The Phony Utopia

Jay Zepher

Member
Aug 21, 2020
51
38
21
Regarding TV shows and movies replacing known white characters whether real, historical, or other with African American or other non-white characters, I find it is a positive thing to include non-whites in established entertainment roles, but I do have a problem when it rewrites history. Besides providing a false history with incorrect biographical representations, these castings might also lead eventually to a false premise in the minds of viewers with little historical knowledge that people in the past were tolerant of other races when unfortunately, the opposite was true.
It is fine to see a black actor romance a white actress in Bridgerton on Netflix and witness the romance accepted in the culture of Victorian Britain, but how many viewers realize that historically that would've never been accepted in that mostly hypocritical culture which looked down upon other races. Yes, Queen Victoria did actually welcome an African queen into the palace in which the royal woman remained as her guest, but would she have allowed her to marry into her family?
These were very racist times and we should not forget that or try to erase it from memory by presenting an alternate history in which blacks and other people of color were readily accepted by the peoples of that time. It is a phony utopia that never existed, though certainly, it would've been awesome if it did.
Now presenting a black Achilles and a mixed-raced King Arthur is more problematic because we don't know what they looked like or if they really existed. More likely, the characters were created centuries ago to represent someone who might have existed and in both those cases the characters were definitely not described as of African descent. Homer even says Achilles had blonde hair.
Once more, I see no problem with expanding African American/African European representation in entertainment, but if not basing it upon actual historical descriptions then maybe that should be noted in the production so as again, to not create a false historical premise. This, bearing in mind there are many actual African figures in history that can and should be represented by black actors and actresses. The great African Kings Pianki and Talahaka, for example, and Cleopatra as well was probably of African descent as were many Egyptian pharaohs. And so, I have a problem with Hollywood's repeated white washing of Cleopatra as much as I do of black washing. There's also Hannibal, one of the greatest generals in history who nearly brought down the Roman Empire.
Point is, there are plenty of real life historical African heroes and figures in history if Hollywood would ever take the time to look into it, instead of presenting an alternate history that never existed and that's only going to make things worse by causing people to forget the real culture and historical contributions of Africans to the world.
 
They we all white. End of the history lesson. Carry on.
 
Regarding TV shows and movies replacing known white characters whether real, historical, or other with African American or other non-white characters, I find it is a positive thing to include non-whites in established entertainment roles, but I do have a problem when it rewrites history. Besides providing a false history with incorrect biographical representations, these castings might also lead eventually to a false premise in the minds of viewers with little historical knowledge that people in the past were tolerant of other races when unfortunately, the opposite was true.
It is fine to see a black actor romance a white actress in Bridgerton on Netflix and witness the romance accepted in the culture of Victorian Britain, but how many viewers realize that historically that would've never been accepted in that mostly hypocritical culture which looked down upon other races. Yes, Queen Victoria did actually welcome an African queen into the palace in which the royal woman remained as her guest, but would she have allowed her to marry into her family?
These were very racist times and we should not forget that or try to erase it from memory by presenting an alternate history in which blacks and other people of color were readily accepted by the peoples of that time. It is a phony utopia that never existed, though certainly, it would've been awesome if it did.
Now presenting a black Achilles and a mixed-raced King Arthur is more problematic because we don't know what they looked like or if they really existed. More likely, the characters were created centuries ago to represent someone who might have existed and in both those cases the characters were definitely not described as of African descent. Homer even says Achilles had blonde hair.
Once more, I see no problem with expanding African American/African European representation in entertainment, but if not basing it upon actual historical descriptions then maybe that should be noted in the production so as again, to not create a false historical premise. This, bearing in mind there are many actual African figures in history that can and should be represented by black actors and actresses. The great African Kings Pianki and Talahaka, for example, and Cleopatra as well was probably of African descent as were many Egyptian pharaohs. And so, I have a problem with Hollywood's repeated white washing of Cleopatra as much as I do of black washing. There's also Hannibal, one of the greatest generals in history who nearly brought down the Roman Empire.
Point is, there are plenty of real life historical African heroes and figures in history if Hollywood would ever take the time to look into it, instead of presenting an alternate history that never existed and that's only going to make things worse by causing people to forget the real culture and historical contributions of Africans to the world.


Cleopatra was a member of the Ptolemy family who originated in Greece, not Africa.
 
You get that the actors in "Bridgerton" aren't actually 19th Century citizens? They are actors pretending to be 19th Century citizens.

If they're pretending, what does it matter what color or gender they are?

Historical movies show Romans with British accents and Asians played by white people for 100 years.

MV5BYzc5MGRmYTgtMmMyOS00ZjdiLWFiNzItOWFjZTJhNmI3YTUxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_CR0,45,48...jpg
 
You get that the actors in "Bridgerton" aren't actually 19th Century citizens? They are actors pretending to be 19th Century citizens.

If they're pretending, what does it matter what color or gender they are?

Historical movies show Romans with British accents and Asians played by white people for 100 years.

View attachment 450904
It matters because it is history pollution; evidently, you don’t care about history.
 
You get that the actors in "Bridgerton" aren't actually 19th Century citizens? They are actors pretending to be 19th Century citizens.

If they're pretending, what does it matter what color or gender they are?

Historical movies show Romans with British accents and Asians played by white people for 100 years.

View attachment 450904
It matters because it is history pollution; evidently, you don’t care about history.

I care VERY much about History. "Bridgerton" isn't History, nor does it claim to be. It's a period bonnet drama. It's 'Mean Girls in Crinolines'. It's not a historically accurate portrayal.

A very popular genre of fiction is Steampunk, fiction portraying modern or futuristic technology in Victorian-era Europe. It takes place in a historical setting, it's not History.
 
You get that the actors in "Bridgerton" aren't actually 19th Century citizens? They are actors pretending to be 19th Century citizens.

If they're pretending, what does it matter what color or gender they are?

Historical movies show Romans with British accents and Asians played by white people for 100 years.

View attachment 450904
It matters because it is history pollution; evidently, you don’t care about history.

I care VERY much about History. "Bridgerton" isn't History, nor does it claim to be. It's a period bonnet drama. It's 'Mean Girls in Crinolines'. It's not a historically accurate portrayal.

A very popular genre of fiction is Steampunk, fiction portraying modern or futuristic technology in Victorian-era Europe. It takes place in a historical setting, it's not History.


So in your view, it would be fine to film the "Private Ryan" movie with she-males on the beaches of Normandy, even though the US MIlitary required the men to be normative in 1944?
 

Forum List

Back
Top