Choosing a white actor for the role would be a missed opportunity to showcase Black talent and continue the fight for fair and accurate representation in Hollywood.

Cultural sensitivity: Casting a white actor in a role that should be played by a Black actor is a form of cultural appropriation. It can be seen as dismissive of Black history and culture, and it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

Precedence: There have been numerous instances in the past where white actors have been cast in roles that should have gone to actors of color. This has led to criticism and calls for more diverse casting practices. Casting Brad Pitt as Harriet Tubman would be a step backward in this progress.

It's important to remember that Harriet Tubman was a real person with a unique story and identity. Any portrayal of her should be respectful and accurate. Choosing Brad Pitt for the role would not achieve this, and it would likely cause offense to many people.

There are many other talented actors who could do justice to the role of Harriet Tubman. It's crucial to prioritize historical accuracy and cultural sensitivity when making casting decisions, especially for roles that hold significant historical and cultural weight.

look on the bright side
seems blacks imported other blacks as slaves

just ask Gemini....
/s

Gemini, please show me plantation owners 1860

Gemini please show me Dutch ship captain 1800, 1700, ect

and so on...

LOL

There is evidence that one at least one Roman emperor was black African, but no good pics. One was sometimes described as 'she' but likely due to their homosexual role.

Of the samples, the prizewinner has to be the 1930s Germans.

I think those pics are really funny!
Fine looking people, maybe Asians and Africans, in out-of-date fancy dress with very severe serious looking faces, my favorite was the lady Viking, forgot the beard.

Because A. Hamilton was an evil traitor and was 'woke before 'woke.'?

Shakes head, but not surprised.

AI. OK, I can go along with the "A" part, but no chance on convincing me regarding the "I" part. The blackwashing of history goes on automatic.

I'd like to ask Google Gemini: "Would Brad Pitt make a good actor to play Harriett Tubman in a movie? If not, why not?" and "Would Tom Cruise be a good choice to play Shaka Zulu in a movie? If not, why not?" and "Is it a good choice for a black actor to play the part of Alexander Hamilton in a play? If so, why so?"