Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Am I missing something?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Am I missing something?

    English friends inform me that on British television there recently aired a drama about Anne Boleyn [again] which cast a black actress in the title role and that also on British television a new series based on the H E Bates books The Darling Buds of May is about to air. Some may recall the original British series that launched the career of Mrs Michael Douglas aka Catherine Zeta Jones. This new production has an actor of colour playing the part of an accountant who arrives in the village to investigate the Larkins' financial affairs and of course falls under the spell of Mariette Larkin.

    In my opinion these two productions suggest nothing more than tokenism disguised as “colour blind casting”. Or am I missing something?


    Why does a real [and white] historical character have to be played by an actor of colour? Should a white actor be cast to play Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? That would also be “colour-blind casting” but I can imagine the furore if such a casting decision took place.

    Why does a series based on novels set in rural Kent in the 1950s need a character played by an actor of colour? This is also an historical anachronism as it would have been extremely unlikely for a black accountant to be working in the UK at that period.

    Or is it me? Am I missing something? Are we not supposed to notice that the actor is of colour? Rather as the brilliant but octogenarian actor Ian McKellen has recently just reprised the role of Hamlet but we are not supposed to notice his age.

    I can fully understand why plays are re-imagined in other locations. An entirely black cast for an African Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar for example, or a moghul Richard III . After all Kurosawa brilliantly transferred Macbeth to feudal Japan but I do question why actors of colour are inserted into dramas for what appears to be no real apparent reason.

    I am beginning to wonder if colour-blind casting is in fact a front for a rather more distasteful aspect of paternalism with the casting of an actor of colour as nothing more than a metaphorical pat on the head to show other ethnic communities that the director, casting director, writer etc are all fully woke.


    I am just wondering when someone is going to produce a series about the Norse peoples along the lines of Vikings and have the entire cast made up of actors of colour. Or a Nazi drama with a black Hitler!
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    English friends inform me that on British television there recently aired a drama about Anne Boleyn [again] which cast a black actress in the title role and that also on British television a new series based on the H E Bates books The Darling Buds of May is about to air. Some may recall the original British series that launched the career of Mrs Michael Douglas aka Catherine Zeta Jones. This new production has an actor of colour playing the part of an accountant who arrives in the village to investigate the Larkins' financial affairs and of course falls under the spell of Mariette Larkin.

    In my opinion these two productions suggest nothing more than tokenism disguised as “colour blind casting”. Or am I missing something?


    Why does a real [and white] historical character have to be played by an actor of colour? Should a white actor be cast to play Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? That would also be “colour-blind casting” but I can imagine the furore if such a casting decision took place.

    Why does a series based on novels set in rural Kent in the 1950s need a character played by an actor of colour? This is also an historical anachronism as it would have been extremely unlikely for a black accountant to be working in the UK at that period.

    Or is it me? Am I missing something? Are we not supposed to notice that the actor is of colour? Rather as the brilliant but octogenarian actor Ian McKellen has recently just reprised the role of Hamlet but we are not supposed to notice his age.

    I can fully understand why plays are re-imagined in other locations. An entirely black cast for an African Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar for example, or a moghul Richard III . After all Kurosawa brilliantly transferred Macbeth to feudal Japan but I do question why actors of colour are inserted into dramas for what appears to be no real apparent reason.

    I am beginning to wonder if colour-blind casting is in fact a front for a rather more distasteful aspect of paternalism with the casting of an actor of colour as nothing more than a metaphorical pat on the head to show other ethnic communities that the director, casting director, writer etc are all fully woke.


    I am just wondering when someone is going to produce a series about the Norse peoples along the lines of Vikings and have the entire cast made up of actors of colour. Or a Nazi drama with a black Hitler!
    How very non-Progressive of you!

    I agree, the current trend of casting historical white figures with black actors is nothing more than pandering. Like, why not instead make a series focusing on am actual black historic person and their lives and achievements?

    But the current far left push is that there must be black people in every show otherwise it is not "woke" - and the more the better especially if its a character who is white. (A lot of recent shows seem to particularly enjoy replacing red headed white characters from comics,, etc., with black actors).

    But, as you hinted at, the reaction would be quite different if a blackbhistorical character was played by a white actor these days. They'd blow a gasket.

    Heck, just look at recently the casting of Gal Gadot, a light-skinned Israeli actress as Cleopatra. There wad an ENORMOUS uproar on the internet by people who declared it was white-washing, and ignorantly claiming that because Egypt is in Africa, that Cleopatra was a black woman and should be played by one (apparently ignorant of her lineage). Straight up outrage over that but if one objects to "black-washing", well that's racist.
    "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
    - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post




      Or a Nazi drama with a black Hitler!


      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

        How very non-Progressive of you!

        I agree, the current trend of casting historical white figures with black actors is nothing more than pandering. Like, why not instead make a series focusing on am actual black historic person and their lives and achievements?
        Precisely. Or why not some historical dramas on the history of indigenous peoples of America, or the Chinese, or Asian people? The history of the way the Chinese were treated in Europe and the USA is particularly unpleasant.

        I find the same rather [to me rather daft] ideas surrounding gay actors and parts. If you have ever watched the BBC series Dr Who you will be aware of one of its writers, Russell T Davies. He has recently [apparently] spoken out that only gay actors should play the parts of gays. Why? It's acting. It's artifice, pretend.

        And how far does this go? Should only straight actors play straights? Only gay actors gays? Which eliminates any gay actor from playing any part in any play written by most of the playwrights across Europe and America prior to around the 1950s.

        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
        But the current far left push is that there must be black people in every show otherwise it is not "woke" - and the more the better especially if its a character who is white. (A lot of recent shows seem to particularly enjoy replacing red headed white characters from comics,, etc., with black actors).
        Who is pushing this agenda though? Are we in thrall to the Court of Public Opinion. i.e. an unrealistically influential minority on FB and Twitter?

        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
        But, as you hinted at, the reaction would be quite different if a blackbhistorical character was played by a white actor these days. They'd blow a gasket.
        Exactly but why not? If colour-blindness goes one way it also should go the other.

        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
        Heck, just look at recently the casting of Gal Gadot, a light-skinned Israeli actress as Cleopatra. There wad an ENORMOUS uproar on the internet by people who declared it was white-washing, and ignorantly claiming that because Egypt is in Africa, that Cleopatra was a black woman and should be played by one (apparently ignorant of her lineage).
        Oh for heaven's sake. That just exemplifies the pernicious spread of GI and ignorance of the history of Egypt under the Ptolemies. I just looked Ms Gadot up and even she is possibly too dark haired for the lady herself.

        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
        Straight up outrage over that but if one objects to "black-washing", well that's racist.
        The pendulum has just swung far too far one way, it has to go back to the middle ground. And of course this sort of knee-jerk behaviour simply gives fuel to the real racists.

        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Precisely. Or why not some historical dramas on the history of indigenous peoples of America, or the Chinese, or Asian people? The history of the way the Chinese were treated in Europe and the USA is particularly unpleasant.

          I find the same rather [to me rather daft] ideas surrounding gay actors and parts. If you have ever watched the BBC series Dr Who you will be aware of one of its writers, Russell T Davies. He has recently [apparently] spoken out that only gay actors should play the parts of gays. Why? It's acting. It's artifice, pretend.

          And how far does this go? Should only straight actors play straights? Only gay actors gays? Which eliminates any gay actor from playing any part in any play written by most of the playwrights across Europe and America prior to around the 1950s.
          exactly.

          Who is pushing this agenda though? Are we in thrall to the Court of Public Opinion. i.e. an unrealistically influential minority on FB and Twitter
          The CRT folks and those influenced by it in Hollywood especially, frombwhatvI can tell. And people who want to pander lest they be canceled as racist in the court of public opinion
          Exactly but why not? If colour-blindness goes one way it also should go the other.
          Why, because the other way around is racist, is what I'm told when I push back on this on Twitter, etc.

          Oh for heaven's sake. That just exemplifies the pernicious spread of GI and ignorance of the history of Egypt under the Ptolemies. I just looked Ms Gadot up and even she is possibly too dark haired for the lady herself.

          The pendulum has just swung far too far one way, it has to go back to the middle ground. And of course this sort of knee-jerk behaviour simply gives fuel to the real racists.
          yuuuuup. Some of the ignorance over Egypt comes from some historical knee-jerk revisionism with black history/culture where they try to "reclaim" their history from "the white man" and believe that white westerners destroyed Egyptian statue noses because they were "black people noses" - I've even seen some claim that the Olmec of S America were black Africans who journeyed over there. It's an overreaction and ignorance of history, sadly.
          "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
          - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            exactly.
            The CRT folks and those influenced by it in Hollywood especially, frombwhatvI can tell. And people who want to pander lest they be canceled as racist in the court of public opinion
            Why, because the other way around is racist, is what I'm told when I push back on this on Twitter, etc.
            It is completely insane. It is all part of this ludicrous "cancel culture".

            Whatever happened to being able to disagree about something without one's interlocutor subjecting one to denigrating remarks, personal abuse, and/or the threat of violence? J K Rowling and Suzanne Moore have suffered similarly at the hands of zealous fanatics.

            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            yuuuuup. Some of the ignorance over Egypt comes from some historical knee-jerk revisionism with black history/culture where they try to "reclaim" their history from "the white man" and believe that white westerners destroyed Egyptian statue noses because they were "black people noses"
            Doesn't this go back to the pan-Afrocentrism that was doing the rounds in the 90s when it was being postulated that everyone was black including Cleopatra and Socrates and that Africa [via Egyp]t was the cradle of civilisation? I think the Nubian 25th Dynasty may have unwittingly encouraged such nonsense.

            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            - I've even seen some claim that the Olmec of S America were black Africans who journeyed over there. It's an overreaction and ignorance of history, sadly.
            Oh there were and still are all sorts of crackpot theories about the Americas and who went there. The late Dr Glyn Daniel was renowned for satirising such nonsense in his editorials in Antiquity.

            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


              Doesn't this go back to the pan-Afrocentrism that was doing the rounds in the 90s when it was being postulated that everyone was black including Cleopatra and Socrates and that Africa [via Egyp]t was the cradle of civilisation? I think the Nubian 25th Dynasty may have unwittingly encouraged such nonsense.
              There was a professor at one of the Ivy League Universities (Princeton?) who had a class teaching that as well as that (you might want to brace yourself for this one) some blacks had wings and would fly around the pyramids and the like. That's was until white invaders killed them all off.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                It is completely insane. It is all part of this ludicrous "cancel culture".

                Whatever happened to being able to disagree about something without one's interlocutor subjecting one to denigrating remarks, personal abuse, and/or the threat of violence? J K Rowling and Suzanne Moore have suffered similarly at the hands of zealous fanatics.
                Agreed there
                Doesn't this go back to the pan-Afrocentrism that was doing the rounds in the 90s when it was being postulated that everyone was black including Cleopatra and Socrates and that Africa [via Egyp]t was the cradle of civilisation? I think the Nubian 25th Dynasty may have unwittingly encouraged such nonsense.
                Yep it originated there andbwith the advent of YouTube and tiktok, it has reignited with all sorts of folks pushing it and seeing it.

                Oh there were and still are all sorts of crackpot theories about the Americas and who went there. The late Dr Glyn Daniel was renowned for satirising such nonsense in his editorials in Antiquity.
                Yup. My favorite crackpot theory is the whole "Chinese discovered America" by the now-deceased Gavin Menzies.
                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  English friends inform me that on British television there recently aired a drama about Anne Boleyn [again] which cast a black actress in the title role and that also on British television a new series based on the H E Bates books The Darling Buds of May is about to air. Some may recall the original British series that launched the career of Mrs Michael Douglas aka Catherine Zeta Jones. This new production has an actor of colour playing the part of an accountant who arrives in the village to investigate the Larkins' financial affairs and of course falls under the spell of Mariette Larkin.

                  Hi HA.
                  Yeah, but the era has been changed, only the basic theme of DBoM runs through the new series. This is how it could really happen...... today. But changing Ann Boleyn's race/colour seems strange, somehow.

                  In my opinion these two productions suggest nothing more than tokenism disguised as “colour blind casting”. Or am I missing something?
                  I don't think it's a big deal. Not with DBoM anyway.

                  Why does a real [and white] historical character have to be played by an actor of colour? Should a white actor be cast to play Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? That would also be “colour-blind casting” but I can imagine the furore if such a casting decision took place.
                  The DBoM was just a kind of romantic comedy, no history in it (is there?) ... and it still can be. It could be played with an Australian geezer and an Afghan immigrant..... well, not an Ozzie, that's too much of a stretch.

                  Why does a series based on novels set in rural Kent in the 1950s need a character played by an actor of colour? This is also an historical anachronism as it would have been extremely unlikely for a black accountant to be working in the UK at that period.
                  The DBoM production has been brought up to date, I think. I live in rural Kent and our Postmaster is a Hindu, the Newspaper man is Muslim, the family over the road are Thais (Thai husband) and I'm a Tynesider .......... I don't think it grates at all.

                  Or is it me? Am I missing something? Are we not supposed to notice that the actor is of colour? Rather as the brilliant but octogenarian actor Ian McKellen has recently just reprised the role of Hamlet but we are not supposed to notice his age.
                  It doesn't matter. Once viewers get in to the series they are 'in'.

                  I can fully understand why plays are re-imagined in other locations. An entirely black cast for an African Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar for example, or a moghul Richard III . After all Kurosawa brilliantly transferred Macbeth to feudal Japan but I do question why actors of colour are inserted into dramas for what appears to be no real apparent reason.

                  If the production fails because it's got an Inuit instead of a Cockney, then the producers/directors can rethink, if they've got any money left.

                  I am beginning to wonder if colour-blind casting is in fact a front for a rather more distasteful aspect of paternalism with the casting of an actor of colour as nothing more than a metaphorical pat on the head to show other ethnic communities that the director, casting director, writer etc are all fully woke.
                  Maybe. It's possible. But with fat cats stuffing billions offshore, or a cop arresting/raping/murdering innocent a lady, or other bad stuff going round, this would be low on my 'get right' list, HA.

                  I am just wondering when someone is going to produce a series about the Norse peoples along the lines of Vikings and have the entire cast made up of actors of colour. Or a Nazi drama with a black Hitler!
                  I'm always amused when folks make Jesus films with fair haired white actors with perfect teeth. The Mel Gibson's film is what I have in mind.
                  Hell! And Braveheat made with a short American (Mel) as the (alleged) giant Wallis.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wot's this? Gond & H_A in agreement? That can't be right. Something must be wrong.




                    4Horsemen.gif


                    Shoulda known




                    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post


                    Yup. My favorite crackpot theory is the whole "Chinese discovered America" by the now-deceased Gavin Menzies.
                    That one got a lot of play in the 70s and 80s after some divers pulled up several large doughnut-shaped stones that were being called ancient Chinese anchors and linked to Chinese legends about a Buddhist monk visiting the land of "Fusang" to the west some 1500 years ago and recorded in the 600 year old "History of the Liang Dynasty" as well as the early 15th cent. fleet of Zheng He which consisted of 9-masted Junks around 300' long (for contrast, Columbus' ship the Santa Maria was only 70' long)1]].

                    But the problem is that Chinese ships were using such stones for anchors well into the 19th cent. Moreover, the fact they've been found spread over about a hundred mile area of southern California's coast makes it extremely unlikely that they came from a single ship or even a small fleet.

                    And then there is the fact an analysis of the stones found they were carved from local stone -- mostly Monterey shale.

                    Still, the claim surfaces from time to time.





                    1. He actually sailed to South Africa, but supporters of this idea point out that his trip shows that such ships existed and could have crossed the Pacific.


                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What I find funny is that there are whole articles written about why this isn't a double standard. (Google: Racebending vs Whitewashing). The funny thing is, those article almost always focus on an argument that isn't often used in specific cases. In general, they argue that it's all about job opportunities. Basically, taking a few opportunities for whites and offering them to blacks/other minorities, still leaves plenty of jobs for whites, and adds more to the other pile, which is why whitewashing is bad, it does the reverse.

                      However, when they start to arguing, they often leave that behind (or lightly mention it) and instead its about "changing the fundamental part of the character" (when whitewashing) or "providing a new and unique spin on the character" (when racebending).

                      They'll tell you it's racist if you don't think someone historically portrayed as white gets portrayed as black, then they'll tell you your racist if you cast someone white who was historically portrayed as black, regardless of their actual realness. They'll come up with every excuse to claim it's ok to make James Bond Black, or Superman Black, but none of those excuses ever matter if you cast a fictional black character as white.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Wot's this? Gond & H_A in agreement? That can't be right. Something must be wrong.

                        TWeb members in agreement pretty much across the board. Tis a miracle that puts all the combined Tokyo Godfathers' miracles in the shade.




                        That one got a lot of play in the 70s and 80s after some divers pulled up several large doughnut-shaped stones that were being called ancient Chinese anchors and linked to Chinese legends about a Buddhist monk visiting the land of "Fusang" to the west some 1500 years ago and recorded in the 600 year old "History of the Liang Dynasty"
                        Did none of these wallies notice that to get to America from China, they would have to sail east?
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post





                          Did none of these wallies notice that to get to America from China, they would have to sail east?
                          My bad.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm honestly surprised that Hyper_Alexander does not give her full-throated support for token casting. It seems like exactly the sort of thing she would ordinarily champion.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              I'm honestly surprised that Hyper_Alexander does not give her full-throated support for token casting. It seems like exactly the sort of thing she would ordinarily champion.
                              IIRC she's actually being consistent in that she has previous expressed opposition to biological men competing in women's sports and has spoken out against the crap that JK Rowling has had to put up.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                              3 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
                              2 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
                              13 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post NorrinRadd  
                              Started by whag, 10-26-2021, 11:02 PM
                              29 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by mikewhitney, 10-26-2021, 10:44 PM
                              21 responses
                              116 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Working...
                              X