None at all as I don't expect ancient civilizations to share the same concept of beauty as America circa 2017

her brows are kind of mottled, they probably looked more like this, natural and flowing

The past is a foreign country. They do things different there.

The real redpill is that Classical (Greek, Roman) and Western civilization are separate. Western civilization was kickstarted by the Franks and they really were just admirers of the Romans, not their cultural descendants. A lot of the shit we think we like about Rome is actually medieval and renaissance approximation of what Rome was like, not real Rome.

Furthermore, thanks to movies and vidya we associate this sort of music with Rome: youtu.be/zBbWb90pUgo
While real Roman music was like this: youtu.be/uJLXyBzMci0

>A lot of the shit we think we like about Rome is actually medieval and renaissance approximation of what Rome was like
This. I wish in every history course, students are always reminded that Western culture is an interpretation of what Romans and Greeks were like and that interpretation would have to meet certain demands of the contemporary society.

The West started with the Franks and there is honestly nothing inherently wrong with that.

I came to notice that there is a lot of "WE WUZ X" with people based on race appropriation , cultural or otherwise.

The West started with Catholicism and the Vatican, both invented by the Romans.

Second is way better desu

>dailymakeover and beaury blitz as the only credited sources of that segment
this is why I just don't trust the wikijew

Not saying this isn't true but wouldn't unibrows be present on most statues of greek and roman goddesses?

I like the real Roman music.

Pro-tip: it isn't

what would the beauty industry stand to gain promoting unibrows instead of promoting their removal?

Greek/Roman statues had no eyebrows at all most of the time if you didn't notice. Augustus is said to have had a unibrow but there are no depictions of him with it.

>Western civilization was kickstarted by the Franks

t. Jacquec Pierre

Bullshit

THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE WIKI CITES:

stylecaster.com/beauty/eyebrows-history/?dm2sc=1

IT IS LITERALLY A BUZZFEED TIER ARTICLE WITH ZERO SOURCES

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Fpbp
Also checked

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Take my upvote and get out of here XD!

EEEEEEEEEEEEEE

10/10...so much of what would become modern Western Civilization traces itself to what would become France, the Low Countries and Northern Italy...ie the Franks.

The New York Times is a reputable source.
nytimes.com/2001/05/13/style/mirror-mirror-never-to-suffer-a-bad-eyebrow-day.html

Also Es

>The New York Times is a reputable source.
Did you see their election predictions?

That's the Virgin Mary

none of these have unibrows. Or is that the point?

That lady is hardly the image of beauty.

Even in the Fayum Portraits, you see disparate eyebrows. Women had unibrows, but they were hardly the universal standard of beauty

Persians liked unibrows too.

>During the Qajar dynasty in Iran (1785-1925), connected brows were considered beautiful. Persian poetry lauded the abrou-ye peyvasteh or "continuous eyebrow", in men and women alike. It was compared to cupid's bow, tensed and ready to fire its dart. The classic shape – a beautiful inverted ogee – can be seen in courtly miniatures and royal portraits

Fun fact: The unibrow is still considered a symbol of beauty in Tajikistan, and many women who can't grow them even paint them on.

That's a Tanagra figure from 150 years before Jesus was born, you Cretin

...

oh yea because old ass fucking roman art never gets edited in post

It was buried in the earth for 1800 years

We have to go back.

>Condescending Anime girl.jpg

nytimes.com/by/penelope-green

The men may have

That's objectively true unless you're a faggot.

she's still beautiful m8

>if continuity isn't perfectly streamlined then there is no contuinity
thanks for reminding us all not to take Veeky Forums too seriously

Childhood is idolizing Spengler. Adulthood is realizing Belloc is the way to go.

probably trashy makeup mags that specialises in ugos

also
>trying to find logic or consistency in beauty magazines
let me stop you right there lad

Butiful melike

Belloc was an idiot who thought communism is something natural for "Slavic barbarians" while Spengler recognized communism was unnaturally imposed and forced on Russia from the west and correctly predicted that within 100 years they will get rid of it on their own.

>implying slavs aren't barbarians
>implying communism is approproate for turanic Russian collectivism
wew

Communism isn't appropriate for Russia at all, it was created by a Jew in Germany heavily drawing from Anglo line of thinking. Spengler recognized this incompatibility. Spengler would also argue that communism is just a temporary setback and Russian civilization is in its spring phase and they will outlive the Faustian men. The way the west has been cucking itself out of existence lately, it might just come true.

Communism isn't appropriate for any place. But as an authoritarian collectivist system (which is what it became in Russia) it's far more appropriate than liberal democracy. The tsars rein wasn't going to last forever.

What happened in the USSR from Stalin until its end was pretty much the manifestation of Russian soul breaking through communist horseshit. You can't just expect to extinguish cultural roots by plastering a completely foreign ideology over them, not even Mao succeeded in that and he went much further than Lenin.

Liberal democracy will never work in Russia or China, they need an authoritarian fist.

Their history, their people and their geography are simply antithetical to democracy.

Communism in its nature is egalitarian while Russia is and forever will remain rigidly hierarchical.

oh yea so it totally didn't need any cleaning after being buried in the earth for 1800 years, and the people doing the cleaning totally didn't edit out the parts they thought must surely have been detritus

So was France's history prior to 1789

It's a Fresco, dipshit, you can't wash it from the wall.

Are you seriously suggesting that there's some Illuminati conspiracy that's erasing the eyebrows on all these artifacts found in different places at different times.

>who is Voltaire and Rousseau

desu France is better off under a Napoleon or a de gaulle than a Sarkozy or Hollande.

>sources are 2 fashion/makeup blogs
fake news transcends politics, i guess

>you can't wash it from the wall.
>calling ANYONE else a dipshit after posting this

yes

It's not a secco.

If you wanted to wash it off, you'd need to chip away the Plaster

Exactly. People should be proud of this if they are from that stock, there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't even know who Spengler is until someone mentioned it there. I just found that claims Ancient Rome and Greece are Western are not factual and stretching.

>No reading comprehension: The post

...

>Roman had the exact same beauty standard as Ancient Greeks

There could be an argument about similar beauty standards but to say it was 100% the same is very dubious. Also, the Hellenic world before Alexander was already diverse. Thus such beauty standard could be found in some places. And Ancient Rome itself would have varied beauty standards that will not remain the same throughout its history.

Anyway, this is what the french wiki says.

>Selon l'historienne du maquillage Madeleine Marsh (2009), le monosourcil était considéré comme remarquable en termes de beauté féminine dans la Rome antique et dans la Grèce antique, et si on n'avait pas la chance de l'avoir naturellement, Ovide recommandait de le simuler avec de l'encre7.

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synophridie

Apprently, Ovid recommended to draw it if you didn't have it naturally.

>lumps together greek and roman
>n-n-not the same thing for franks
historical comprehension fail: the post

You are right to not have green texted that last line because it perfectly describes your post.

You can scroll down to when I posted Greek Vase painting, if you would

I un-ironically like unibrows

Lil' dick nigga detected

I long for this time to come again.

My glorious uni-brow has to be hidden from the cruel and merciless world. One day all members of my race will rise up to claim our rightful place. But for now we chafe under the slavery of the duo-browed masses.

Whats this from?

But user, Greeks were the faggots.

>the romans immediately adopted greek culture and didnt have their own equivalent of a transition period before getting back to the good stuff
Why are you even on Veeky Forums you ahistorical faggot?

Greek and Roman culture was pretty much identical. Meanwhile the Franks were just approximating snippets of a dead foreign civilization. In other words, Romans were classical while the Franks were classicalboos.

youtu.be/kszLwBaC4Sw

You know what is worse than " black we wuz" meme?

That is frogs claimed they wuz founders of Western Civilization n shiet

(1/5)

The Decline of the West
ALMOST immediately after the end of the Great War a German wrote a highly successful or widely boomed book called “The Decline of the West.” [by Oswald Spengler, 1880-1936] The most human inference (in the opinion of many) was that the German, having assisted at the spectacle of the Decline and Fall of the German Empire, naturally wanted all the rest of us to decline and fall with him. He felt it would be obviously a breach of taste and tact for any nation to flourish if Germany had declined; if indeed, he was even aware of the existence of such fringes of his Empire as France or Flanders or England. Anyhow, he applied his doctrine to all that is most active in our civilisation, whether we are so constituted as to call it the Indo-Germanic race or prefer to call it Christendom. But there was more in this theory of his about a general collapse; which was also a theory of a recurrent collapse. In this, indeed, and in his general idea of a modern phase of decline, his view was quite reasonable and very persuasively stated. But there was bound up with it another set of ideas which are not necessarily any part of the theory, either that civilisations periodically weaken or that our civilisation has weakened in our period. Those two theses may quite well be true; but the thesis of the book was false.

(2/5)

For me, at least, it was false because it was fatalist; false because it was unhistoric; and false because it involved a particular falsity about the very spirit of the great culture which the critic criticised. It is the whole point of that culture that it has been continuous; it was the whole point of the critic that it have been discontinuous and disconnected. He was not content to say that civilisations revolve in separate cycles, in the sense in which we might be said to belong to a different civilisation from the Druids. He cut up ordinary European history into chunks, that were supposed to have no more to do with each other than Chinese history and Aztec history. He chopped ordinary Christian history in two in the middle, in order to deny that either part of it was Christian. So far as I remember, he attributed the first half of it to entirely to the Moslem Arabs, because they were not Christians; and the second half of it to people of the type of Faust, because they were rather fishy sort of Christians, and Germans as well. And he talked about these divisions as they were like the abysses that might separate a stratum full of primordial crystals from a stratum, aeons afterwards, containing the first fantastic traces of marsupial life.

(3/5)

Now, I am quite certain, as a matter of mere common sense, that the history of Christendom, or even the history of Europe, was never so fragmentary as that. We are much more connected with the ancient Greeks than the German writer would allow us to be with the later mediaevals, or even the earlier moderns. The sort of distinction he suggested only happens when a cycle of civilisation really dies, and then fossilises and remains as inscrutable as an ammonite. We have no idea what was the religion of the Cro-Magnons, though we infer from certain pictures of ritual dances (as well as from our own common sense) that they had one. We do not know the significance of the Cup and Ring Stones, though the fortunate and civilised of us still use rings, as in the case of wedding-rings, or cups even in the sense of wine-cups. We do not even know if we interpret the signs rightly, or whether they are signs at all. Now, the Greek gods have never died in that fashion; and the Roman Empire has never dies at all. Of the most modern industrial cities in England, many have in their very names the title of the Roman Camp; and wherever there stood the Roman Camp, there stood afterwards the Christian Cathedral. There was never one moment, in the long history from Herodotus to Herr Spengler, when all the men who counted in any age did not count The Fall of Troy; there was never a generation when young poets did not make that old tale a topic for new poems. I wonder whether a poem by Heredia about Antony, or a poem by Morris about Arthur, belongs to the dead Greek period or the dead Arabic period? There was never a generation of poets that did not invoke Virgil, if only to imitate him. There was never a generation in which philosophers did not refer to Aristotle, if only to contradict him. The thread of our cultural continuity has never been broken.

(4/5)

I think the fact worth recording at the moment for two reasons. The first is that the same energetic German author has just launched another book, of much less dignity and of much more dogmatism, reaffirming his theory, and especially the most gloomy and barbaric parts of it. The other is that there is a horrible possibility that what he says falsely about our past may be said truly about our future. I mean that, hitherto, the men of our ancient tradition have done everything except forget. Whatever might be fanatical or ill-balanced about their religions or their revolutions, they have each, in turn, taken particular care to remember the deeds of their fathers. Even when they poisoned the purer Paganism if Homer and Pindar, they did not destroy it; they left it standing for ever against them as a reproach. Even when they dethroned the Greek gods they did not dismiss them; in the first just fury they denounced them as devils, but in the long run they let them remain as elves. They let them remain as fanciful and fabulous figures, for literary metaphor or plastic decoration, so that Christendom has left the nymph in poetry or the cupid in sculpture. It is true that now, for the first time, the race that always remembered is invited on every side to forget.

(5/5)

Yes; it is true that to-day, for the first time, our newspapers and our new politicians have asked us to forget, not what happened a thousand years ago or a hundred years ago, but what happened twenty years ago. When it is a question of shifting a policy or rehabilitating a politician, they will ask us to forget what happened two years ago or two months ago. Here, indeed, we have the great Spengler System, of total separation of one historical episode from another. Here is the true trick of regarding ourselves as divided by aeons and abysses not only from our fathers, but from ourselves. Thus, by reading the daily paper every day, and forgetting everything that it said on the previous day, we can divide human history into self-contained cycles; each consisting, not of five hundred years, but of twenty-four hours. By this means we can consider the slogans and swaggering policies which we ourselves cheered only recently, as if they were hieroglyphics as unintelligible as the Cup and Ring of Stones. This new quality of forgetfulness, in our current culture, does give some justification to the pessimism of the German professor; and if we accept such oblivion, then doubtless our “cycle” will really curl up like a worm on the floor and lie still for ever.

~G.K. Chesterton: Illustrated London News, September 3, 1932.

>almost 500 centurie between first contact and homogenisation of greek/roman culture
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_relations_in_classical_antiquity

really tingled my thalamus

You should learn how to read before writing. You should then learn history (if your brain is even capable of gathering knowledge) and so that maybe you won't make false equivalencies between Greece and Rome and The West with the former two. First the difference between Greece and Rome is far smaller than the different between The West and any of those two.

>says rome and greece are the same
>its my fault for pointing ou this bullshit
okkid.jpeg

This skips the Etruscans though, who were the real founders of Rome and the last kings of Rome were recorded to be of Etruscan ancestry. They were influenced by the Magna Graecians.

>who were the real founders of Rome
Then why was Rome Latin?

Wouldn't the Albans be a better founder, considering the Romans drew relations between their earliest kings and the Albans?

How about the Sabines, since the first king was supposed to hold a dual reign with a Sabine, and the Second king was a Sabine?

Why would the Etruscans have founded it?

This isn't an argument.

Rome was Latin the same way Anatolians speak a Turkic language. It doesn't mean that Turkics had more civilization before they were taught by Persians.

Not at all t.b.h.

>Western civilization was kickstarted by the Franks
This

The position of king wasn't necessarily dynastic, the senate confirmed ones appointment to the position and did choose kings not of direct blood lineage to the previous. Ending with Etruscan kings does not necessarily mean starting with Etruscan kings.

There were more franks than those in France.

It expressly didn't, at least according to myth.

Since the whole king list is shrouded in Myth, it's just as likely the first King was a Latin, the First a Sabine, and the last 3 Etruscan.

They've found Iron Age dwellings from the King Period, and they're not incongruous with Latin homes. There's no evidence of Etruscan civilization