BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad? [Archive]

Montmorency

02-02-2018, 21:04

i have some sympathy with the negative response to a black Bond, if only because it is likely to fixate on the trials and tribulations of a black person in british society.

the whole point of bond was that he was so supremely self assured that there was not a situation where he did not absolutely belong, a perfect social camouflage for a spy. his class and attitude allowed him to move in all circles.

if someone can make a black Bond in this style then I for one have zero objections, but i rather suspect the film would be constantly referencing micro-aggressions and trigger points. he'd probably have a whale-noise safe space in his hybrid mini car.

A movie that did that could be interesting. You have no cause to worry. A multimillion dollar (pound) production will almost certainly conform to the stale archetype you desire; why wouldn't it?

Have you ever actually seen "microaggressions" or "triggers" referenced in film, or are you reading too much tabloid content?

The outrage is off, but the pushing is soooo annoying. If you keep shoving it through peoples throat they eventually become annoyed. Everything would be better if they would stop patronising

As for question without this particular issue, political correctness has always been mad, it's mad by nature, almost cultist, I won't have any of it

So, why don't you stop being politically correct?

It is silly. I'm not gonna be outraged, I'd just ask "why?".

On the other hand, there are far more more white people playing non white roles in films and theater, and no one raises a fuss about that.

Black actors want work too.

Why do you ask? To engage into verbal frolicking again?

In case you mean business: Because it is what's "hard coded" into the myths. You aren't going to cast a young man to play Gandalf, a Siamese cat to play Lassie, a woman to play Jesus, a frog to play Jerry, a blonde to play Snowwhite...

But Jesus is a historical figure - regularly portrayed by Europeans rather than Semites - and Snow White has been and can be described with any hair color without affecting the substance of the story.

To be consistent you would need to demand that only ethnic Greeks play Ancient Greek roles, while still grumbling that you could never be sure of their genetic authenticity. In this case, mostly British actors (including the black Briton) are playing Ancient Greek roles. If you're concerned about hair color, you could advocate for a wig.

Be it star wars, dark tower, ghost busters or dr who; Time and again we have been shown that none of the people who push for these identity politic ploys are actually skilled enough to not screw it up and prove the detractors wrong.

Race baiting is the crutch of the incompetent; something tells me this will be no different.

So stop race baiting.

Fragony

02-02-2018, 21:24

Montmorency

02-02-2018, 23:43

@Monty, me pollitically correct? That's a first, I never feel all that concerned with sensitivities, maybe too less to a fault. That can be held against me without having to be very technical about it, but me politically-correct, how

You are constantly taking offense at the normal lives of "cultural Marxists", recoiling at the thought of different belief sets or the possibility that someone might challenge your own. You're extremely sensitive to the thought of someone disapproving of your lifestyle. You rely on a standardized set of language designed specifically to describe ideas you fear and don't understand.

Using "political correct" as a catch-all for people who have different social priorities would be a good example of political correctness.

Greyblades

02-03-2018, 01:24

So stop race baiting.

You dont know what race baiting is.

Not that such matters; what is important is you have taken a swipe not that you have actually connected, the attempt is enough to earn your well deserved back pat.

Montmorency

02-03-2018, 03:41

You dont know what race baiting is.

Not that such matters; what is important is you have taken a swipe not that you have actually connected, the attempt is enough to earn your well deserved back pat.

Race baiting is a racialized worldview that nurses grievance over the expression of diversity in public life and work.

Race baiting is exactly a function of the kind of thinking your post above indulges in.

Husar

02-03-2018, 04:49

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/race-baiting

the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people

From the comments:

Race-baiting includes defaulting to ad hominem characterisations of your opponent as racist in a debate. The key is that race is brought into a discussion that has no inherent connection to race, in order to influence the outcome.That's not what race-baiting really means; that's how many people use it now, typically conservatives, as a way to remove the actual meaning from the words and use it against their political opponents. Race-baiting has always been typically associated with politics or public discourse, but it's about inciting racial hatred and antagonism by using coded language or slurs, not calling someone a racist or bringing up and condemning someone's racist views. Right wingers managed to muddy up the meaning so much that Bill O'Reilly, whose show is largely premised on race-baiting, throws the term around constantly without the slightest hint of irony. There was apparently a concerted, long-term effort by conservatives to remove the real meaning from the term so they could co-opt it and turn it around on liberals, which is actually a fairly common tactic in conservative politics (see the words: liberal, socialist, welfare, entitlement).

I'm just gonna bet right here that some alt-rightey-whiteys in this thread don't even know what race-baiting really means as per the second comment.

Fragony

02-03-2018, 05:37

You are constantly taking offense at the normal lives of "cultural Marxists", recoiling at the thought of different belief sets or the possibility that someone might challenge your own. You're extremely sensitive to the thought of someone disapproving of your lifestyle. You rely on a standardized set of language designed specifically to describe ideas you fear and don't understand.

Using "political correct" as a catch-all for people who have different social priorities would be a good example of political correctness.

I never say 'cultural marxists' your mind must be playing tricks on you. It isn't there, it's not real...

As for the rest, well you are wrong, that's all. Having people from various cultures and ethnicities here is a given to me, not a persuit. That's the difference between me and multicultists, I don't care

spmetla

02-03-2018, 05:52

Has right-wing tribal political correctness gone mad? It certainly has in my opinion, we can't really accommodate every special snowflake, so insecure about itself that confuses the sons of fictional deities with US Presidents in order to improve their self-confidence.

Wouldn't you say it's gone mad on both sides? If white actors play the roles of other races then movies are being 'white washed' if minorities are added to a national myth that didn't include them it's pandering to the multi-culturalists. There are snowflakes on both sides being offended. If it's okay to complain about a movie being too white when it's about whites then why isn't it okay to complain about that same movie having minorities added in just to avert the earlier claim. When done in reverse people cry foul at cultural appropriation. Appropriating a Hellenic deity and changing his race is bound to draw criticism, especially if it isn't for any artistic reasons but just one of multi-culturalism in BBC programming. It doesn't make it wrong to do but it doesn't make the critics of it racist either.
If Shaka Zulu was recast as a white Zulu leading the zulu to empire would that be cultural appropriation or racist?

Iranians weren't too happy with how the 300 portrayed their ancestors either.

Artists can do whatever they like to when creating their art but people are allowed to criticize too. I think Ran was an excellent and amazing retelling of King Lear. The Magnificent Seven was an entertaining rework of Seven Samurai.

It needs to stop asap or otherwise an Orwellian future awaits us, where any means of expression will be censored by the plague of right-wing political correctness, always eager to silence any voice that challenges its dogmatic narrative.
To denounce and oppress anyone voicing opposition to portrayals of what's considered someones cultural heritage is Orwellian as well. To mandate multi-culturalism for no reason but social engineering can be as a form of racism in it's assuming the portrayal of only a single race in film as wrong and something to be fixed.

Montmorency

02-03-2018, 08:35

I never say 'cultural marxists' your mind must be playing tricks on you. It isn't there, it's not real...

I am not going to use words like social marxism for obvious reasons. let turn things around, can you explain to me how multiculturalism was a good idea

Huh, I suppose you didn't. You used "gutmensch (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/search.php?searchid=2654551&pp=)".

As for the rest, well you are wrong, that's all. Having people from various cultures and ethnicities here is a given to me, not a persuit.

You see, I never made a claim as to your feelings on "[h]aving people from various cultures and ethnicities" (though you yourself have made your feelings clear about 'inbred goatherders come off the mountain'). I made a claim on how you frame discussions related to them.

That's the difference between me and multicultists, I don't care

So why doth the lady protest so much then? 'There are multicultists out there complaining about something, I won't say what, but here I am complaining about them complaining about something I definitely don't care about. Whatever it is they're complaining about, which I'm sure they are doing, something I know for sure isn't worth talking about.' We see this kind of post from you pretty consistently.

Here's the thing, spmetla:

Shaka Zulu was not only an African historical figure we know of, he was a historical figure in conflict with white Europeans. Maybe you could do anything with "experimental" film, but it's difficult to even imagine.

300 the movie and the graphic novel were deeply racist and chauvinist, absolutely - that was the whole point of the production. The author was trying to portray a Western mythology, as conceived in opposition to "the East". The aesthetic and themes of 300 make perfect sense in that context. Is it bad for the world? Probably. Does it have merit as a film, a comic, a work of art? Sure, so did Birth of a Nation. But you have to ask yourself when examining cultural products, "What is the aim and intent here?"

King Lear/Ran and Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven are in principle excellent examples of cultural exchange, the trouble is in the details of production.

The most trenchant criticism of "whitewashing" is that it deprives, at the backend, actors of work, and at the frontend, audiences of stories and models. This is difficult to dispute, although you can debate what the right balance is. It's not that straight people can't play gay people, or white people can't play ancient Israelites or Egyptians, or cis men can't play trans men (or trans women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Conway) for that matter), etc... it's that these groups have been given short shrift in the marketplace, so it's good to make an effort to include them. And furthermore, tokenism is not inclusion. So here it makes sense to point out that 'palette swapping', i.e. rehashing old ideas with minority or underrepresented groups is a misuse of potential, the potential for these groups to tell and produce stories that weren't told before , not before a wide audience. Therein lies the value, the innovation. This is the forest, and I hope you keep it in mind when among the trees of controversy over particular casting choices for particular movies or shows.

Fragony

02-03-2018, 08:43

@Monty, I only have problem with those who care too much. Multiculturalism is a dangerous form of social-constructivism, patronising some, activating for others, the determinse will determine, there is nothing to gain from it, only drive apart. If you put someone on ones lap all he knows is that he can't get up

edit, kinda related but not worth a thread yet but it could. We have this rising star here, Theirry Boudet, he's becomming a bit of an issue as he's very popular among the more libertarian-minded higher educated electorate. So a threat, and it shows. It's the demonisation of Fortuyn allover again. Feminists hate him because of something they say he said (a character in his novel said it read Houellebeque ffs, called a racist because of what (a black himself) person said, an elderly men who flyered got attacked by 'antifacists'. Crazy.... Leftist isn't something you are, it's something you have. Period.

Gilrandir

02-03-2018, 12:50

But Jesus is a historical figure - regularly portrayed by Europeans rather than Semites

They at least look Semitic and not Scandinavian or Irish.

- and Snow White has been and can be described with any hair color without affecting the substance of the story.

To be consistent you would need to demand that only ethnic Greeks play Ancient Greek roles, while still grumbling that you could never be sure of their genetic authenticity. In this case, mostly British actors (including the black Briton) are playing Ancient Greek roles. If you're concerned about hair color, you could advocate for a wig.

This all closely bears on the notion of presupposition. It is the information which isn't explicitly present in the meaning of a linguistic unit (a phrase, a sentence, an utterance, a text, sometimes even a word), but which can be surmised by the listener.

Presuppositions can be lingusitic and cultural. Linguistic presuppostition supply the implicit information which can be deduced from the linguistic unit itself. The famous example is The king of France is bald and the preuspposition is "Modern France is ruled by the king". (Mind you, it is not about the informartion being true or false, but about what can be elicited from the meaning of the sentence).

Cultural presuppositions are close to stereotypes as they contain implicit information shared by all the representatives of the same culture. For example Yesterday we decorated our Christmas tree contains three presuppositions:
1. A linguistic one - the action is performed some time before Christmas.
2. A cultural one - the "we" are Christians (or belong to Christian social tradition).
3. Another cultural one - Typologically the Christmas tree is a coniferous one - stereotypically a fir tree, but not exclusively (in Ukraine many people (including myself) prefer pine trees since they last longer as the tree is put up before the New Year (around December 27 - 30) and is kept at least till January 14 (the so called Old New Year) or even until Epiphany (January 19)).

Now cultural presuppositions hold unless it is specified otherwise. For example, all characters in Shakespeare's plays are white by default - the contemporary English society was monoracial. The only exception (I know of) is Othello - and it is specifically mentioned (it is true that according to modern standards a Moor (an Arab) would be considered white, but not so in Shakespeare's time evidently).

When we speak of Greek mythology (created by a monoracial society), all its human protagonists are white by default and have Greek names. That at least should be kept in the movie which claims to relate the Greek myths. The same approach should be expected from those who make a movie based on African mythology - only black characters and African names, on Chinese mythology - only Chinese characters and Mandarin names, etc. Of course you can name the chief Greek god Kim Jong Un and cast Jackie Chan to play him - but that wouldn't have much to do with Greek mythology.

You might as well adopt a broader approach and do whatever you want with myths or any other fiction making them into movies, but that will look like Joey Trebbiani from Friends who was offered a part in The tale of two cities (after Dickens) and decided to pick cities himself - he chose New York and LA (IIRC). I don't like such unorthodox experiments.

Sarmatian

02-03-2018, 13:56

Why would you cast a Chinese actor to play a Korean? Why? They all look the same to you, is that it?

You racist!

Gilrandir

02-03-2018, 14:13

Why would you cast a Chinese actor to play a Korean? Why? They all look the same to you, is that it?

You racist!

Such an attentive reader as you are could have missed my suggestion to cast a Chinese to play the chief Greek god.

Husar

02-03-2018, 18:33

chief Greek god.

That was a Korean plant to mislead the Greeks!

Seamus Fermanagh

02-03-2018, 18:35

Are not all of these artistic efforts being marketed to the public? It would seem to this lover of reasonably regulated capitalism to be a self correcting concern.

Fragony

02-03-2018, 18:48

Are not all of these artistic efforts being marketed to the public? It would seem to this lover of reasonably regulated capitalism to be a self correcting concern.

The BBC is a state runned channel, no capitalism involved. They feel the need to unwash the unwashed

rory_20_uk

02-03-2018, 20:17

The BBC is a state runned channel, no capitalism involved. They feel the need to unwash the unwashed

That ended decades ago. No longer. Pandering to the lowest common denominator appears to be the modus operandi.

~:smoking:

Fragony

02-03-2018, 20:32

That ended decades ago. No longer. Pandering to the lowest common denominator appears to be the modus operandi.

~:smoking:

Heh, here as well a qui bono thingie.

Sarmatian

02-03-2018, 22:42

Such an attentive reader as you are could have missed my suggestion to cast a Chinese to play the chief Greek god.

It was a joke, relax.

Montmorency

02-03-2018, 23:08

When we speak of Greek mythology (created by a monoracial society), all its human protagonists are white by default and have Greek names. That at least should be kept in the movie which claims to relate the Greek myths. The same approach should be expected from those who make a movie based on African mythology - only black characters and African names, on Chinese mythology - only Chinese characters and Mandarin names, etc. Of course you can name the chief Greek god Kim Jong Un and cast Jackie Chan to play him - but that wouldn't have much to do with Greek mythology.

You might as well adopt a broader approach and do whatever you want with myths or any other fiction making them into movies, but that will look like Joey Trebbiani from Friends who was offered a part in The tale of two cities (after Dickens) and decided to pick cities himself - he chose New York and LA (IIRC). I don't like such unorthodox experiments.

But you still have Achilles - not "Kim Jong Un" or anyone else. Same could apply to any other mythological movie.

"Unorthodox experiments" like [updated Tale of Two Cities] are how we got Shakespeare's works. You have too limited an imagination.

Are not all of these artistic efforts being marketed to the public? It would seem to this lover of reasonably regulated capitalism to be a self correcting concern.

I don't know if it works in the end (and there are many counterexamples), but one of the better cases for a unique redeemable trait in capitalism is an overall trend toward self-interested diversity. Maybe. Or it could be no trend at all, a seduction of superficiality proactive in the wake of efficacious governmental direct action. But it's a potential angle to probe.

EDIT: You know Fragony, it's very hard to extract from you what you believe, let alone why you believe it. Between the constant contradictions, handwaving, crypticism and self-overruling, all one can divine is that you dislike "leftists" for whatever it is they do.

Husar

02-03-2018, 23:19

one of the better cases for a unique redeemable trait in capitalism is an overall trend toward self-interested diversity

In areas that don't threaten the concentration of wealth only. And they're a perfect distraction from......eh....whatever I just mentioned. :sweatdrop:

Gilrandir

02-04-2018, 07:18

It was a joke, relax.

Thanks to Husar's joke/sarcasm detection free lessons I had got that, so my reply was rather relaxed.

But you still have Achilles - not "Kim Jong Un" or anyone else. Same could apply to any other mythological movie.

"Unorthodox experiments" like [updated Tale of Two Cities] are how we got Shakespeare's works. You have too limited an imagination.

I'm just for more orthodox approach to filming what was written by others.

spmetla

02-04-2018, 08:58

Here's the thing, spmetla:
Shaka Zulu was not only an African historical figure we know of, he was a historical figure in conflict with white Europeans. Maybe you could do anything with "experimental" film, but it's difficult to even imagine.

300 the movie and the graphic novel were deeply racist and chauvinist, absolutely - that was the whole point of the production. The author was trying to portray a Western mythology, as conceived in opposition to "the East". The aesthetic and themes of 300 make perfect sense in that context. Is it bad for the world? Probably. Does it have merit as a film, a comic, a work of art? Sure, so did Birth of a Nation. But you have to ask yourself when examining cultural products, "What is the aim and intent here?"

King Lear/Ran and Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven are in principle excellent examples of cultural exchange, the trouble is in the details of production.

The most trenchant criticism of "whitewashing" is that it deprives, at the backend, actors of work, and at the frontend, audiences of stories and models. This is difficult to dispute, although you can debate what the right balance is. It's not that straight people can't play gay people, or white people can't play ancient Israelites or Egyptians, or cis men can't play trans men (or trans women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Conway) for that matter), etc... it's that these groups have been given short shrift in the marketplace, so it's good to make an effort to include them. And furthermore, tokenism is not inclusion. So here it makes sense to point out that 'palette swapping', i.e. rehashing old ideas with minority or underrepresented groups is a misuse of potential, the potential for these groups to tell and produce stories that weren't told before , not before a wide audience. Therein lies the value, the innovation. This is the forest, and I hope you keep it in mind when among the trees of controversy over particular casting choices for particular movies or shows.

My examples of Seven Samurai and King Lears show two fine examples of many of how cultures borrow things and adapt to figures they understand. The example of Jesus was brought up and he's portrayed many ways across the world as black, asian, european and semetic. Each ethnic group tends to do that and it's not wrong for them is it? Heck it caused a split early on even for Christians when the Roman Empire appropriated took it for themselves and codified in a way that the Copts and Syriac Christians couldn't identify with either.

Why should whitewashing of roles matter in a majority white country? I don't expect to see caucasians and hispanics in Chinese and Japanese mythical epic movies and it'd be silly to see them put in just to pander. My primary objection to your objection is that you cry foul and call people racists just for not wanting what they see as their common European heritage from the Greeks changed in a way they aren't comfortable. I don't denounce the casting, it's just a silly pandering ploy. I do however condemn that opposition to pandering multiculturalism is being equivocated with being racist. There is a common European Cultural heritage that is usually seen as starting with the Greeks (Homer, Herodotus). Some may want to believe in there being no such thing as culture and heritage which is fine as a personal choice but it is not right to deny people their opinions on what they see as their cultural in the name of multi-culturalism. Doing that as is being done now only feeds the far right in their xenophobia and their opposition to any tolerance of other cultures.

Denying actors of work is a strange charge. If there were apartheid type laws that systematically denied people roles based on race you might have a point but that is not the case. This is actually a case for the free-market fixing it as opposed specific government policy. Travel to any part of the US Southwest and you'll find plenty of Spanish language news, soap-operas, sports etc... Why? Because there's enough of a population for it to be profitable to do so. I know the BBC is government funded and as such it should attempt when reasonable to appeal to all Britons. Creating programming that might actually appeal to that target minority program instead of just casting token minorities is probably a better way. Think modern Disney in it's targeted movies (Aladdin, Moana, Mulan) or Netflix and Amazon in the new regional content the now create. So long as the production value is decent and there aren't subtitles such movies are usually well received in Western countries.
There are no shortage of role models in other cultures stories and legends as well. Why not portray those instead of just lazily adding in the same 'token minority' roles you yourself denounced. Good role models and stories can appeal to diverse audiences without having to pander to them by casting token roles either.

The method of just having a happy spread of demographics that fill no role besides checking the minority box is a lazy and wholly odd form of multi-culturalism. Why instead of celebrating the differences that make people and their culture and heritage unique must we pretend that their are no differences. Pretending to be color blind in casting choices is just pandering and okay in and of itself, some actors can so transcend an already stereotypical role that they squash criticism through the quality of their acting (Morgan Freeman as God).

Note: Shaka Zulu predates the Zulus you're thinking of in that he founded the Zulu Empire that later on resisted the British and Afrikaners. .

CrossLOPER

02-04-2018, 22:27

As for question without this particular issue, political correctness has always been mad, it's mad by nature, almost cultist, I won't have any of it

alt-right, you really love that word don't ya, it's meaningless

https://youtu.be/Q_4bp8bBNVw

Montmorency

02-05-2018, 01:29

Why should whitewashing of roles matter in a majority white country? I don't expect to see caucasians and hispanics in Chinese and Japanese mythical epic movies and it'd be silly to see them put in just to pander.

Here we ask, what are the differences in demographics between Japan and America? I think you agree that American minorities get to participate in politics and economic life. Unless you believe they should 'stick to their station' whatever the tacit meaning of that is, you should support a broad social negotiation.

My primary objection to your objection is that you cry foul and call people racists just for not wanting what they see as their common European heritage from the Greeks changed in a way they aren't comfortable. I don't denounce the casting, it's just a silly pandering ploy. I do however condemn that opposition to pandering multiculturalism is being equivocated with being racist. There is a common European Cultural heritage that is usually seen as starting with the Greeks (Homer, Herodotus). Some may want to believe in there being no such thing as culture and heritage which is fine as a personal choice but it is not right to deny people their opinions on what they see as their cultural in the name of multi-culturalism. Doing that as is being done now only feeds the far right in their xenophobia and their opposition to any tolerance of other cultures.

"Western" heritage is very much a state-sponsored invention of the collectivizing modern age, that's neither here nor there. "Western culture" real, it's just more complicated and contrived than you let on. But why do some feel uncomfortable with these casting choices? What is it they see as their heritage that's being threatened or impugned by this casting? I think "some" have a tendency to feel that having their preconceived social organization challenged is a personal attack, and if so then the liability may rest with them.

Denying actors of work is a strange charge. If there were apartheid type laws that systematically denied people roles based on race you might have a point but that is not the case.

It isn't my charge, and here I think you make a common oversight in overvaluing the presence or absence of explicit legal barriers relative to substantive participation and representation. This is a fundamental assumption that separates worldviews, so of course it applies to everything beyond the current topic.

This is actually a case for the free-market fixing it as opposed specific government policy. Travel to any part of the US Southwest and you'll find plenty of Spanish language news, soap-operas, sports etc... Why? Because there's enough of a population for it to be profitable to do so. I know the BBC is government funded and as such it should attempt when reasonable to appeal to all Britons. Creating programming that might actually appeal to that target minority program instead of just casting token minorities is probably a better way. Think modern Disney in it's targeted movies (Aladdin, Moana, Mulan) or Netflix and Amazon in the new regional content the now create. So long as the production value is decent and there aren't subtitles such movies are usually well received in Western countries.
There are no shortage of role models in other cultures stories and legends as well. Why not portray those instead of just lazily adding in the same 'token minority' roles you yourself denounced. Good role models and stories can appeal to diverse audiences without having to pander to them by casting token roles either.

That's pretty close to what I said; I don't think we disagree. The point is just that more and different kinds of people participating in the creative process is good for everyone. As an example, look at the improvements Disney made to Moana in iterating over (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARX0-AylFI) Pocahantas.

The method of just having a happy spread of demographics that fill no role besides checking the minority box is a lazy and wholly odd form of multi-culturalism. Why instead of celebrating the differences that make people and their culture and heritage unique must we pretend that their are no differences. Pretending to be color blind in casting choices is just pandering and okay in and of itself, some actors can so transcend an already stereotypical role that they squash criticism through the quality of their acting (Morgan Freeman as God).

1. I agree that we shouldn't pander, but include. Filling quotas and formulating broad appeal is not the object (outside the offices of producers and executives).
2. Having random roles filled with non-whites is not in itself pandering, and it's not a good sign to take it so. Sufficient prolonged institutional presence is what will get us what we want to see in the movie/TV business.
3. If you want less pandering, you want more people who aren't straight, white, middle-aged, Christian, men in places of creative decision-making and positions of performance on-screen.

Note: Shaka Zulu predates the Zulus you're thinking of in that he founded the Zulu Empire that later on resisted the British and Afrikaners. .

I thought he had also warred with the settlers, but it looks like they weren't at that stage yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka

spmetla

02-05-2018, 04:53

"Western" heritage is very much a state-sponsored invention of the collectivizing modern age, that's neither here nor there. "Western culture" real, it's just more complicated and contrived than you let on.

I strongly disagree in it being a state-sponsored invention. Since the middle ages people have looked back to 'their' collective at the influence and achievements of the Greeks and Romans and sought to emulate them. They've been the basis of our legal codes and history, they created the economic system that tied the Mediterranean and Europe together. No shortage of other cultures and civilizations have impact and influence on Europe but none near so universally influential to nearly all of Europe. Even nations that were never Roman or Greek such such Russia looked to these ancient civilizations for inspiration.
Modern Western culture is very complicated, I fully agree. As for contrived, multi-culturalism as seen since 1960s and 1970s is better described as such then being Western. Grouping us into the West or Occident and others into the Near East, Middle East, and the Orient has been around for centuries.
Because it was contrived in the shadow of the horror of the Holocaust and the era of de-colonialism it is very closely tied to a culture of white guilt. Multi-culturalism is also very much of a state-sponsored movement as well because only through legislation such as civil rights reforms, discrimination lawsuits and so on was it possible to stop and retard the endemic culture of white supremacy in all of Europe.

But why do some feel uncomfortable with these casting choices? What is it they see as their heritage that's being threatened or impugned by this casting? I think "some" have a tendency to feel that having their preconceived social organization challenged is a personal attack, and if so then the liability may rest with them.
Some feel uncomfortable because we can safely assume that some are racist (overtly or closet) and don't want any minorities on TV. The vast majority I'll assume just see it as completely unnecessary pandering to multi-culturalism. A tiny minority of the offended might actually be ethnic Greeks that see that as their direct cultural legacy and want someone that might actually look somewhat Greek (or at the least European) in the role.
Regardless of their reasons they are entitled to them and are allowed to protest.
To quote the article that was linked as the more sober one:

Here are some of the responses by social media users:

o Homer in the Iliad repeatedly describes Achilles as “blonde” and “golden”-haired
o Africans had nothing to do with Greek mythology or ancient European history. Who in their right mind could see and enjoy this new TV series?
o This is blatant racism towards Greek people, and I am shocked by the audacity of the BBC to try and rewrite Greek history.
o Question, would anyone be mad if I made movie about US history, and actor playing Obama would be white?

Which of the above is an unreasonable grievance? The fourth bullet is like many of the examples I've made, if the situation was reversed for a similar figure in another culture it would not be unreasonable for the people of that other culture to be offended. Why must we label all that oppose such casting as facists, alt-right racists? Some may be but to paint all with that brush is unfair and unnecessary.
Multi-culturism is not supposed to be the thought police, people are entitled to opinions. To attack and label those that have legitimate reasons as such is equally fascist in imposing a narrow and dogmatic view of what views are acceptable.

spmetla

02-05-2018, 05:05

Delete Please double post

Suraknar

02-05-2018, 08:41

Hello all, I do not post often but I would like to share my position and thinking here.

My take and feelings about this whole affair is somehow complicated.

From one side I am all for multiculturalism. In fact I consider all Humans who breath and live upon this planet to be of the same race. So racial differences as described by 17th-18th-19th century ideologies do not exist and are erroneous and invalid. We know much better today with the advent of Genetics and the decoding of the Human Genome sequence, in 1999-2000.

Furthermore, through several Genographic projects notably the one from National Geographic, we also know that all Humans on the planet today originate from Africa. So going back 60,000 years some small group of Afriicans embarked on a journey and some 15,000 years later the descendants of this group were entering Europe from the Caucasus. The oldest such evidence found in present day Romania.

From there all of Europe was populated at the same time as the far reaches of Asia and soon after the Americas.

There is clear evidence and genetic confirmation for all this, it is not just a hypothesis (or in American, just a Theory). Heck today after 17 or so years of Genographics we even discovered that Humans outside of Africa harbor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in their Genomes. Yet Africans do not, making them the purest Homo Sapiens Sapiens if you will (talk about purity Ideology eh? hehe) Suffice it to say the fact that Africans do not have this percentage of mixed DNA is further evidence of an African Origin, as neither Neanderthals nor Denisovans existed in Africa.

I have nothing (obviously) against African people I accept the fact and my own heritage as a human being and own ancestral Origin according to the best tool that we have available to us for finding truth. Science. And it tells us that we are all brothers and sisters upon this planet, no matter our superficial external differences. We all share 99.9% the same genetics.

Even if I was not aware of all this, I had the opportunity to travel much in my life (and still do), and from all my travels I have come to the same conclusion. No matter our apparent differences we are all equally humans and all the same race.

As such, from this perspective, having, some African looking actors (Achilles, Zeus and Aeneas) fill in a role in a movie is really not a big deal, since we are all equal as human beings, maybe different but still equal. It then becomes as question of Art. It is an artistic choice to choose the actor regardless of their origin on the planet that according to the producers directors and casting crew would best fit the role.

---

On the other side. Troy was part of the Mycenaean Hellenic period. There is archaeological evidence that confirms this. There is also Archaeological evidence that confirms the other Greek cities of the Mycenaean period who waged war on Troy.

Its epic was transferred through oral tradition (which was common in the ancient world) all the way to the resurgence of civilization in the area after a dark period 1100-800 BCE. In that course and in the tradition of ancient peoples Stories got intermingled with faith and supernatural events or feats. Nevertheless, what is important here is that this is part of the History of a people. And it is not "just a Myth" as some have put it, not surprisingly some personalities in Hollywood even. A very ignorant view if you ask me.

Furthermore, the source material of the story the series will depict is Homer who specifically gave physical descriptions of the various protagonists of this Epic. And what about all the archaeological evidence of images or other figures of the story?

Science shows us that we are all connected and equal yet, and the producers most probably use this as I did above to make an artistic decision, yet, then the producers disregard science in the portrayal of the History of a people. The reaction is normal.

Some say it is racism, I think by now that my position on that is clear, and I do not subscribe to this view.

Then we have the question of ignorance, like expressed in the OP and I am inclined to agree at first glance. But is it possible that with all the money invested in making this series they could not hire proper researchers and do research.

And it is not even political in my opinion. It has nothing to do with left or right agendas etc.

So if it is not racism and if it is not ignorance or politics then what is it? Well, I think it is simply "business". It is Greed.

We are using the History of a people and altering it in order to market an entertainment product to a broader audience with the goal to generate profit. It all comes down to Money and Greed for it. Plain and simple.

Yet this is also why I take great offense to it. The merchandising of the history of a people, the misrepresentation of it in favor of profit.

The root cause of all evil, conflict strife and suffering in the world really is Greed and Lust for Power.

And the producers here, once again, confirm it.

Really a shame and it is on them.

AE Bravo

02-05-2018, 08:56

https://i.imgur.com/N4u8gtU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Q680cC0.jpg
But really the biggest problem with movies like these has more to do with them being hot garbage.

Greyblades

02-05-2018, 15:24

Cleopatra was macedonian greek. In fact her dynasty was so determined not to mix with the north Africans tbe family tree literally became a ladder.

Crandar

02-05-2018, 15:36

Seamus Fermanagh

02-05-2018, 15:39

Cleopatra was macedonian greek. In fact her dynasty was so determined not to mix with the north Africans tbe family tree literally became a ladder.

They adopted the sibling marriages crap which narrowed the ladder. But you are absolutely correct that they did not mix with the locals. Cleopatra VII (the one with Roman friends) was the only ruler of the dynasty who ever learned to speak Egyptian fully.

Greyblades

02-05-2018, 16:39

Then why didn't they mix with their fellow Greeks and Macedonians? The true reason was that they protected their family's right to monopolize royal power, nothing to do with racial purity.

By the way, modern Greek Macedonians look much closer to Egyptians than Elizabeth Taylor. I am more dark-skinned than her and I was still called as albino and malnourished in school.

They did mix with the other macedonians, first two generations of ptolemys dynasty married princesses of the other successor states, ptolemy the 8th had a kid with a selucid, problem was the other kingdoms of egypts level didnt last as long as the ptolemys and they didnt allways have princesses to hand even when they were willing to risk the monopoly. And it wasnt racial it was a class and cultural issue; they did not even consider their own macedonian egyptian nobility as worthy breeding stock.

As for skin tone she was greek royalty; her base skintone was white and the chances of her developing a tan was minimal deliberately so. If anything the greatest innacuracy is the facial structure more than anything, the real cleopatra likely wasnt that attractive.

Crandar

02-05-2018, 17:29

They did mix with the other macedonians, first two generations of ptolemys dynasty married princesses of the other successor states, ptolemy the 8th had a kid with a selucid, problem was the other kingdoms of egypts level didnt last as long as the ptolemys and they didnt allways have princesses to hand even when they were willing to risk the monopoly. And it wasnt racial it was a class and cultural issue; they did not even consider their own macedonian egyptian nobility as worthy breeding stock.
The Seleucids lasted as long as Ptolemy XII, so that doesn't sound as a very valid reason. The marriages with the other royal houses were the results of diplomatic endeavours. The two Berenices were related to the annexation of Cyrene and Cleopatra was imposed to Ptolemy V by Antiochus after his crushing military victory. All the rest was intermarriage that cannot be explained by the alleged absence of acceptable candidates nor does any text justify it as Lagid elitism.
If you speak French, I recommend you the works of Anne-Emmanuelle Veisee about the subject.

Husar

02-05-2018, 17:58

But did she flush? ~:confused:

Did I mention that I like Tarantino movies because he often uses race-accurate actors?
E.g. in Inglorious Bastards, I knew half the German soldiers from German TV shows, made me feel at home and root for the Germans. :2thumbsup:

Sarmatian

02-05-2018, 18:14

That's true. What was the German actor name? The main villain. He played the good guy in Django Unchained and Tarantino had him play a German even there.

Crandar

02-05-2018, 19:22

Tarantino always portrays his protagonists as jerkish bullies, so I always root for the antagonists, be it Germans in France, landowners in the South or Confederate generals in a blizzard.

Fragony

02-05-2018, 19:53

That's true. What was the German actor name? The main villain. He played the good guy in Django Unchained and Tarantino had him play a German even there.

Something Waltz. Great actor. Forgot the name of the movie but he's absolutily brilliant in a movie about a dinner gone wrong.

Husar

02-05-2018, 22:20

Sarmatian

02-05-2018, 22:32

Christoph Waltz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Waltz).

A great actor, but not a German, he's an Austrian.
The difference, while usually negligible, becomes very important when nationalism or the 3rd Reich are part of the discussion. :sweatdrop:

Same difference.

Other than Austrians being more cultured because they were in contact with Serbs, it's the same thing

CrossLOPER

02-05-2018, 22:39

Cleopatra was macedonian greek. In fact her dynasty was so determined not to mix with the north Africans tbe family tree literally became a ladder.

That's the way native Egyptians did it at the time, and consanguinity is common among "elite families" throughout time.

Fragony

02-05-2018, 22:45

Christoph Waltz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Waltz).

A great actor, but not a German, he's an Austrian.
The difference, while usually negligible, becomes very important when nationalism or the 3rd Reich are part of the discussion. :sweatdrop:

Oh forget about it, we all have moodswings sometimes

Crandar

02-05-2018, 23:01

That's the way native Egyptians did it at the time, and consanguinity is common among "elite families" throughout time.
Not really. The Egyptian tradition argument is a myth, originated from Orientalists obsessed with the exotic East. Last royal brother sister couple was 1.000 years before the Lagids. In various periods, that used to be a small trend among commoners, but not during the Hellenistic era.

Suraknar

02-06-2018, 01:26

Way to derail a thread from its OP. We now are talking about Cleopatra..lol

No matter what people did or thought hundreds of years ago, the fact remains that we are all the same and we all came form Africa. Now along the way of that journey, we established own traditions within the societies and communities that formed over time. And these are today what we call our Cultures and so called Ethnicity..and each groups journey through time is called History.

In reality however we are all one race. The Human Race. The problem with movies like these is the disregard of the Journey, called History. Which in my opinion is made simply for money.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2018, 01:54

That's true. What was the German actor name? The main villain. He played the good guy in Django Unchained and Tarantino had him play a German even there.

He's the latest Bond Blofeld as well. Wonderful actor. Christoph Waltz

Montmorency

02-06-2018, 03:56

I strongly disagree in it being a state-sponsored invention. Since the middle ages people have looked back to 'their' collective at the influence and achievements of the Greeks and Romans and sought to emulate them. They've been the basis of our legal codes and history, they created the economic system that tied the Mediterranean and Europe together. No shortage of other cultures and civilizations have impact and influence on Europe but none near so universally influential to nearly all of Europe. Even nations that were never Roman or Greek such such Russia looked to these ancient civilizations for inspiration.
Modern Western culture is very complicated, I fully agree. As for contrived, multi-culturalism as seen since 1960s and 1970s is better described as such then being Western. Grouping us into the West or Occident and others into the Near East, Middle East, and the Orient has been around for centuries.
Because it was contrived in the shadow of the horror of the Holocaust and the era of de-colonialism it is very closely tied to a culture of white guilt. Multi-culturalism is also very much of a state-sponsored movement as well because only through legislation such as civil rights reforms, discrimination lawsuits and so on was it possible to stop and retard the endemic culture of white supremacy in all of Europe.

Ok, let's treat this separately. If you identify Western culture as a Greco-Roman endowment, then you can acknowledge that this is much more to do modern state-making than the fluctuations of local communities. Medieval rulers tried to arrogate the legacy of Roman law and empire to themselves. The Renaissance nobility and the mavens they patronized monumentalized a semi-mythic Greco-Roman antiquity to justify their endeavours and philosophies. The preserved body of literary and historical work from that era became the basis for learning in partial displacement of the Bible and ecclesiastic institutions. In the event, this was effectively a project of aristocrats, priests, and other elites, not an evolution of rooted common practices. In the early modern age the idea of "Occident" and "Orient" were cultivated as intellectual and ideological projects by "learned gentlemen" and scholars trying to explain the European states against each other, and the place of European states or peoples collectively in the world. By the end of the 19th century, massive collectivization in Western national states and the advent of universal state-sponsored schooling led to the inculcation and diffusion of collated "Western" ideas as such to the general population. That's what I mean when I say what we understand as "Western culture" is a state-sponsored invention. This is not to say that all European culture of the past 1500 years has been a product of ruling-class machinations - rather that organic European cultures over time are not teleological and revisionist in the way that the "Western" construct is, even as the two categories influenced each other at multiple stages. It is of course also correct to remark that contemporary social policies are governmental, that's by definition; it's not controversial to point out that government plays and has played an active role in shaping, directly or otherwise, people's beliefs and behaviors. (Maybe the bigger lesson here is a reminder of just how significant and influential states have been in the development of the human condition.)

Some feel uncomfortable because we can safely assume that some are racist (overtly or closet) and don't want any minorities on TV. The vast majority I'll assume just see it as completely unnecessary pandering to multi-culturalism. A tiny minority of the offended might actually be ethnic Greeks that see that as their direct cultural legacy and want someone that might actually look somewhat Greek (or at the least European) in the role.
Regardless of their reasons they are entitled to them and are allowed to protest.

Sure, and others will contest them. All said, it's hard to take seriously because on one hand you have mild discomfort or indignation, and on the other you have actual people restricted in their work because "it's unnecessary to include actors who aren't white". Is it a question of sympathies?

To quote the article that was linked as the more sober one:

Here are some of the responses by social media users:

o Homer in the Iliad repeatedly describes Achilles as “blonde” and “golden”-haired
o Africans had nothing to do with Greek mythology or ancient European history. Who in their right mind could see and enjoy this new TV series?
o This is blatant racism towards Greek people, and I am shocked by the audacity of the BBC to try and rewrite Greek history.
o Question, would anyone be mad if I made movie about US history, and actor playing Obama would be white?

Which of the above is an unreasonable grievance? The fourth bullet is like many of the examples I've made, if the situation was reversed for a similar figure in another culture it would not be unreasonable for the people of that other culture to be offended. Why must we label all that oppose such casting as facists, alt-right racists? Some may be but to paint all with that brush is unfair and unnecessary.

1. So? I wonder if the one offering this complaint would feel better seeing the actor in a blond wig.
2. So? Neither did Germanics. Some Greeks would probably like to rule out modern Turkish actors for participating on that basis.
3. What is the history being rewritten, why is it a problem, and why is it racist toward Greeks? Indeed, how does it harm Greeks at all insofar as casting any non-Greek (not filming in Greece, not paying taxes in Greece, etc.) doesn't automatically harm Greeks?
4. When trying to represent the contemporary history we all just lived through and experienced, depending on just what the story is about, you could mix and match Cabinet members, other politicians, and so on, or if it is a generic President rather than the personage of Barack Obama... but for one President Barack Hussein Obama, why would you? Recall that the racial identity of Obama was one of the defining features of his tenure and the public discourse, meaning a movie without a POC-coded Obama would be incoherent as a historical piece with a concrete setting. Doesn't mean you need a "black" actor, but certainly not a white one. You could do it with a satire premise (Obama was a white guy in disguise the whole time!), but not a straightforward one.

When you take a look at the substance of the complaints, it's difficult to find any merit. It makes you suspect the people leveling them aren't all that serious.

Multi-culturism is not supposed to be the thought police, people are entitled to opinions. To attack and label those that have legitimate reasons as such is equally fascist in imposing a narrow and dogmatic view of what views are acceptable.

Doesn't fly, sounds like you're saying disagreement is fascist. Why do these fellows have "legitimate reasons", but those who disagree that they have legitimate reasons, don't? What views are (un)acceptable is derivative from morals and values, and ultimately you have to choose where you fall. Let's say we agree that murder for the sake of cannibalism is wrong - are we fascists for looking down on those who loudly advocate murder for the purpose of cannibalism? Again, fundamental values, we don't all share the same ones. I believe in harmless diversity. That which is not harmless is not similarly deserving of tolerance. The real question then is sober reflection on what harms exist and how to handle them. Some may believe that casting choices like the one under discussion are harmful as part of a pattern of "ethnic replacement", in which case we have irremediable moral conflict on our hands and coexistence is imperiled. Personally I think of the type of complaint seen above is a sign of naivete or unexamined caprice at best, but as long as you aren't directly attempting to blacklist (no pun intended) actors or producers for their political (racial) incorrectness, it isn't too big a deal.

:shrug:

We are using the History of a people and altering it in order to market an entertainment product to a broader audience with the goal to generate profit. It all comes down to Money and Greed for it. Plain and simple.

Yet this is also why I take great offense to it. The merchandising of the history of a people, the misrepresentation of it in favor of profit.

The root cause of all evil, conflict strife and suffering in the world really is Greed and Lust for Power.

And the producers here, once again, confirm it.

Really a shame and it is on them.

In reality however we are all one race. The Human Race. The problem with movies like these is the disregard of the Journey, called History. Which in my opinion is made simply for money.

I don't think you can say the state-financed BBC is looking to profit by casting a black actor in a mini-series based on the Iliad, but there are a number of questions raised here.

As they say, in the global civilization "the legacy of colonialism is baked into every facet of every culture on the planet", so appropriation is inevitable. Is appropriative representation always harmful, or only when it doesn't conform to some person's (whose?) idea of "accuracy"?

Whose idea of accuracy matters, and given that all representations are inaccurate (without even accounting for different interpretations or outright lack of information or certainty) what kind or degree of accuracy is acceptable? Would merchandizing culture be acceptable as long as the representation were "accurate"?

If there is a "Western" culture, is it even possible for any Western production to appropriate or misuse the recognized Western canon?

Why do you think of myth as history? Isn't it correct to say that myth has a historical context, rather than itself being historical?

Would you criticize the concept of Disney's Hercules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(1997_film)) as much as you criticize this casting choice?

In all of this, I'm not sure where the argument against the casting, or its shamefulness, is.

Suraknar

02-06-2018, 07:28

I don't think you can say the state-financed BBC is looking to profit by casting a black actor in a mini-series based on the Iliad, but there are a number of questions raised here.

As they say, in the global civilization "the legacy of colonialism is baked into every facet of every culture on the planet", so appropriation is inevitable. Is appropriative representation always harmful, or only when it doesn't conform to some person's (whose?) idea of "accuracy"?

Whose idea of accuracy matters, and given that all representations are inaccurate (without even accounting for different interpretations or outright lack of information or certainty) what kind or degree of accuracy is acceptable? Would merchandizing culture be acceptable as long as the representation were "accurate"?

If there is a "Western" culture, is it even possible for any Western production to appropriate or misuse the recognized Western canon?

Why do you think of myth as history? Isn't it correct to say that myth has a historical context, rather than itself being historical?

Would you criticize the concept of Disney's Hercules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(1997_film)) as much as you criticize this casting choice?

In all of this, I'm not sure where the argument against the casting, or its shamefulness, is.

Well, the series is not made by BBC only. It is being made in collaboration with Netflix. Netflix is a private company that produces entertainment for profit.

Now back to BBC, if BBC is doing this for "Educational" purposes then it is even worse.

---

Whose Idea of accuracy? Well, the people whose History you are trying to re-enact or tell with some medium. Troy's War is part of Hellenic History. even if Ancient Greece is credited with being the cradle of Western Civilization, the story of Troy is not part of Western Civilizations history directly, but one of the elements which shaped Ancient Greece which in turn influenced Western Civilization.

If you are going to tell the story of Ancient Greeces's History at least get your facts right and tell the story as it should, be representative of History of the people whose story you are telling. So yea Greek people';s idea of accuracy is what matters first and foremost. If we were making a series about Ancient Britannia, whose idea of accuracy would it matter first, English people or Peruvians or maybe Inuit, how about Burmese why not Congolese? Lets make a movie about Britannia based on the accuracy of Papuans, shall we. Lets see the outcry in England about it...thereafter.

This is not a a Series of the Fictitious Universe of Middle Earth. Is the point. If you are going to make a movie about someone else's History take measures to make it accurate and according to the people of whose History you are using.

---

We (unfortunately) live in a merchandising world to begin with. There is not side stepping form this. Therefore, within being realistic about how the world works then we have no choice but to say, yes it would be ok to merchandise the History of a culture as long as we stick to accuracy according to my previous statement. Personally I think, merchandising of culture should not happen, but I am an idealist..and we live in a world of greed not a world of ideals.

---

Why do I think of Myth as History? Because I am versed enough in History to know that in this case this is History that evolved to contain Mythological elements.

This is no different than the Hebrew Bible. Jewish people consider it the chronicle of their history. Even if it contains Mythological elements of Gods angels and Daemons and Miracles.

The difference is that, it also happens to be the foundation of a couple of present day religions which have not been relegated to the status of "Mythology" which the Ancient Greek Religion has.

In other words, Troy's events as history were orally passed from generation to generation and finally written down as an epic poem but with the same flair and style of Ancient people who lived, at that time, quite intimately close to their Religion in their every day life.

Hebrews described their history with miracles and their own God. And Greeks described theirs equally so.

It is just a fate of events which made it so that the Bible got passed on as a Religion and the Olympian Religion of the Ancient Greeks declared Pagan and Mythology.

Yet, it is a mistake to assume that just because the religion became mythology the events and stories of events of that time are also mythological.

Modern Greek people understand this and this is why the reactions that are observed. To Greek people this is part of their history.

---

Finally, I would not Criticize Disney's Hercules because it is a Cartoon made for Children. It is not meant to portray History in a serious manner. If anything it could incite the children who would like to know more to get a serious book and read about the "real legend of" Herakles when they grow up.

Now Hercules is an interesting element that you bring up here. Because Hercules was a Legendary figure of the Ancient Greeks even. Hercules is what remain truly in to the realm of Myth because there is no Archaeological evidence of any elements of his story except the story. And the story entertained the Ancient Greeks even.

So it is not the same thing as the Story of Troy which is History. And I think this is why it is a shame, especially form a supposedly respectable source such as the BBC.

IMHO

---

EDIT: Mind you, I am not angry about any of this. I am simply disappointed. Also it does not affect me too much in that I know my history and I remain secure in its knowledge no matter if anyone makes a movie or a series and represents the Greek heroes as Clowns and their Gods as martians. The reaction would be the same..disappointment towards producers. But hey, no one is perfect right? Greed exists Ignorance exists Arrogance exists...

If anything, it will give me reason to talk about my history and call out their mistakes and the flaws of their "artistic" creation.

spmetla

02-06-2018, 09:11

In the early modern age the idea of "Occident" and "Orient" were cultivated as intellectual and ideological projects by "learned gentlemen" and scholars trying to explain the European states against each other, and the place of European states or peoples collectively in the world. By the end of the 19th century, massive collectivization in Western national states and the advent of universal state-sponsored schooling led to the inculcation and diffusion of collated "Western" ideas as such to the general population. That's what I mean when I say what we understand as "Western culture" is a state-sponsored invention.

I think we're actually quite close in opinions on the formation of Western Culture. I'd add that this happening when it did was also a result of the new global system that was created by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers. As western trade, diseases, and technology eventually overshadowed and then conquered most of the world it also became the source of the myth of Western(racial/ethnic and cultural) superiority. As for States affecting the human condition I'd say it's of course directly related. How people work together to achieve or oppose things IS human history, from tribes, to city-states, to kingdoms, and then nation states and beyond.

...you have actual people restricted in their work because "it's unnecessary to include actors who aren't white". Is it a question of sympathies?

They aren't restricted in the slightest. There's no shortage of roles in contemporary film and television that have minorities cast as leads and so on. I just think that's it's not necessary to cast them in roles that make no sense for them to be in. It's just like with people redoing books and programs but changing the previous lead to a female just for the hell of it. There's no harm in a female Bond, but why do it beyond riding the negative reaction and controversy to essentially advertise the film.
As for sympathies, I guess being constantly told to feel guilty for being a white male makes one a bit irritable (quite common here in Hawaii) and when less white male involvement in anything is thought to be always a good sign.

When you take a look at the substance of the complaints, it's difficult to find any merit. It makes you suspect the people leveling them aren't all that serious.

The myths and legends that people hold on to are in themselves not the most serious. People hold on to them though for any number of reasons, how well they can express those reasons doesn't mean they aren't serious about them. People in general hold on to their ties with the past. Family and a sense of belonging can be extended to general cultural myths and stories. From a logical point of view it's all none sense but people aren't robots and trying to keep things purely logical doesn't tend to work (look at the white american southerns and their odd reverence for the Confederacy or any bible/torah/quran thumpers).

Doesn't fly, sounds like you're saying disagreement is fascist. Why do these fellows have "legitimate reasons", but those who disagree that they have legitimate reasons, don't? What views are (un)acceptable is derivative from morals and values, and ultimately you have to choose where you fall.

That's the sum of the worlds problems right there. Everyone feels justified in their actions and views. Pedophiles can say it was normal a few hundred years ago. Rapists can say the victims were too provocative.
Over all my issue wasn't really with you on this but with Crandar's opening post:
Has right-wing tribal political correctness gone mad? It certainly has in my opinion, we can't really accommodate every special snowflake, so insecure about itself that confuses the sons of fictional deities with US Presidents in order to improve their self-confidence.

It needs to stop asap or otherwise an Orwellian future awaits us, where any means of expression will be censored by the plague of right-wing political correctness, always eager to silence any voice that challenges its dogmatic narrative.
His conclusions that to oppose this casting must be Orwellian is what I'm at odds with. There aren't people marching in the streets that Achilles must be a white guy, MPs aren't drafting laws to restrict such castings. Instead there's some minor protests against the casting and then it'll be dissipate into being a non-issue. His painting all that don't like the casting as right-wing tribalists is to offensive and his wanting to stop their expression is more Orwellian in thought than the reaction to the initial casting decision. This is the side of multi-culturalism that I don't like. Disagreeing with someone's art does not make someone a fascist.

Why do you think of myth as history? Isn't it correct to say that myth has a historical context, rather than itself being historical?
I know you're responding to Suraknar but I'll give it a go. Myths and legends are of course not history and yes they do have a historical context. When dealing with myths, legends, and religion it's generally considered wise to try and not offend the people that feel close affinity to those things. Be it portraying one of the Abrahammic prophets, Polynesian demi-gods, or ancient 'hero' of a sort, it's usually done with tact and in an inoffensive and conventional way as possible. Unless of course the goal is just to get a reaction out of whomever holds those things in value. There will always be those unhappy with the portrayal and so long as the reaction isn't violent and dangerous it's generally considered normal to just tolerate those views.

@ Suraknar

If you are going to tell the story of Ancient Greeces's History at least get your facts right and tell the story as it should, be representative of History of the people whose story you are telling. So yea Greek people's idea of accuracy is what matters first and foremost.
If the film was for a primarily Greek audience I would agree, it is however not. As I've argued with Montmorency, this myth has been appropriated by general 'Western' society. It's one of the tragedies of something being so successful that the original 'owners' of something are overshadowed by the wider successive theme. Yoga is more associated with affluent white women than India in the West, Romeo and Juliet is associated with Shakespeare instead of the original Italian author, Buddha looks fat and Chinese in most portrayals instead of a thin Indian and so on. This casting decision has brought to light that some pockets of 'western society' don't agree with that choice. The reaction will be muted of course and it'll be a new normal.
Personally I'd prefer it to be as accurate as reasonable can be done. 'Historical' films and series that attempt that certainly win my viewership. The 300 was an abomination in my eyes, Disney's Pearl Harbor reboot was terrible as well. I'm picky about my myths and history, most people are ignorant about both so be prepared for this to continue on further.

Fragony

02-06-2018, 09:31

300 isn't an abonimation, it knows it's rediculous. Has to be to most homo-erotic movie ever. Artists should always get a free hand, a girlfriend of mine pulls things out of her vagina and calls it performance art (yes I have weird friends), what stings is that the BBC is so patronising, I really hate it when someone tries to steer me

Sir Moody

02-06-2018, 14:33

Personally I go by the "feeling" of the show.

If the show is trying to portray itself as Historically accurate then it should portray the characters as accurately as possible, if instead its "Popcorn" history then I couldn't care less because it doesn't matter.

The BBC in recent years has been making popcorn dramas (Merlin & the Musketeers being good examples) so the casting isn't really important - you aren't meant to think its accurate - treat it like 300.

Fragony

02-06-2018, 15:06

That's fair I guess

Sarmatian

02-06-2018, 15:37

a girlfriend of mine pulls things out of her vagina and calls it performance art (yes I have weird friends)

What ticked you off?

Fragony

02-06-2018, 15:57

What ticked you off?

It's a show, she doesn't do it here. She's crazy but in a good way

Strike For The South

02-06-2018, 17:49

No one has ever told me I should feel bad for being a white male and I have lived my whole life in a place where white males are 12% of the population. The city somehow manages to solider on.

In the absence of a hyper homogenized population, (almost nowhere) a national myth is what will take its place. If the myth isn't inclusive of everyone, it is worthless.

Europe has to recognize that these black and brown people do not exist solely as labor to help the fill out the pensions. They are your fellow countrymen. It baffles me that there is pushback when they try to partake in the country. Well, disappointing, but not surprising.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2018, 18:36

No one has ever told me I should feel bad for being a white male and I have lived my whole life in a place where white males are 12% of the population. The city somehow manages to solider on.

In the absence of a hyper homogenized population, (almost nowhere) a national myth is what will take its place. If the myth isn't inclusive of everyone, it is worthless.

Europe has to recognize that these black and brown people do not exist solely as labor to help the fill out the pensions. They are your fellow countrymen. It baffles me that there is pushback when they try to partake in the country. Well, disappointing, but not surprising.

We began with a much more pro-heterogeneous cultural stance when our nation was formed, Strike, yet even so we have had any number of nativist and sometimes racist stumbling blocks in creating a -- mostly -- open society. Again, this coming from an outset where our national myth asserted that "all men are created equal."

Most of the European nations were strongly homogeneous as late as WW2 and some even after that point. Efforts to swiftly re-weave a national etic that all are equal parts of the whole is operating against a long tide of traditional assumption. So I agree, disappointing but hardly surprising.

Who knows, perhaps they will take less than two centuries to reach our level of equality (which is itself imperfect).

spmetla

02-06-2018, 20:12

No one has ever told me I should feel bad for being a white male and I have lived my whole life in a place where white males are 12% of the population. The city somehow manages to solider on.

Well you are fortunate then. Hawaii of course with it's unique and troubled history has no shortage of ire against us haoles. I've got friends whos families came over with the missionaries in the 1820s and they're still told to go back to the mainland if they go to non-tourist beaches. As someone who's family wasn't even in the US when Hawaii was annexed much less in Hawaii it gets a bit tiring being blamed for overthrowing the monarchy and destroying Hawaii culture. Yes, some white males did that over a century ago, they weren't me and have nothing to do with me so I can't stand being grouped in with them just because I'm the same gender and skin tone.

In the absence of a hyper homogenized population, (almost nowhere) a national myth is what will take its place. If the myth isn't inclusive of everyone, it is worthless.

That's why I love the US and it's mantra of all created equal. We've had no shortage of hiccups but do pretty damn well at working our way toward treating people equally. There're reactionaries that would like to create a homogeneous culture but I honestly prefer the different characters, accents/languages, and food one experiences when they travel to different parts of this country.

Europe has to recognize that these black and brown people do not exist solely as labor to help the fill out the pensions. They are your fellow countrymen. It baffles me that there is pushback when they try to partake in the country. Well, disappointing, but not surprising.
That's part of the problem of most of Europe's states being the result of about 200 years of ethnic national movements, the nationality is tied directly to the language and ethnicity. A Hungarian or Pole (or any number of nationalities) of African ancestry will have far more trouble being accepted as a 'true' Hungarian or Pole because they don't look 'Hungarian' or 'Polish.' Just as a white guy or brazilian in Japan will be seen as an outsider. When a nations history has been largely defined by a struggle to become independent as an ethnically homogeneous nation-state it is very difficult to change that narrative.
JAPAN'S PROBLEM WITH RACE
http://www.newsweek.com/why-does-no-one-care-japanese-are-openly-racist-364129
China’s Race Problem
How Beijing Represses Minorities
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-04-20/china-s-race-problem
Why Poland doesn’t want refugees
An ethnically homogenous nation battles EU efforts to distribute asylum seekers
https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-nationalism-and-religion-explain-why-poland-doesnt-want-refugees/

Back to the topic sorta with this Washington Post article about the US winter olympic team:
Trying to make Team USA look more like America
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/trying-to-make-team-usa-look-more-like-america/2018/02/02/422ca13a-04fe-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.86bc93c68a35

The U.S. Olympic Committee says it’s taking its most diverse team ever to a Winter Games, an impressive and deserved boast that requires a caveat of sorts.

Yes, USOC officials are pleased the team includes more African Americans and Asian Americans — and even the first two openly gay men — than recent winter squads. But they also realize this year’s U.S. Olympic team, not unlike those of most other nations gathering in PyeongChang this week, is still overwhelmingly white.

“We’re not quite where we want to be,” said Jason Thompson, the USOC’s director of diversity and inclusion. “. . . I think full-on inclusion has always been a priority of Team USA. I think everybody’s always felt it should represent every American.”

Team USA numbers 243 athletes, which is the largest team any nation has sent to a Winter Olympics. Of that group, 10 are African American — 4 percent — and another 10 are Asian American. The rest, by and large, are white. The Winter Games contingent is typically much smaller than its summer counterpart, but the demographic differences are striking. The United States took more than 550 athletes to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro. Of that group, more than 125 were African American — about 23 percent.

This year’s winter squad includes the first black long-track speedskater — Erin Jackson, who transitioned to the spot from inline skating — as well as the first black hockey player, Jordan Greenway, and first black short-track speedskater, 18-year-old Maame Biney, who moved from Ghana to the Washington area when she was 5 years old.

“It means a lot. I’m just really, really honored to have that title because then that means I get to inspire young African American athletes,” Biney said, “or any other race . . . to try this sport or try any other sport they think they can’t do.”

[U.S. Olympian Maame Biney’s short-track speedskating journey, from Ghana to PyeongChang]

Asian Americans have seven spots on the figure skating team, two in speedskating and another in snowboarding, and five of the American bobsledders competing PyeongChang are African American.

The lack of diversity on the winter teams is certainly not a new issue, and it’s not unique to the United States. But the USOC has identified it as an area for targeted growth. Thompson was hired to his post in 2012, shortly after the job was created, because the USOC saw room for improvement at every level: from athletes and coaches to the officials who run the national governing bodies for each sport and executives who work for the USOC.

“Since that point, we’ve just been trying to find ways to make sure our team looks like America,” he said............
The above is why I'm defensive about the issue. If winter sports are mostly pursued by caucasians in the US then it would follow that most of the atheletes would be of one demographic. It's a representation of peoples current interests, not a problem of it being too white and needing to be fixed. Additionally, winter sports are fairly 'equipment' intensive so there is also the the gap of who can afford to pursue said sport. They aren't like soccer or running which are relatively 'cheap' sports to get into. If they want to 'fix' the problem they really just need to promote kids in getting into those different sports.
Sorta like how Luke Steyn was Zimbabwe's sole entry in the 2014 Winter Olympics. Not a lot of other people in Zimbabwe could pursue alpine skiing like he could (he actually only visits Zimbabwe though keeps it as his citizenship).

Strike For The South

02-06-2018, 20:41

We began with a much more pro-heterogeneous cultural stance when our nation was formed, Strike, yet even so we have had any number of nativist and sometimes racist stumbling blocks in creating a -- mostly -- open society. Again, this coming from an outset where our national myth asserted that "all men are created equal."
No argument here, America has an awful track record. America never had a pro heterogeneous stance. It took two world wars to accept Germans, Catholics, and Jews. It took a civil war, reconstruction, and civil rights to fully enfranchise Black Americans. This is to say nothing about current immigration debate. "All men are created equal" is part of the myth. The reality is All men become equal when they have enough political capital to do so. Equality in America is historically won by spilling blood and taking the rights we claim to give at birth.

Most of the European nations were strongly homogeneous as late as WW2 and some even after that point. Efforts to swiftly re-weave a national etic that all are equal parts of the whole is operating against a long tide of traditional assumption. So I agree, disappointing but hardly surprising.

Who knows, perhaps they will take less than two centuries to reach our level of equality (which is itself imperfect).

We will see.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2018, 20:53

No argument here, America has an awful track record. America never had a pro heterogeneous stance. It took two world wars to accept Germans, Catholics, and Jews. It took a civil war, reconstruction, and civil rights to fully enfranchise Black Americans. This is to say nothing about current immigration debate. "All men are created equal" is part of the myth. The reality is All men become equal when they have enough political capital to do so. Equality in America is historically won by spilling blood and taking the rights we claim to give at birth....

Actually, Strike, I am suggesting that the USA, for all its flaws on the issue, DOES have a relatively pro-heterogeneous stance. Given our choppy performance in living up to that part of the National Myth, it suggests to me that the world benchmark for cultural acceptance of heterogeneity is pretty low.

Strike For The South

02-06-2018, 20:59

Well you are fortunate then. Hawaii of course with it's unique and troubled history has no shortage of ire against us haoles. I've got friends whos families came over with the missionaries in the 1820s and they're still told to go back to the mainland if they go to non-tourist beaches. As someone who's family wasn't even in the US when Hawaii was annexed much less in Hawaii it gets a bit tiring being blamed for overthrowing the monarchy and destroying Hawaii culture. Yes, some white males did that over a century ago, they weren't me and have nothing to do with me so I can't stand being grouped in with them just because I'm the same gender and skin tone.

Obviously you don't deserve any of the scorn you receive but I find the distinction you make interesting. A settler is a settler and those missionaries are part of that.

Strike For The South

02-06-2018, 21:03

Actually, Strike, I am suggesting that the USA, for all its flaws on the issue, DOES have a relatively pro-heterogeneous stance. Given our choppy performance in living up to that part of the National Myth, it suggests to me that the world benchmark for cultural acceptance of heterogeneity is pretty low.

Eh pro-heterogeneous because disenfranchised people have demanded it. The feudal land barons who are venerated in this country would consider us a LOST CAUSE. See what I did there?

Montmorency

02-07-2018, 02:03

Here's my overall summary to wrap things up, followed by the quibbles:

The new Troy miniseries is a Game of Thrones style drama with an aesthetic of Hollywood neo-antique (something cf. neo-medievalism. of which there are endless examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Huntsman)). It doesn't aim for an authentic reproduction of the original work in the context of its Classical reception, what and how it meant to Ancient Greeks. It's a wholly modern adaptation, with modern tropes and contrivances.

I don't maintain that Achilles must be cast with a black guy.

I don't maintain that some roles or jobs, regardless of setting, should always be set aside for a given underrepresented group.

I don't maintain that this particular adaptation is sure to be a good watch, or a critical hit, or even that casting a black Achilles (or this specific actor as Achilles) must be an improvement over other possible configurations.

I do maintain that casting a black guy as Achilles does not intrinsically damage the source material, the adaptation, or the Greek people/heritage.

The backlash and discomfort is not about historicity or heritage, it's just that some feel like some roles (or even productions) should as a rule be reserved for white people. Fair enough. But you already see why this instinct is, at least in the given case, irrational, and why the concerns of those actually involved in the material are based on a rational, real-world stake. And as I pointed out, in a world of so much content the object of including non-whites in things like this isn't as a grand gesture or triangulating maximal viewership, but as a new normal for industry and beyond. In the meantime, we should expect the development of stories outside the Western canon, or less-travelled perspectives from the modern world, to be the fruit of contemporary "progress". The two sentences are complementary, not contradictory.

As for sympathies, I guess being constantly told to feel guilty for being a white male makes one a bit irritable (quite common here in Hawaii) and when less white male involvement in anything is thought to be always a good sign.

Are most people really telling you to feel guilty for being white, or are they telling you to give thought to the experiences and conditions of those who aren't white (etc.)? Regardless of what you're hearing in your personal spaces or relationships, I think the latter is a pretty good idea. If your family has been in Hawaii for many generations, then you have just as much stake as indigenous Hawaiians in ensuring that general questions of governance, as well as specific issues of tourism wrt environment and livelihoods, are approached fairly. Yet at the same time as a (landed yeoman?) white man you may be exposed to a different threat profile, so to speak. It's not tendentious put that way, right?

From a logical point of view it's all none sense but people aren't robots and trying to keep things purely logical doesn't tend to work (look at the white american southerns and their odd reverence for the Confederacy or any bible/torah/quran thumpers).

The Confederate legacy is one of the worst things about America.

Over all my issue wasn't really with you on this but with Crandar's opening post:

Crandar is lampooning the approach taken by many on the right in criticizing lifestyles or choices that offend their dogma. That's also what I mean when I say these conflicts are derivative from morals and values - eventually you're sympathetic to one or another of the perspectives. It's difficult to genuinely maintain a fatuous 'both sides are bad so I'll present ironic non-commitment' attitude. If it's a moral issue, it's not an arbitrary one, and if it's not an arbitrary issue, it becomes more challenging to resolve. As a personal obstacle then, it would be figuring out what one's own morals are. The story of life?

Well, the series is not made by BBC only. It is being made in collaboration with Netflix. Netflix is a private company that produces entertainment for profit.

Now back to BBC, if BBC is doing this for "Educational" purposes then it is even worse.

It's not clear to me whether Netflix is involved in the production in addition to the international distribution, but let's say it is.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-02-05/troy-fall-of-a-city-preview-is-it-a-hit-or-a-myth/

Whose Idea of accuracy? Well, the people whose History you are trying to re-enact or tell with some medium. Troy's War is part of Hellenic History. even if Ancient Greece is credited with being the cradle of Western Civilization, the story of Troy is not part of Western Civilizations history directly, but one of the elements which shaped Ancient Greece which in turn influenced Western Civilization.

If you are going to tell the story of Ancient Greeces's History at least get your facts right and tell the story as it should, be representative of History of the people whose story you are telling. So yea Greek people';s idea of accuracy is what matters first and foremost. If we were making a series about Ancient Britannia, whose idea of accuracy would it matter first, English people or Peruvians or maybe Inuit, how about Burmese why not Congolese? Lets make a movie about Britannia based on the accuracy of Papuans, shall we. Lets see the outcry in England about it...thereafter.

This is not a a Series of the Fictitious Universe of Middle Earth. Is the point. If you are going to make a movie about someone else's History take measures to make it accurate and according to the people of whose History you are using.

I won't bash the desire for sensitivity, in that people may want their culture portrayed respectfully and authentically.

But here I would rejoin:

1. If the Iliad is a foundational text of Western culture, then Greeks cannot claim cultural propriety over its dissemination, at least not within the West. Maybe the Iliad is just as much an Anglo-American, German, or Italian fixture as a Greek one.
2. Greeks and Greek culture are not threatened by a British production, while other cultures could potentially be (more so). Nor does (hackles alert for conservatives) a production threaten the culture within which it is made.
3. In many respects the historical details of the Trojan war and the people involved are not well known, and controversial.
3.a. Multiple interpretations are possible that would conform with available evidence, so even productions interested in historical-rootedness could come to fairly different results.
3.b. Ancient Greece is not modern Greece, the Iliad is an ancient text and the evidence for the events it describes is basically archaeological. Philology and archaeology are specialized disciplines and their study is not confined to the country of the objects of study. Greeks don't have special knowledge of Ancient Greece by the fact of being born Greeks.
4. Most historical movies, including ancient-historical movies, apply modern preconceptions and interpretations in constructing a cinematic world, with just a few cases paying special attention to surface trappings like clothing, art, architecture, weaponry, etc.; by all accounts you should be disappointed in almost every production portraying Ancient Greek/Hellenic culture and history for their disrespectful inaccuracies.

With all that said, what do you think of the Brad Pitt Troy from 2004? Like the BBC adaptation promises to be, it was a war drama using the superficial setting of the Trojan War, but in characters, themes, symbolism, and the rest, it bore very little resemblance to the source material. To some extent this should be understandable, since modern audiences mostly don't care about and can't readily grasp the themes in original context. This includes modern Greek audiences, who perhaps would be more hurt by a typical portrayal in Hollywood as petty Eastern-European gangsters. Beyond poetry, 2004's Troy didn't seem to have much to do with archaelogical and anthropological evidence on how peoples of the time and place fought each other, how the ruling classes interacted with each other, how men and women presented themselves, etc. Thoroughly inaccurate even given what little we do know or infer about the Mycenaean era in the Aegean Sea.

Is all the above OK, and the casting here not OK? Is it all not OK, but made significantly worse by the casting?

(As an aside, the Iliad is an epic poem meant for recitation and song, so I would bet there is a higher standard for authenticity in a stage adaptation rather than a film adaptation.)

Why do I think of Myth as History? Because I am versed enough in History to know that in this case this is History that evolved to contain Mythological elements.

This is no different than the Hebrew Bible. Jewish people consider it the chronicle of their history. Even if it contains Mythological elements of Gods angels and Daemons and Miracles.

Yet, it is a mistake to assume that just because the religion became mythology the events and stories of events of that time are also mythological.

Modern Greek people understand this and this is why the reactions that are observed. To Greek people this is part of their history.

Now Hercules is an interesting element that you bring up here. Because Hercules was a Legendary figure of the Ancient Greeks even. Hercules is what remain truly in to the realm of Myth because there is no Archaeological evidence of any elements of his story except the story. And the story entertained the Ancient Greeks even.

I believe we are misunderstanding each other. We agree that myth has a historical basis. What I'm noting is that the Iliad is the written version of an oral tradition, so it is a historical work but not a work of history. The Iliad is not a factual description of a series of people and events. It suggests to us there was a war involving kingdoms in Greece and kingdoms in Asia Minor, but nothing more can be taken for granted. The history of the Iliad comes from evidence outside the Iliad. We have no knowledge of or evidence for real, specific people corresponding to those named in the Iliad, outside the Iliad. They are no different from Hercules in this respect. Therefore, we have no reason to speak of a "historical" Achilles or "historical" Menelaus simply on the basis of the Iliad. Not to say these figures can't have existed, just that we have no reason to believe they did. Indeed, we give just the same treatment to most of the Bible, because the Bible is not a treatise on history.

This is all to say that the "story of Troy" is history - but the Iliad is not the history of Troy or the Trojan War.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2018, 02:46

Eh pro-heterogeneous because disenfranchised people have demanded it. The feudal land barons who are venerated in this country would consider us a LOST CAUSE. See what I did there?

Indeed, nice turn of phrasing. I am happy that our system lends itself (more than many) to allowing the disenfranchised to demand and achieve their rights. Sad that it took so much time and effort to achieve the obvious (at least the obvious to my 20/20 hindsight).

"The Cause" is now reduced to self-marginalized race-baiters fighting to preserve outdoor statues (or actually, to "un-reconstruct" a myth of what never really was quite what that branch of the right...states).

Strike For The South

02-07-2018, 03:03

Indeed, nice turn of phrasing. I am happy that our system lends itself (more than many) to allowing the disenfranchised to demand and achieve their rights. Sad that it took so much time and effort to achieve the obvious (at least the obvious to my 20/20 hindsight).

"The Cause" is now reduced to self-marginalized race-baiters fighting to preserve outdoor statues (or actually, to "un-reconstruct" a myth of what never really was quite what that branch of the right...states).

I mean, I was proud of myself.

spmetla

02-07-2018, 05:16

Are most people really telling you to feel guilty for being white, or are they telling you to give thought to the experiences and conditions of those who aren't white (etc.)? Regardless of what you're hearing in your personal spaces or relationships, I think the latter is a pretty good idea. If your family has been in Hawaii for many generations, then you have just as much stake as indigenous Hawaiians in ensuring that general questions of governance, as well as specific issues of tourism wrt environment and livelihoods, are approached fairly. Yet at the same time as a (landed yeoman?) white man you may be exposed to a different threat profile, so to speak. It's not tendentious put that way, right?

Most people no, not at all, however most people in Hawaii are not ethnically Hawaiian and that's been the case since the Japanese were brought in by King Kalakaua to work on the plantations.
I have been told very directly that I am responsible that I stole land. The idiots of the world generally don't care for semantics. As for the later part of the paragraph I fully give thought and experiences to none-whites. I pay my coffee pickers (micronesians and mexicans) a living wage instead of the cheaper market price. I read and study Hawaiian history, know the history of my specific locality and fully understand the reasons for their hate. Much like most hate, theirs is largely out of ignorant love for the past. I understand their hate for the rise of land prices which has caused people that have lived in an area for generations be forced to sell or default on their own land because the property taxes sky rocket. For example the village of Miloli'i about 20 miles South of me intentionally keeps out more utilities and maintains derelict cars on their yards to keep the property value down so they can afford to leave there and discourage gentrification.
Just to be clear I'm not a landed yeoman of any sort and I'm only the second generation here. My farm is leased from Kamehameha Schools which essentially owns the whole district and my income ranges in the realm of 35k a year which together with my overheads and cost of living in Hawaii puts me ahead only a little each year, not gonna be rich anytime soon unless my stocks do something miraculous.

That's enough for this Hawaii specific sidebar though.
As for your final points and quibbles, as usual I think we're quite close in our stance but just a bit apart. Pleasure debating with you!

Sarmatian

02-07-2018, 08:01

I don't know about you guys, but this is the best Genghis Khan portrayal in history of cinema

20563

Gilrandir

02-07-2018, 12:12

If winter sports are mostly pursued by caucasians in the US then it would follow that most of the atheletes would be of one demographic.

It beats me why the term "Caucasian" is used to denote whites. People with true Caucasian appearance look more similar to Semitic ones.

I believe we are misunderstanding each other. We agree that myth has a historical basis.

You mean like A (any) myth or THE (Troy) myth? If it the former, that it isn't so. Like creation myths.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2018, 17:06

I don't know about you guys, but this is the best Genghis Khan portrayal in history of cinema

20563

Howard Hughes TRIED to buy all the copies of this film so as to preserve his pal Duke's credibility as a movie star....

Viking

02-07-2018, 18:19

Europe has to recognize that these black and brown people do not exist solely as labor to help the fill out the pensions. They are your fellow countrymen. It baffles me that there is pushback when they try to partake in the country. Well, disappointing, but not surprising.

Texas has to recognise that most of the people pushing back against this 'participation' probably would not agree with the immigration of the relevant people in the first place. I suspect you are mixing up US conditions with European ones.

The backlash and discomfort is not about historicity or heritage, it's just that some feel like some roles (or even productions) should as a rule be reserved for white people.

No, as usual, the focus of skin colour fails to capture the dynamics properly. This is about appearance more generally, naturally. When an audience sees a portrayal of a character with a given ethnicity, based on fiction or on the real world, there is normally an expectation that the actor or the animation has an appearance that matches the audience's idea of what people of this ethnicity looks like.

If the audience has a detailed idea of what the ethnicity looks like (like when they are of the same ethnicity themselves), they can be expected to be more critical of the appearance of the actor or animation. If they don't have a detailed idea, they will be less critical (to non-Scandinavians, these (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1EccBivgE) may sound like real Norwegians, but to Norwegians, they are as convincing as blackface is for portraying sub-Saharans).

In a country of red-haired people, casting all Greek characters as red-haired might appear normal; in Greece, it wouldn't. The population of any Western country would not imagine Greeks as being among the most dark-skinned peoples on the planet; they don't have to be Greeks themselves to recognise this inaccuracy.

If this production were Nigerian and only Nigerian actors were cast, things would have been different, and it would probably not have been too hard to see for most Westerners that this is a production from an African country, and that the cast being dark-skinned is quite natural

But this is a UK production; they could easily have found more Greek-looking actors, maybe even among Greek immigrants. Either the casting was done with next to no care to make the cast look like Greeks (since David Gyasi presumably doesn't look the slightest like an ethnic Greek to the average Brit), or the casting is a statement.

Beskar

02-08-2018, 00:00

If we are going by ethnics, there was a time I dated a Greek girl and her father was angry and upset with her for dating an inferior white person. Though the fact her cousin was discovered to date a black person a couple of weeks later softened his stance a little as her cousin was effectively disowned. As expected it was short-lived regardless.

Though if we take a look at this picture of looks blended by nationality...there are differences between a English guy and a Greek guy. https://i.imgur.com/7Q5sntq.jpg

However, I don't care if I see a black James Bond or whatever. It is clear the ones who do are simply discriminating against actors of colour rather than any sense of assigning the right 'ethnicity' to the person. If they want to go that far, campaign for Greek actors to do the role, don't be "satisfied" with an English man because he is "white" in some very ambiguous broad-term because that ain't Greek.

Montmorency

02-08-2018, 03:00

Texas has to recognise that most of the people pushing back against this 'participation' probably would not agree with the immigration of the relevant people in the first place. I suspect you are mixing up US conditions with European ones.

No, as usual, the focus of skin colour fails to capture the dynamics properly. This is about appearance more generally, naturally. When an audience sees a portrayal of a character with a given ethnicity, based on fiction or on the real world, there is normally an expectation that the actor or the animation has an appearance that matches the audience's idea of what people of this ethnicity looks like.

If the audience has a detailed idea of what the ethnicity looks like (like when they are of the same ethnicity themselves), they can be expected to be more critical of the appearance of the actor or animation. If they don't have a detailed idea, they will be less critical (to non-Scandinavians, these (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1EccBivgE) may sound like real Norwegians, but to Norwegians, they are as convincing as blackface is for portraying sub-Saharans).

I appreciate the precision, but I was in fact making a distinction between appearance and identity, which are linked. With your Norwegian sample, the typical informed viewer shouldn't have their enjoyment of the show impacted by pseudo-Norwegian, whereas a Norwegian nationalist (or a certain type offended on behalf of Vikingdom) could have their sensibilities violated and take the performance as an insult to them personally or to their ethnic group collectively. Godless (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5516154/) is set in the Wild West, and were it especially focused on the experience of Norwegian immigrants then the inauthenticity of the language could be a sign of laziness and detract from the experience.

But this is a UK production; they could easily have found more Greek-looking actors, maybe even among Greek immigrants. Either the casting was done with next to no care to make the cast look like Greeks (since David Gyasi presumably doesn't look the slightest like an ethnic Greek to the average Brit), or the casting is a statement.

Proximately, it may have been motivated by the release to international audience (Gyasi is a British Nigerian and the series was filmed in South Africa (https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/786692/bbc-netflix-troy-fall-of-a-city-cast-release-date-filming)). I'm sure, for instance, some nerds could nitpick topographic or botanical details, but for most purposes there likely isn't a great difference... The internal consistency is as usual the more important quality and indicator, such as in the case of Neoptolemus: if he appears at all, and is acknowledged in dialogue or script to be Achilles' son, then casting someone who looks very unlike Gyasi would be an oversight.

Hows the Norwegian here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8xB_keXq84), by the way?

Spoiler alert: they get slaughtered by brigands

Keeping with the theme of the thread, the show above (Deadwood) cast a Scandinavian American (https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Hawkes) as an Austrian Jew (because of the nose?).

If we are going by ethnics, there was a time I dated a Greek girl and her father was angry and upset with her for dating an inferior white person.

I could have sworn you said you were Asian at some point.

Fragony

02-08-2018, 07:30

Beskar

02-08-2018, 13:03

Nevermind a black man playing as a Greek.. Ancient Britons were black with blue eyes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

Fragony

02-08-2018, 13:19

Nevermind a black man playing as a Greek.. Ancient Britons were black with blue eyes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

BBC...

Could be, where are they? And how does it resonate with making Achilles black? Which was perfectly possible by the way but that doesn't matter really. The BBC simply has an agenda, that's all. They want to educate people, bend things to their will. Reality doesn't resonate with their disorder so they get pushy.

Beskar

02-08-2018, 13:24

BBC...

Could be, where are they? And how does it resonate with making Achilles black? Which was perfectly possible by the way but that doesn't matter really. The BBC simply has an agenda, that's all. They want to educate people, bend things to their will. Reality doesn't resonate with their disorder so they get pushy.

"This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period."

We all had the same ancestors. Even then, Cheddar Man was actually from a later wave of migration as Cold Snaps pushed populations out of the area on at least two occasions.

Interesting was there is even a relative in the village, which means Cheddar man is their great x300~ grandfather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5364983/Retired-history-teacher-believes-looks-like-Cheddar-Man.html

Now, you cannot accuse the Daily Fail of having the same 'agenda'...

HopAlongBunny

02-08-2018, 13:50

And another source:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html

The science seems pretty clear; when the paper is released we will likely learn more.

Fragony

02-08-2018, 13:59

"This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period."

We all had the same ancestors. Even then, Cheddar Man was actually from a later wave of migration as Cold Snaps pushed populations out of the area on at least two occasions.

Interesting was there is even a relative in the village, which means Cheddar man is their great x300~ grandfather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5364983/Retired-history-teacher-believes-looks-like-Cheddar-Man.html

Now, you cannot accuse the Daily Fail of having the same 'agenda'...

Why is it a point, ever thought about that. And why.

Viking

02-08-2018, 18:39

With your Norwegian sample, the typical informed viewer shouldn't have their enjoyment of the show impacted by pseudo-Norwegian, whereas a Norwegian nationalist (or a certain type offended on behalf of Vikingdom) could have their sensibilities violated and take the performance as an insult to them personally or to their ethnic group collectively. Godless (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5516154/) is set in the Wild West, and were it especially focused on the experience of Norwegian immigrants then the inauthenticity of the language could be a sign of laziness and detract from the experience.

[...] the series was filmed in South Africa (https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/786692/bbc-netflix-troy-fall-of-a-city-cast-release-date-filming)). I'm sure, for instance, some nerds could nitpick topographic or botanical details, but for most purposes there likely isn't a great difference...

In both cases, many or most viewers who were knowledgeable or familiar enough with the topics at hand would find the inaccuracies off-putting and that they break the "suspension of disbelief" whenever they are at the centre of their attention.

Even if people speaking a certain language were the focus of a production and you told and convinced the audience in advance that the voice acting was far off the mark, a majority might still not care if the production otherwise appeals to them. Unless the spoken words obviously are complete gibberish, they can't tell how or when the voice acting is off, so they cannot personally experience the inaccuracies; they are abstract and theoretical to them.

(kind of relevant) (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/may/13/game-of-thrones-monty-python)

CrossLOPER

02-09-2018, 06:59

Noncommunist

02-09-2018, 07:08

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

Fragony

02-09-2018, 09:38

The reality of an ancient myth.

Reality of a new religion; multiculturalism

Husar

02-09-2018, 15:24

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

Perhaps because you get no audience then?

Gilrandir

02-09-2018, 15:48

Perhaps because you get no audience then?

You underestimeate the power of the dark side of the force Hollywood.

Husar

02-09-2018, 16:23

You underestimeate the power of the dark side of the force Hollywood.

So which Hollywood movies are situated in Africa and did really well?

The White Masai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Masai)?

Fragony

02-09-2018, 16:59

Shaka Zulu? A classic

Husar

02-09-2018, 18:00

Shaka Zulu? A classic

Never heard of that, I only watch movies about Germany. ~;p

No, seriously, we can also ask the WaPo, although even they seem more concerned about who is in it than where it takes place:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/diverse-movies-are-a-huge-business-why-doesnt-hollywood-make-more/2015/12/15/ec002564-9774-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_term=.ee1801344192

For all its grandeur, Hollywood is a fiscally conservative industry, and studios and financiers have long proved hesitant to invest tens of millions of dollars into projects backed by filmmakers they do not know.

Very often, the people they know share their skin tone. In 2013, more than 92 percent of movie studios’ senior executives, 82 percent of film directors and 88 percent of film writers were white, UCLA researchers said.

“When I go to [film studio] offices, I see no black folks except for . . . the security guard,” director Spike Lee said while accepting an honorary Oscar last month at the Governors Awards. “It’s easier to be the president of the United States as a black person than to be the head of a studio.”

That monolithic whiteness has created a chicken-and-egg problem: Talented actors and filmmakers of color are routinely shut out because they were never given a chance in the first place.

Over the past year, “my sense is not a lot has changed,” said Darnell Hunt, director of UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies. “The people who control the industry are still very reluctant to take a risk on untested talent — that is to say, people of color.”

It's a bit like the question why Activision releases a new Call of Duty every year and doesn't just produce a Point and Click adventure with an innovative new idea instead. Because they know CoD will sell.
It's not just Hollywood either, how many movies starring Africans come from Bollywood? Why is Doctor Who always "British" and why does he always visit the UK to get his sidekicks? Racist much? Then again the German movie industry produces mostly movies situated in Germany as well. With the exception of a few cheesy ones that are set in Istanbul, England, Africa, etc. It's the same everywhere, you get mostly home turf and a few different ones for the exotic factor.

I don't think movies from Uganda feature a lot of white actors for diversity.
Anyway, I'm hungry.

CrossLOPER

02-09-2018, 21:04

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?
I'm still not understanding what issue you are trying to solve.

Reality of a new religion; multiculturalism

Isn't that one of those meaningless words that you keep saying? I'm not sure how the cognitive dissonance hasn't ripped you in two, yet.

Fragony

02-09-2018, 21:48

Cognitive dissonance is also just a word. I know all about it I got a psycholigy degree. Which also means nothing, at all

Suraknar

02-09-2018, 23:05

@ Suraknar

If the film was for a primarily Greek audience I would agree, it is however not. As I've argued with Montmorency, this myth has been appropriated by general 'Western' society. It's one of the tragedies of something being so successful that the original 'owners' of something are overshadowed by the wider successive theme. Yoga is more associated with affluent white women than India in the West, Romeo and Juliet is associated with Shakespeare instead of the original Italian author, Buddha looks fat and Chinese in most portrayals instead of a thin Indian and so on. This casting decision has brought to light that some pockets of 'western society' don't agree with that choice. The reaction will be muted of course and it'll be a new normal.
Personally I'd prefer it to be as accurate as reasonable can be done. 'Historical' films and series that attempt that certainly win my viewership. The 300 was an abomination in my eyes, Disney's Pearl Harbor reboot was terrible as well. I'm picky about my myths and history, most people are ignorant about both so be prepared for this to continue on further.

I agree with the fact that there has been some "appropriation" as you say, however I disagree about the reason of it. In my view, the appropriation was done for one goal, financial profit.

The Movie "Troy", with Brad Pitt was also not for a primarily Greek Audience. In fact I would argue that it is precisely because a movie is meant for a wider audience that it has the responsibility, when positioning itself as a Historical movie, to be Historically Accurate because of the Educational and Informative characteristic.

If the movie was like "300", which did not claim to be History but rather an adaptation of a Cartoon for the Big Screen, and thus its lavishly artistic style, then I would accept it as this and say "if you liked it click here to know more : The real History of the 300 Spartans"...

Nevertheless, as you said, and I agree as well with that statement, the reaction, yours mine a portion of a population, will be muted and ignored within the fanfare of sensationalism of the media, marketing, trailers, pats on the back, movie awards interviews and, as you mention, surfing upon the wave that is general ignorance about History etc etc...

Yet, it still does not make it right. Financial Profiteering trumps all other considerations...at the expense of Knowledge. And that is the real tragedy in the end for Humanity.

Suraknar

02-10-2018, 00:40

Here's my overall summary to wrap things up, followed by the quibbles:

The new Troy miniseries is a Game of Thrones style drama with an aesthetic of Hollywood neo-antique (something cf. neo-medievalism. of which there are endless examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Huntsman)). It doesn't aim for an authentic reproduction of the original work in the context of its Classical reception, what and how it meant to Ancient Greeks. It's a wholly modern adaptation, with modern tropes and contrivances.

I don't maintain that Achilles must be cast with a black guy.

I don't maintain that some roles or jobs, regardless of setting, should always be set aside for a given underrepresented group.

I don't maintain that this particular adaptation is sure to be a good watch, or a critical hit, or even that casting a black Achilles (or this specific actor as Achilles) must be an improvement over other possible configurations.

I do maintain that casting a black guy as Achilles does not intrinsically damage the source material, the adaptation, or the Greek people/heritage.

For me, the issue is strictly Historical Accuracy. I believe I mentioned that in the end this does not make any Greek Insecure about their Heritage. It is all a question of disappointment. Which means that there is agreement to the point that you make in relation to damaging the source material. No it doe snot.

What it does damage however is people's knowledge. In a world where we have several societies which have come to the point of getting their education from movies literally. It is important that the information expressed is Historically accurate when claiming to be showing History.

Now, if as indeed as you say, this series is just loosely using Source material to try and invent its own narrative for purely entertainment "artistic" and financial profit goals then I suppose not much is damaged and this is no different than Cartoon Hercules from Disney. If you want to know the real History press here. :)

In retrospect, for me the Beauty and awesomeness of a series such as game of Thrones is the fact that it is a Fiction Masterpiece. Trying to emulate Game of Thrones by borrowing from real history in an attempt to provide the backdrop of the setting upon which we can express a different "interpretation" (again for profit)..is in my view a poor way to try and get a piece of the pie that lacks creativity and innovation. ;)

But it may actually work, unfortunately, because most people are not knowledgeable about History in general, and will relish the entertainment of it all. Which is again what I find deplorable and disappointing about the Producers.

It's not clear to me whether Netflix is involved in the production in addition to the international distribution, but let's say it is.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-02-05/troy-fall-of-a-city-preview-is-it-a-hit-or-a-myth/

Yes, this is a Co-Production between Netflix and BBC.

I won't bash the desire for sensitivity, in that people may want their culture portrayed respectfully and authentically.

But here I would rejoin:

[quote]1. If the Iliad is a foundational text of Western culture, then Greeks cannot claim cultural propriety over its dissemination, at least not within the West. Maybe the Iliad is just as much an Anglo-American, German, or Italian fixture as a Greek one.

I do not agree with the logic here.

If you like to pain in tones of Yellow (your original culture) and I like to Paint in tones of Blue (Greek culture). And You like my paintings and get influenced by my use of Blue and you choose to incorporate some of blue in your paintings and they turn out Green (Western Culture).

Does that mean that I lose ownership of my original preference and choice to use Blue which characterizes my Culture? Of course not. My Culture iremains mine and the events and deeds that define it remain my property, independently of the fact that they influenced you and contributed to the definition of your culture.

You may portray your culture as you wish, describe it as you wish even with any amount of blue in it even if it came from me because as yours because your actions made the Green and not mine. But you cannot say that Blue is now yours and it doe snot mean that you can rewrite the events that led me to use Blue in the first place, you are not owner of those.

In that sense, the new Series, is a Cartoon, a Caricature of Ancient Greek History. Wish you to have many profits and enjoy the Champagne.

2. Greeks and Greek culture are not threatened by a British production, while other cultures could potentially be (more so). Nor does (hackles alert for conservatives) a production threaten the culture within which it is made.

Not threatened since this is a Caricature for the Goal of Financial Profit. Not claiming to be Historical or Historically Accurate.

3. In many respects the historical details of the Trojan war and the people involved are not well known, and controversial.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them? The evocation of a controversy is just there to justify the Historical inaccuracy or deviation from Historical source.

3.a. Multiple interpretations are possible that would conform with available evidence, so even productions interested in historical-rootedness could come to fairly different results.
I am sorry why does the mention of Achilles being blond in the Illiad need interpretation? What evidence is there about Achilles other than Homer who is the source material? No, deviating from source material turns the object of creation (the series) a caricature...

3.b. Ancient Greece is not modern Greece, the Iliad is an ancient text and the evidence for the events it describes is basically archaeological. Philology and archaeology are specialized disciplines and their study is not confined to the country of the objects of study. Greeks don't have special knowledge of Ancient Greece by the fact of being born Greeks.

Modern Greeks are descendants of Ancient Greeks, it is a continuous evolution. It did not stop and re-claimed by some other people who had no link to the previous ones. This is Greece we are talking about not FYROM. I know that many in the West like to make this distinction because it makes it easier for appropriation. But the facts are facts.

Now, You are right that Greeks don't have special knowledge of Ancient Greece by the fact of being born Greeks, because any Greek could be born anywhere and knowledge of history depends where you grow up and what you learn in school.

In Greece, we start learning History from the 3rd year of elementary and the History of Troy is included. In High school, we learn to read and Ancient Greek and for three years go through both the Homeric Epics in Philology Classes. And this along side Philosophy, Modern Greek Literature. One doe snot have to go to University in a specialized program in Greece to learn these things. All learn it as part of basic education.

4. Most historical movies, including ancient-historical movies, apply modern preconceptions and interpretations in constructing a cinematic world, with just a few cases paying special attention to surface trappings like clothing, art, architecture, weaponry, etc.; by all accounts you should be disappointed in almost every production portraying Ancient Greek/Hellenic culture and history for their disrespectful inaccuracies. [quote]

To a degree I am. But hey no one and nothing s ever perfect. Perfection is an illusion that we often pursue at the begging of our lives :)

[quote]With all that said, what do you think of the Brad Pitt Troy from 2004? [...]

Actually I somehow liked it, it was a Take of the story sans the Supernatural element. Achilles was not an Immortal but perceived as one due to his prowess in combat. It was a realistic take of the story. The way he dies in the end, pulling all the arrows out of his body (which were the ones causing his death) except the one on hi heel, the way that he was found lying in the ground and the way he was seen by the fellow Greek soldiers who considered him invincible suggests the source upon which the "Legendary and Mythical" parts of the story followed and evolved later through oral tradition to the form we got from Homer.

It also put forth the fact that Hellen and Paris love affair was actually a pretext to Agamemnon's ambition to unite all of the city states under his rule. This is something that is known and suspected and discussed even when learning the Iliad.

It had inaccuracies of course. From uniforms to People and events even..but overall I would say OK. Now..I will of course watch the new Series even if I disagree with the casting Choice. Especially since it is Caricature or more or less Fiction.

I believe we are misunderstanding each other. We agree that myth has a historical basis. What I'm noting is that the Iliad is the written version of an oral tradition, so it is a historical work but not a work of history. The Iliad is not a factual description of a series of people and events. It suggests to us there was a war involving kingdoms in Greece and kingdoms in Asia Minor, but nothing more can be taken for granted. The history of the Iliad comes from evidence outside the Iliad. We have no knowledge of or evidence for real, specific people corresponding to those named in the Iliad, outside the Iliad. They are no different from Hercules in this respect. Therefore, we have no reason to speak of a "historical" Achilles or "historical" Menelaus simply on the basis of the Iliad. Not to say these figures can't have existed, just that we have no reason to believe they did. Indeed, we give just the same treatment to most of the Bible, because the Bible is not a treatise on history.

So I take it that you are not aware of the Archeological Finding of the City of Troy and the other Mycenaean cities of mainland Greece? You are not aware of the the archeological finds of Agamemnon? I reckon, evidence is not as clear as the Classical period of Greece. Lets not forget that shortly after Troy there was a 400 year Dark Period in the region from which only the Egyptians seem to have survived intact albeit weakened. Still, these are not myths, the remnant evidence of all this exists.

This is all to say that the "story of Troy" is history - but the Iliad is not the history of Troy or the Trojan War.

I agree, same as the Bible, the Homeric Works are not Historical ones according to our modern notion of what makes a historical work. Still they are part of the History of a People, who considered this work a chronicle of their history in their times. It may have come to us as a mythical story today. Yet I think we can, understanding the ancient literary style of expression, also try and place ourselves within that context and realize that it is not Myth. And of course corroborated by the archeological evidence available to us, since there is corroborating evidence. I am not asking for leaps of faith here.

Cheers!

Gilrandir

02-10-2018, 14:42

So which Hollywood movies are situated in Africa and did really well?

The White Masai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Masai)?

They just didn't try hard.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them? The evocation of a controversy is just there to justify the Historical inaccuracy or deviation from Historical source.

Perhaps because they are written as a myth or Homer's epic, but NOT as an accurate historic account.

CrossLOPER

02-10-2018, 22:22

Cognitive dissonance is also just a word. I know all about it I got a psycholigy degree. Which also means nothing, at all
So why do you keep posting? Why not suspend the account and go volunteer at a homeless shelter or something?

Fragony

02-11-2018, 08:14

My own place is a shelteer for homeless, I don't agree with immigration policies but I won't deny them a spare bed if I have one

Sarmatian

02-11-2018, 14:25

My own place is a shelteer for homeless, I don't agree with immigration policies but I won't deny them a spare bed if I have one

Not so sure that's so safe for them considering the amount of violent friends you have.

Fragony

02-11-2018, 15:08

Not so sure that's so safe for them considering the amount of violent friends you have.

What do you mean by that, my friends are artists doctors, there is no threat at all from me.

Example, Syrian, gay, sure welcome. He was absolutely terrified of the people in those assylum camps. Nothing to be afraid about with me I never harm what doesn't want to harm me. My friends will also never hurt you, I basicly saved his life.

Montmorency

02-11-2018, 15:42

What do you mean by that, my friends are artists doctors, there is no threat at all from me.

Example, Syrian, gay, sure welcome. He was absolutely terrified of the people in those assylum camps. Nothing to be afraid about with me I never harm what doesn't want to harm me. My friends will also never hurt you, I basicly saved his life.

How did you find him? What happened to the African staying with you a couple years ago?

Montmorency

02-11-2018, 16:24

In both cases, many or most viewers who were knowledgeable or familiar enough with the topics at hand would find the inaccuracies off-putting and that they break the "suspension of disbelief" whenever they are at the centre of their attention.

Even if people speaking a certain language were the focus of a production and you told and convinced the audience in advance that the voice acting was far off the mark, a majority might still not care if the production otherwise appeals to them. Unless the spoken words obviously are complete gibberish, they can't tell how or when the voice acting is off, so they cannot personally experience the inaccuracies; they are abstract and theoretical to them.

(kind of relevant) (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/may/13/game-of-thrones-monty-python)

I've thought about it, but the more I think the more it seems like a case-by-case and personal evaluation. The only real universal or common thread I can think of is identifying "holes" in plot events or character decisions. Everything else is highly variable between viewers. There could be a time travel movie in which Old Character X and Young Character X interact. If the two are cast with different actors and there is a strong mismatch in appearances, it might affect the experience negatively, or it just might not. Same without time travel but a portrayal of the same character decades apart. Moreover, what if they cast the same actor but the makeup is off? Not only does it depend on the individual viewer, it interacts with all the other elements of the movie to determine the final impression.

Or back to military history. When I learned something about the mechanics of cavalry warfare, a lot of movie scenes were downgraded in my view. Most memorably, the cavalry charges (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmTz7EAYLrs) in the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy look a lot like bull stampedes: the horses just sort of run through the enemy ranks, and the riders don't even use their weapons. Later on, I revised my negative impressions because I considered the safety aspect for the performers, and ultimately it's not that big a deal anyway. Probably the ones who were bothered most are the ones who already disliked the movies for their approach to the Tolkien universe.

And so on.

Yet, it still does not make it right. Financial Profiteering trumps all other considerations...at the expense of Knowledge. And that is the real tragedy in the end for Humanity.

This is one of those things largely distinct from the other points under discussion, but why does a visual adaptation need to be "historically accurate", keeping in mind that they are usually mostly inaccurate? If there were no financial motive, inaccuracy would still persist. The argument that it's a responsibility of the maker to prevent the audience from getting incorrect impressions of a period, person, or event is really quite restrictive and seems to ignore the purpose of media is as a rule to be evocative rather than informative. The answer is an audience that knows how to think critically, rather than accepting illiteracy and trying to equate image with text or abstract knowledge.

I do not agree with the logic here.

If you like to pain in tones of Yellow (your original culture) and I like to Paint in tones of Blue (Greek culture). And You like my paintings and get influenced by my use of Blue and you choose to incorporate some of blue in your paintings and they turn out Green (Western Culture).

Does that mean that I lose ownership of my original preference and choice to use Blue which characterizes my Culture? Of course not. My Culture iremains mine and the events and deeds that define it remain my property, independently of the fact that they influenced you and contributed to the definition of your culture.

This is actually a bad analogy, because the use of a color is such a basic thing that no person or group could reasonably claim ownership of it. The thing to acknowledge is that in the context of a Western culture there is no need for deference or restraint in the circulation of Western ideas and symbols; that ship sailed a thousand years ago.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them?

I am sorry why does the mention of Achilles being blond in the Illiad need interpretation? What evidence is there about Achilles other than Homer who is the source material? No, deviating from source material turns the object of creation (the series) a caricature...

Why does it need to, and why specifically the appearance of Achilles compared to any other detail? Adaptation inevitably deviates from or adds to the source material, and "it was in the source material" is never a justification for inclusion of any which thing. What is your opinion of the Peter Jackson LOTR movies?

Actually I somehow liked it, it was a Take of the story sans the Supernatural element. Achilles was not an Immortal but perceived as one due to his prowess in combat. It was a realistic take of the story. The way he dies in the end, pulling all the arrows out of his body (which were the ones causing his death) except the one on hi heel, the way that he was found lying in the ground and the way he was seen by the fellow Greek soldiers who considered him invincible suggests the source upon which the "Legendary and Mythical" parts of the story followed and evolved later through oral tradition to the form we got from Homer.

It also put forth the fact that Hellen and Paris love affair was actually a pretext to Agamemnon's ambition to unite all of the city states under his rule. This is something that is known and suspected and discussed even when learning the Iliad.

It had inaccuracies of course. From uniforms to People and events even..but overall I would say OK. Now..I will of course watch the new Series even if I disagree with the casting Choice. Especially since it is Caricature or more or less Fiction.

So you liked 2004 Troy for having a meta-discursive take on the supernatural aspects of the story, or for trying to have one. But I'm not sure what distinction you are making by calling it a "caricature". The Life of Brian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian) is a caricature, a satire. The History of the World, Part I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_World,_Part_I) is a caricature.

What do you make of The Warriors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_(film)), a gangland adventure set in 1970s New York City but based on (a book based on) Xenophon's Anabasis? How about a stage adaptation that did the same thing with the Iliad, faithfully and accurately representing the characters and themes of the original (including the cultural and religious stuff) but with a cast and setting of New York City slums?

I agree, same as the Bible, the Homeric Works are not Historical ones according to our modern notion of what makes a historical work. Still they are part of the History of a People, who considered this work a chronicle of their history in their times. It may have come to us as a mythical story today. Yet I think we can, understanding the ancient literary style of expression, also try and place ourselves within that context and realize that it is not Myth. And of course corroborated by the archeological evidence available to us, since there is corroborating evidence. I am not asking for leaps of faith here.

What's the point you're making? I'm not contesting the possibility of a conflict like that described in the Iliad (though there is no direct evidence for one). There is no evidence for any of the specific people or things mentioned. But as I'm saying, the historical details are never really the basis for adapting literature.

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

Never heard of that, I only watch movies about Germany. ~;p

No, seriously, we can also ask the WaPo, although even they seem more concerned about who is in it than where it takes place:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/diverse-movies-are-a-huge-business-why-doesnt-hollywood-make-more/2015/12/15/ec002564-9774-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_term=.ee1801344192

It's a bit like the question why Activision releases a new Call of Duty every year and doesn't just produce a Point and Click adventure with an innovative new idea instead. Because they know CoD will sell.
It's not just Hollywood either, how many movies starring Africans come from Bollywood? Why is Doctor Who always "British" and why does he always visit the UK to get his sidekicks? Racist much? Then again the German movie industry produces mostly movies situated in Germany as well. With the exception of a few cheesy ones that are set in Istanbul, England, Africa, etc. It's the same everywhere, you get mostly home turf and a few different ones for the exotic factor.

I don't think movies from Uganda feature a lot of white actors for diversity.
Anyway, I'm hungry.

We can do both. But keep in mind that black people exist outside of Africa.

For example, movies like Get Out (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052448/?ref_=nv_sr_1) and TV series like Blackish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3487356/) and Insecure (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5024912/). Still haven't seen Get Out, but I watched the first season of Insecure and it seems competent enough, though I'm not so interested in this kind of "slice-of-life" programming.

Husar

02-11-2018, 17:13

We can do both. But keep in mind that black people exist outside of Africa.

For example, movies like Get Out (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052448/?ref_=nv_sr_1) and TV series like Blackish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3487356/) and Insecure (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5024912/). Still haven't seen Get Out, but I watched the first season of Insecure and it seems competent enough, though I'm not so interested in this kind of "slice-of-life" programming.

Sure, but just because 10% of people are left-handed, we don't demand that 50% of computer mice are for left-handed people or symmetrical.
Black people are already represented in film, but if they're 10% of the population, fairness does not mean they need 50% of the roles. Because then Asians will want 50% of the roles, middle easterners will want 50% of the roles and eastern europeans will want another 50% of the roles. and then we have to give yet another 50% of the roles to the disabled (or various sub-groups) and 50% to the LGBTQs and so on.
If anyone is really underrepresented in mainstream TV in the western world, it's probably the disabled.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html

20% of the US population have some kind of disability, 12.7% of the US population are African Americans, but none of that seems to feature on TV. I can think of a few exceptions such as Navy CIS, although the actress is not actually disabled, so the roles usually go to able-bodied actors, a bit like painting a white actor black. So I'm pretty sure that African Americans feature far more prominently in movies than disabled people. Which is not to say I really care about how many African Americans are in movies, it just appears that for full fairness in terms of representing the actual population of the country in Hollywood, more African Americans are statistically not the biggest concern.

Now that I think about it, maybe we could add that to the many problems I have with Scorpion (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3514324/). Not only are they really obnoxious about their IQ numbers and have to rub them into everyone's face, I don't really remember a single black "genius" on the show so far, although they did include an asian. It is possible that there was a single musical "genius" on one episode, but I barely remember what he looked like (could have been white as well).

Montmorency

02-11-2018, 17:22

OK? It's perfectly true that disability isn't depicted either frequently or realistically. Informally I've observed that individual characters with disabilities, incidental or otherwise, may be less common than movies about disabilities or movies with protagonists who have disabilities. Last one I saw: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2405372/ Or maybe I just don't remember them.

That everything that exists must be represented in everything is both impossible and an obvious strawman. I didn't expect that coming from you.

Fragony

02-11-2018, 17:41

How did you find him? What happened to the African staying with you a couple years ago?

There are many. Syrians, Somali's Etheopians, Dutch, I think weall have a silent mutual agreement to forget everything, it's dehumasing to have to depend on someone.I will help when I can, it's not our fault that they need help, it isn't their fault. I think I can congratulate myself on actualy doing something, actually helping people. Doing something yourself is a lot more demanding then having others do it and feel feel good about yourself, parasites imho/ I will never ask anything in return, I'll celebrate my kind nature silently

Husar

02-11-2018, 21:20

That everything that exists must be represented in everything is both impossible and an obvious strawman. I didn't expect that coming from you.

The point is not necessarily that everything has to be represented, but who decides what is worthy and what is not? Or when it is enough?
You said earlier in this thread (I apologize if I misremember) that black actors also want jobs, but so do disabled actors. So why should I campaign for black actors to get more jobs even if they become over-represented while disabled ones also want jobs and are still underrepresented? Of course ideally everyone would get their dream job and then there wouldn't be an issue, but that seems a bit unrealistic at this point, no? :shrug:

I may have also left the rails of the thread a bit. My point about Africa wasn't that Hollywood should make more movies about Africa, but that there needs to be a bigger/international African movie industry that can then make movies about Africa. Preferably one financed from inside Africa. And by Africa I mean ideally in all or several African countries. Hollywood is US-centric because that's their main audience and their main source of income. The problem might just be that they make the best movies now by far and audiences choose their movies over others with limited time and money being available for movies. This is an inherent stepping stone for industries in other countries to become bigger and more relevant. Til Schweiger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Til_Schweiger) didn't try to become big in the German movie industry, he tried to go to Hollywood. He failed there, came back and now he's trying to make bigger domestic movies here and is somewhat successful. This is important because it shows that Hollywood is the only elephant in the room and everybody else is second at best. Africa is not an important market for them and the US has a 12.7% black population, plus they market a lot to Europe with a similar or lower ratio of black people. I would guess that aside from inherent racism, they also base their decisions on market research, even if that only means the box office returns of previous movies. And so they don't include a lot more black actors.

Regarding the BBC, they're in the unique and important position that popularity and income are not the only factors they have to consider, although I would guess they also have viewership targets that they have to try to meet. They already made Porthos in The Musketeers an Algerian IIRC and if anything that made him more interesting. They're clearly on a missionary streak as well, that much is obvious by watching Dr. Who, who mentions the beauty of diversity one way or another on at least every second episode. The thing is it's British, they're weird. They think the BBC is brainwashing, but when they did the same thing in all their colonies after forcefully subjugating the locals by killing most of their military age men, they now claim the people there should be thankful for having been indoctrinated with civilization. So I say let them go ahead and indoctrinate the English knuckleheads with more civilization now, they shall be thankful in a few years!

Gilrandir

02-12-2018, 11:10

Africa is not an important market for them and the US has a 12.7% black population, plus they market a lot to Europe with a similar or lower ratio of black people.

Evidently, Middle-earth IS an important maket for the US - they made SIX movies about it. Perhaps Elves make up more that 15% of the US population. And if we remember about Dwarves and Hobbits... And Caribbeans are sure to be a majority in the US. Especially the pirate Caribbeans. And I'm apalled to realize how many wookies and hutts are actually US citizens. Or is Tatooin-americans more politically correct?

On a serious note: if the movie tells a thrilling story it doesn't matter where it is set or what is the skin color of the actors who play in it.

Montmorency

02-12-2018, 12:21

The point is not necessarily that everything has to be represented, but who decides what is worthy and what is not? Or when it is enough?
You said earlier in this thread (I apologize if I misremember) that black actors also want jobs, but so do disabled actors. So why should I campaign for black actors to get more jobs even if they become over-represented while disabled ones also want jobs and are still underrepresented? Of course ideally everyone would get their dream job and then there wouldn't be an issue, but that seems a bit unrealistic at this point, no? :shrug:

Well, it's not a zero-sum struggle. More of one kind of representation could open the way for more of any other kind of representation, or vice versa. Furthermore, it's not that one *feature* is only ever selected in a given situation. Visual media (other than very avante-garde stuff) aren't about the disembodied abstraction of blackness or disability, or every other thing that isn't blackness or disability.

The world exists outside Hollywood and media exist outside film/TV, but for simplicity's sake let's put it all through the lens of Hollywood (most broadly interpreted). Right now, private industry (executives and agents, for instance) makes most of the final decisions on what to fund, who to hire, who to entertain, and which hires to entertain. Besides actors there are screenwriters, producers, directors, and other creative folk. If Hollywood had a permanent monopoly on what gets out and how you see it, then inclusion could look as follows:

Consider more diverse casting for the low-hanging fruit (i.e. where they are fungible in terms of narrative or setting), while also paying attention to the roles you place these characters (whether major or just background extras) into and the assumptions you attach to them.

Consider who you're hiring to develop or portray various ideas and stories. Experience and knowledge are useful in the process of creating both textual (dialogue, exposition, plot) and visual (amera view, personal appearance and behavioral presentation, symbolism) elements.

Consider ideas and creators outside the immediate safe mainstream content, or don't rule something or someone out because (you expect) it might not test well with a "Middle America" focus group.

This is just a framework to get different kinds of people on screen, to get different kinds of stories told, and old stories told in a fresh way. There is no permanent or formulaic answer, it's just something we need to be aware of.

Husar

02-12-2018, 13:52

Well, it's not a zero-sum struggle.

In that case there are plenty of white actors who want a job, too. And the blacks already got Morgan Freeman, Will Smith and LL Cool J.

More of one kind of representation could open the way for more of any other kind of representation, or vice versa. Furthermore, it's not that one *feature* is only ever selected in a given situation. Visual media (other than very avante-garde stuff) aren't about the disembodied abstraction of blackness or disability, or every other thing that isn't blackness or disability.

Well, that was my point, it's partially about money. And how do you measure representation if not in percent? And why would percentages not be a zero sum game? Again, Morgan Freeman already represents blacks if percentages are not an issue.

Montmorency

02-12-2018, 19:15

In that case there are plenty of white actors who want a job, too. And the blacks already got Morgan Freeman, Will Smith and LL Cool J.

Well, that was my point, it's partially about money. And how do you measure representation if not in percent? And why would percentages not be a zero sum game? Again, Morgan Freeman already represents blacks if percentages are not an issue.

Alright. If Freeman "represents" blacks, who represents whites?

It's a subjective issue that depends largely on popular attitudes. You can track some of it in percentages, but it would be unsatisfactory for almost everyone to define it in terms of percentages. Proportional representation in culture (which is much more than most are asking for) is not like proportional representation in politics, or you might end up arguing that if the global 1% hold 50% of the wealth, they should naturally have their interests legislated half the time (already a crude measure of power).

Husar

02-12-2018, 19:57

Alright. If Freeman "represents" blacks, who represents whites?

It's a subjective issue that depends largely on popular attitudes. You can track some of it in percentages, but it would be unsatisfactory for almost everyone to define it in terms of percentages. Proportional representation in culture (which is much more than most are asking for) is not like proportional representation in politics, or you might end up arguing that if the global 1% hold 50% of the wealth, they should naturally have their interests legislated half the time (already a crude measure of power).

Tom Cruise.

And yes to the rest, it's about popular attitudes, but in that case the opinion that nothing is off about the representation is just as valid.

Sarmatian

02-12-2018, 20:15

Ben Affleck

Montmorency

02-12-2018, 21:27

Tom Cruise.

And yes to the rest, it's about popular attitudes, but in that case the opinion that nothing is off about the representation is just as valid.

So that's just, like, your opinion, man? I'm sure we could use more than 5 or 10 actors for the world, my reductive friend.

The dividends are supposed to be stronger content and an easier time for weaker groups and cultures to fit into society. You can argue about the specifics and how to achieve it, but it's not the same thing or consequence as preference of pizza toppings or enjoying NCIS over CSI (or neither).

Husar

02-13-2018, 03:55

So that's just, like, your opinion, man? I'm sure we could use more than 5 or 10 actors for the world, my reductive friend.

The dividends are supposed to be stronger content and an easier time for weaker groups and cultures to fit into society. You can argue about the specifics and how to achieve it, but it's not the same thing or consequence as preference of pizza toppings or enjoying NCIS over CSI (or neither).

The dividends of what?More representation of blacks in Hollywood? How much more?
And which white actors do we stop giving roles to because their having roles is unfair to the black actors we need instead?
It may not be a zero sum game, but the budgets are limited...

Montmorency

02-13-2018, 12:27

The dividends of what?More representation of blacks in Hollywood? How much more?
And which white actors do we stop giving roles to because their having roles is unfair to the black actors we need instead?
It may not be a zero sum game, but the budgets are limited...

I repeat, there is no workable quota or long-term numerical solution. It's under continual negotiation.

Having more of any group means less of the dominant group - that's what it takes. Are you opposed to all the jobs and university slots women have 'taken' from men? It's a good thing overall that there are more women and fewer men in work and education, unless you believe in unilateral domination. But aren't men going to get pushed out at this rate, you cry. Sure: poor men. Changing economic conditions and the role and distribution of higher education will disadvantage poor men (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/gender-education-gap/546677/). The right approach is to address poverty and the organization of the economy, not to subjugate women. People fill multiple overlapping statuses at any given moment. You have to account for that, like juggling.

Refer to those guidelines I posted just above. There's more to entertainment than actors, more groups in need of representation than blacks, and both of these categories (actors and blacks) can be subdivided repeatedly. If 100% of actors are teenaged black girls and 100% of writers are elderly Indian men, you have a problem. If 13% of actors are black but they're all criminals, musicians, or nannies, and 5% are Asians who are all nerds, peasants, or kung fu warriors, you have a problem. Emphatically, there is no formula that can be relied upon to produce outcomes here. A formula for the whole industry based on national demographics, or the local demographics of the industry headquarters, couldn't ever make sense.

Husar

02-13-2018, 16:46

The right approach is to address poverty and the organization of the economy, not to subjugate women.

Isn't that the root of many issues though, including the one of black people being underrepresented? In the current economy, to get something you have to have something already (you have to be able to invest), and that stifles social mobility. Demanding that some people give more jobs to black people is like a half-arsed approach. Voting for Bernie Sanders and a more humane economic system is a much broader solution to everything.

Strike For The South

02-13-2018, 17:05

Husar

02-13-2018, 18:12

I love how Husar is all like "Bring all the people into Germany" while simultaneously being all like "omg why are these people complaining about representation". You're in for a rude awakening in 20 years, hoss.

:laugh4:
I don't think so.

Just because I tried to give Monty a hard time and steer him towards the argument I made in my last post, that doesn't mean I believe 100% in every argument I made in the process. I'm also fully away that half a dozen people will call this an excuse now, but that's okay, hit me. It's only half the fun when I announce that I'm going to play devil's advocate and quite honestly, I tend to momentarily forget it myself, maybe that makes it so convincing. :laugh4:

Most of these arguments wouldn't have any followers after all if they didn't have some kind of internal logic that one can believe in.
I'm still a socialist, don't worry.

The problem as I see it, is that this representation is even necessary to some extent because our society, perhaps even our thought patterns (as that English dude said in the interview in the other thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153212-Kathy-Newman-is-a-lobster!)), are based on competition and recognition etc. So if there is a limited number of high prestige positions, it is only natural for those who have few of them to want more, but just as natural for those who have them to want to keep them. Warren Buffet isn't going to give 20% of his wealth to someone else because "it's not a zero sum game" and the other guy deserves a share as well. In a competitive world this conflict never ends and if we accept competition as a good thing I might as well want to keep black people poorer than myself for my own gain, because that proves that I'm more competitive and glorious than they are and allows me to buy more useless stuff to attempt to fill the black hole in my soul.
It's not even a racist thing, just using the advantages you have to the fullest excent, i.e. being effective and efficient like a good market participant. It's human nature and ingenuity and the reason for our wealth as the capitalist would say. Yay for humanity!

If blacks want more stuff, they shouldn't complain to the nanny state, they need to get off their arses and outcompete everyone else. If the odds are against them, too bad, they need to outcompete everyone else to shift the odds. If they even still want that then because many who make it think: "Why should I make it easier for others to compete with me now that I worked my ass off to get here?!? They shall have to work just as hard if not harder...". See, kinda slipped back into my role there. MAGA!

Montmorency

02-13-2018, 19:00

https://i.imgur.com/ODu8gpM.jpg

That's why you pressure the executive class first. If they think inclusion and sensitivity will be more profitable, they'll start inching along that route themselves. Once you have a broad-based social trend, it will only reinforce the financial calculations.

You can do and support several things at once. For instance, most of us here likely don't agree that any development of space technology/travel is an unaffordable luxury when children are still starving somewhere...

ConjurerDragon

02-14-2018, 21:30

...

That cartoon is a funny but completely wrong picture of history or race relations.

If the agenda presented in that cartoon would be true then
-the arabian states (who captured, traded and held slaves long before any spanish started the triangle trade and continued long after the british banned slavery) would be filthy rich because of their slavery and not because someone found oil in the sand. And they would be far richer than the US because they held slaves longer and would be that much more elevated.
- the spanish and portuguese and not the USA would be the richest nation as obviously in that picture holding slaves allows a white nation to prosper to an elevated level,
- the Confederated States of America won the American Civil War as obviously they had the upper hand due to them holding lots of slaves and being wealthy and successfull because of them while the poor idiots in the north of whom only 3 states allowed a bit of slavery stood no chance due to their poverty that did not allow them to buy even a single musket or cannonball to defeat the southern powerhouse.

So - slavery did not create the wealth of the current US as most of the wealth it did create was destroyed when a lot of the southern states was razed during the ACW, nor are "the whites" enjoying an elevated position because of being white. "White Trailertrash" exists too in the US and quite a lot of white people struggle to make an income.

spmetla

02-14-2018, 22:59

The picture though does show the common perception of slavery in the US. A lot of people don't know that the US didn't invent slavery, that there were black slave owners in the US and that there weren't gangs of white guys rounding up people in Africa. Slavery being such a sensitive subject means that it doesn't get taught in detail and as such people are easily fooled into the two camps of 'all whites should feel personally guilty and make reparations indefinitely' or the other camp of 'it wasn't that bad and they should be thankful they aren't in present day Africa.'
Just like the prevalent American perspective of the French military as crap due to 1940 ignores over a thousand years of the French being the very successful bullies of Europe.

Most people don't have much of an interest in history and as such will take whichever story fits their pre-conceived notions when dealing with how the past led to the present.

Montmorency

02-14-2018, 23:43

That cartoon is a funny but completely wrong picture of history or race relations.

If the agenda presented in that cartoon would be true then
-the arabian states (who captured, traded and held slaves long before any spanish started the triangle trade and continued long after the british banned slavery) would be filthy rich because of their slavery and not because someone found oil in the sand. And they would be far richer than the US because they held slaves longer and would be that much more elevated.
- the spanish and portuguese and not the USA would be the richest nation as obviously in that picture holding slaves allows a white nation to prosper to an elevated level,
- the Confederated States of America won the American Civil War as obviously they had the upper hand due to them holding lots of slaves and being wealthy and successfull because of them while the poor idiots in the north of whom only 3 states allowed a bit of slavery stood no chance due to their poverty that did not allow them to buy even a single musket or cannonball to defeat the southern powerhouse.

So - slavery did not create the wealth of the current US as most of the wealth it did create was destroyed when a lot of the southern states was razed during the ACW, nor are "the whites" enjoying an elevated position because of being white. "White Trailertrash" exists too in the US and quite a lot of white people struggle to make an income.

At a basic level, slavery in one area need not be identical or produce identical results to slavery in another area. Looking more closely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world#Roles_of_slaves), in the Muslim world slavery was

primarily a form of consumption rather than a factor of production.

The Spanish and Portuguese empires were indeed built on slavery. They simply did not last into the modern era - but their after-effects did for the European economy.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/impact-slavery-northern-economy
http://history.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/JEAH_005_01_Schneider%20FINAL.pdf
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/64071/riseofeuropeatla00acem.pdf?sequence=1

Why should a slave-based economy make a state militarily invincible? Outside a few centuries in the Late Medieval/Early Modern transitional era, wealth alone (concentrated among merchants and aristocrats, as you recall) could not exert military superiority over raw population and production. At any rate, the North also profited from Southern slavery; these weren't peasants against a gleaming mercenary horde.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/impact-slavery-northern-economy

Quite wrong. Slavery contributed immensely to early American wealth, American wealth increased apace outside the South following the war (and the former planter elite was not in fact dismantled), whiteness demonstrably enjoys an elevated position (I hope you at least agree that this was true in the first half of the last century). The fact that some whites are poor is an essential component of this order, not a contradiction, as their race becomes the thing identifying them with the white elite and distinguishing them from the black lower-class.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#54ab21027bd3
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2662305/Goldin_EconomicCost.pdf
https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealth-holders
http://www.demos.org/publication/asset-value-whiteness-understanding-racial-wealth-gap
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

Your post was reckless and irrelevant casuistry. :thumbsdown:

Montmorency

02-14-2018, 23:50

The picture though does show the common perception of slavery in the US.

I don't think you grasped the point of the cartoon, which is to remind us that African Americans were exploited for economic gain and then excluded from the fruits of their input. Most crucially, there is irony in the common demand that black people rise to the economic level of whites "on their own merits": it's actually self-aggrandizement.

The best reparation is recognition.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-15-2018, 00:33

Montmorency

02-15-2018, 01:08

Valid point. Some estimates suggest as much as 30% of America's economy can be traced to the efforts of those ".6 persons" with no direct representation.

The reparations concept is a non starter, and far too many of the programs to help the poor, often black urban subclass have been mismanaged or have actively backfired.

And too many of our citizens continue to view black as lesser so as to feel better about themselves. Saddening.

There is a common conservative argument that welfare dependency 'ruined' the black working class (or more ambitiously, the white working class as well). Apart from challenging welfare dependency theories on their own merits, it should be acknowledged that black cultures did not emerge spontaneously in 1960 or 1970.

"Backfired". The Reagan legacy is welfare chauvinism and welfare retrenchment. Maybe the cause and effect are flipped. Ideas of the purpose and utility of such programs are also divergent between interpretations (discounting the anodyne pseudo-consensus of "helping folks get back on their feet").

spmetla

02-15-2018, 01:31

I don't think you grasped the point of the cartoon, which is to remind us that African Americans were exploited for economic gain and then excluded from the fruits of their input. Most crucially, there is irony in the common demand that black people rise to the economic level of whites "on their own merits": it's actually self-aggrandizement.

While the above is true about slavery I don't see that as the point of the cartoon. The cartoon in my mind shows how slavery was used to get above blacks in socio-economic terms. It shows that without slaves whites would not have been as successful in the US as they were. The final cell showing a unwillingness to admit that this social station and wealth but it also does ignore that there have been efforts to help blacks up, affirmative action programs being the most well known.

I don't think there is 'common demand' for black people to rise to the same economic levels on their own merits. I think for the most part it's just a dislike for the continuance of affirmative action programs 50 years since their inception. They were certainly necessary at the time, not so much now though. The issues that affect black poverty affect every similar group of economic levels in the US. Education, security, and a sense of 'buy in' are necessary to succeed. Why spend the whole of one's youth working a legitimate job that will likely not lead to prosperity, success, and the American Dream. I've known enough people (whites, hispanics, and various pacific islanders) that collect unemployment and don't want to get a job until the unemployment checks stop coming because that's actually a pay cut, so instead they do 'under the table' The increasing costs of living in today's society make climbing out of poverty that much more difficult. Good luck getting a job if you don't have a car, a phone, and a good history of previous/current employment.

While race is an issue I think the largest issue right now is that those that are ill-educated and poor are more likely to remain so in the future. Outside of a few outstanding inventors, scholars, or athletes the road from poverty to success is getting steeper and more difficult. Large scale manufacture is no longer the step ladder up as mechanization, robots, outsourcing labor continues. The future for 'uneducated' labor looks even more dire as AI will replace even more jobs in shipping, construction, janitorial services, and manufacturing.

That's all without mentioning the ills that various hard drugs are having on the already endemically impoverished. Two of my high-school buddies are now 'tweakers' and despite past times I don't want them around my farm doing any sort of work. Addiction makes them such a liability I can't see anyone employing them for fear of theft and violence. They'll probably end up in jail or homeless as so many on that road do.

That's why I strongly encourage any high school graduates that I have come up picking coffee to consider the military. They need to get out of the influence on their neighborhood and family to break the bonds of poverty. Most are already pot heads or alcoholics at the least so they are probably not even eligible to enlist in any of the services.

The best reparation is recognition.
I don't that is ever the case. If it were then world history would have been a lot simpler and far less bloody.

Montmorency

02-15-2018, 01:49

While the above is true about slavery I don't see that as the point of the cartoon. The cartoon in my mind shows how slavery was used to get above blacks in socio-economic terms. It shows that without slaves whites would not have been as successful in the US as they were. The final cell showing a unwillingness to admit that this social station and wealth but it also does ignore that there have been efforts to help blacks up, affirmative action programs being the most well known.

I don't think there is 'common demand' for black people to rise to the same economic levels on their own merits. I think for the most part it's just a dislike for the continuance of affirmative action programs 50 years since their inception. They were certainly necessary at the time, not so much now though.

That's the intended interpretation. But affirmative action has been pared back to a large degree since the 1970s, in no small part due to Supreme Court decisions, and it was only ever a bandage without further sub-governmental changes. I don't think the (positive) effect has been that dramatic, though I disagree that they are unneeded today (despite alone being insufficient). Perhaps a shift to affirmative action on a class, rather than race basis, would be the right direction.

The issues that affect black poverty affect every similar group of economic levels in the US. Education, security, and a sense of 'buy in' are necessary to succeed. Why spend the whole of one's youth working a legitimate job that will likely not lead to prosperity, success, and the American Dream. I've known enough people (whites, hispanics, and various pacific islanders) that collect unemployment and don't want to get a job until the unemployment checks stop coming because that's actually a pay cut, so instead they do 'under the table' The increasing costs of living in today's society make climbing out of poverty that much more difficult. Good luck getting a job if you don't have a car, a phone, and a good history of previous/current employment.

Another topic, but there's certainly a case for streamlining welfare or assistance, and eliminating or diminishing the role of means-testing (i.e. assistance should be a floor, not a ceiling).

While race is an issue I think the largest issue right now is that those that are ill-educated and poor are more likely to remain so in the future. Outside of a few outstanding inventors, scholars, or athletes the road from poverty to success is getting steeper and more difficult. Large scale manufacture is no longer the step ladder up as mechanization, robots, outsourcing labor continues. The future for 'uneducated' labor looks even more dire as AI will replace even more jobs in shipping, construction, janitorial services, and manufacturing.

That's all without mentioning the ills that various hard drugs are having on the already endemically impoverished. Two of my high-school buddies are now 'tweakers' and despite past times I don't want them around my farm doing any sort of work. Addiction makes them such a liability I can't see anyone employing them for fear of theft and violence. They'll probably end up in jail or homeless as so many on that road do.

That's why I strongly encourage any high school graduates that I have come up picking coffee to consider the military. They need to get out of the influence on their neighborhood and family to break the bonds of poverty. Most are already pot heads or alcoholics at the least so they are probably not even eligible to enlist in any of the services.

Well, I think that to the extent there are some cultural handicaps among the POC lower and under-class they are largely continuous with the cultural handicaps of the white lower and under-class. Policies to address broad social problems could be most productive now, and less liable to disruption of solidarity along group cleavages.

I don't that is ever the case. If it were then world history would have been a lot simpler and far less bloody.

I'm unsure, but I hope you didn't interpret that as advocating a separate "black" country within America. I just meant that recognizing that there are some unique difficulties and pressures, and understanding their historical descent, spurs the mindset and policy considerations to resolve them, not as a "reparation" per se but as the present obligation of a country to its citizens.

spmetla

02-15-2018, 02:29

Well, I think that to the extent there are some cultural handicaps among the POC lower and under-class they are largely continuous with the cultural handicaps of the white lower and under-class. Policies to address broad social problems could be most productive now, and less liable to disruption of solidarity along group cleavages.

Sadly that is the fate of most minorities throughout the world. It's easier to hire people that have a similar background to oneself, even speaking with an accent can make people seem smarter or dumber. If someone speaks like a 'hick' do you expect a rocket scientist? We Americans hear a British accent (not all) and assume education.

I'm unsure, but I hope you didn't interpret that as advocating a separate "black" country within America. I just meant that recognizing that there are some unique difficulties and pressures, and understanding their historical descent, spurs the mindset and policy considerations to resolve them, not as a "reparation" per se but as the present obligation of a country to its citizens.

I didn't interpret it like that at all. As I said, education is key but people in general don't care about history. I have an old fashioned sense of citizenship and when talking about the obligation of the nation I feel it's also important to talk about the obligations of its citizens to the nation. Too many feel they 'deserve' things without having given anything. A degree doesn't mean you 'deserve' a 6 figure job, serving in the military doesn't mean you 'deserve' the same recognition as bone fide 'war heros'. Recognizing the past and current problems is part of the solution but it must not be allowed to be used as an excuse. If given the education and enough personal drive impoverished blacks can lift themselves up just like another ethnic group. Education and job skills is an important factor in that. No amount of preferential treatment will fix such a situation, instead you get resentment that think person X isn't qualified aside from filling a minority quota. Bill Cosby was a frequent advocate of the problems within the black community before his fall from grace:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5345290/ns/us_news-life/t/cosby-berates-blacks-abuse-failure-parents/#.WoULzainGHs

Cosby also said many young people are failing to honor the sacrifices made by those who struggled and died during the civil rights movement.

“Dogs, water hoses that tear the bark off trees, Emmett Till,” he said, naming the black youth who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, allegedly for whistling at a white woman. “And you’re going to tell me you’re going to drop out of school? You’re going to tell me you’re going to steal from a store?”

Cosby also said he wasn’t concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them “against our people.”

“Let them talk,” he said.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-hip-hop-holds-blacks-back-12442.html
How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back
Violence, misogyny, and lawlessness are nothing to sing about.

The rise of nihilistic rap has mirrored the breakdown of community norms among inner-city youth over the last couple of decades. It was just as gangsta rap hit its stride that neighborhood elders began really to notice that they’d lost control of young black men, who were frequently drifting into lives of gang violence and drug dealing. Well into the seventies, the ghetto was a shabby part of town, where, despite unemployment and rising illegitimacy, a healthy number of people were doing their best to “keep their heads above water,” as the theme song of the old black sitcom Good Times put it.

By the eighties, the ghetto had become a ruleless war zone, where black people were their own worst enemies. It would be silly, of course, to blame hip-hop for this sad downward spiral, but by glamorizing life in the “war zone,” it has made it harder for many of the kids stuck there to extricate themselves. Seeing a privileged star like Sean Combs behave like a street thug tells those kids that there’s nothing more authentic than ghetto pathology, even when you’ve got wealth beyond imagining.
There are certainly unique difficulties affecting blacks in the US, as descendants of former slaves it makes sense that there isn't instant love for the US when so many are still impoverished. When it's just used as a crutch for their current condition though it only creates resentment and a justification for crime. The current plight like I said though is largely a result of modern economics. The South no longer employees millions of laborers to harvest cotton and tobacco. Existing agricultural harvesting that is done by hand is mostly via migrant labor from latin america. While some will use the stereotype of 'lazy blacks' to not hire them I'd point out that seasonal agricultural labor is now set for non residents in whatever community. They come in for harvest, do their job doing long hours and when the job is done move to another place to do that. For migrant laborers it's a seasonal cash crop that pays good wages and seeing as it's not just another 9-5 they put their full into it. For the poor in these former agriculture towns/cities they miss out on that work, they won't put in the same hours and aren't part of the same labor network that affords them to then chase the next job-site. When jobs go away in a town and the poor can't afford to relocate or retrain then they get stuck in endemic poverty no matter what the race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/us/suit-cites-race-bias-in-farms-use-of-immigrants.html

“They like the Mexicans because they are scared and will do anything they tell them to,” said Sherry Tomason, who worked for seven years in the fields here, then quit. Last month she and other local residents filed a federal lawsuit against a large grower of onions, Stanley Farms, alleging that it mistreated them and paid them less than it paid the Mexicans.

“We have tried to fill our labor locally,” said Brian Stanley, an owner of Stanley Farms, which is being sued by Ms. Tomason and others. “But we couldn’t get enough workers, and that was hindering our growth. So we turned to the guest worker program.”
....
Mr. Stanley, like other farmers, argues that Americans who say they want the work end up quitting because it is hard, leaving the crops to rot in the fields. But the situation is filled with cultural and racial tensions.

Even many of the Americans who feel mistreated acknowledge that the Mexicans who arrive on buses for a limited period are incredibly efficient, often working into the night seven days a week to increase their pay.

Strike For The South

02-15-2018, 21:01

Funny how a group of people with no recourse in society would accept shit wages and shit hours.

They can't get enough workers on purpose. It's not a flaw it's a feature. It is also the point of the ICE deportations.

Myth

02-22-2018, 09:38

I disagree about changing an actor's race because of liberal political corectness. Like this travesty for example:

20578

If Caesar is black then I want a 205 cm. pale, lanky dutch guy to play Shakka.

Fragony

02-22-2018, 10:13

I'm 1.89 will that do. Friend mine is 2.10 but he's half marrocan

Husar

02-22-2018, 12:27

Myth

02-22-2018, 12:36

I don't, because i don't condone changig historical facts for the sake of a political agenda.

Fragony

02-22-2018, 13:14

I like that poster, I see no problem with it.
Don't we all play people of different color as children as well?
I mean before we are taught to be racist based on mere skin color, these things don't seem to bother us.

Why make it an unnecesary issue then? Keep it like that. I always wonder how many of the race-baiters ever made love with a black woman, have black friends

Husar

02-22-2018, 14:25

I don't, because i don't condone changig historical facts for the sake of a political agenda.

But then you also can't have GTA V because it shows a world resembling the real world but doesn't use accurate historical facts or even physics. Artistic freedom can also be applied to historical stories as long as one does not claim it's a documentary. The Greeks in 300 are also not historically accurate and Fargo claims that the events actually happened when they're actually made up. Matrix claims our world is a simulation but doesn't provide any scientifically valid sources as proof. Somehow it only becomes an issue once someone changes skin color?
If that is so, then you're probably also angry that the directors and producer of the Lion King are white when the story is about Africa.

And besides, even white actors don't look exactly like Julius Caesar, there may be a higher resemblances, but it's not accurate. And what they say isn't accurate either because we don't know what Caesar said or how he said it or even when and to whom he said something for all 24 hours of all his days.
I'm also not sure in the case of your poster it's done for a political agenda, the poster itself does not hint at that in any way.

And even then there is plenty of political agenda in film and the arts either way, so why does it suddenly become an issue with skin color but not e.g. when the agenda is that torture is good and works just fine?

Myth

02-22-2018, 14:30

Fragony

02-22-2018, 14:48

Husar

02-22-2018, 16:13

Straw man. I do not care what race or colour a wrtier or director is, because they are not physically present on screen. I would just as vehemently dislike it if Napoleon were a freckled ginger giant or of Pocatello was asian. It is unnecessary and the only reason we are even having this conversation is because the west is so far down the tolerance rabbit hole.

Why exactly is it unnecessary? The market usually decides what is necessary and if it does well, it may even get a sequel or similar adaptions may follow. It's also unnecessary that white children play cowboys and Indians, they should just play cowboys from now on for racial purity reasons. :rolleyes:

And no, noone is changing historical facts in a movie because a movie is not a history book. If they portrayed Caesar as a black guy in a school book I'd support your point, but that's not a movie. When a school class makes a christmas play you also wouldn't barge in and complain that these tolerant sheeple let a white kid who isn't a semite play Jesus. This happens all the time, think of the children!
Or take Jesus movies, in how many of them is Jesus actually portrayed by someone who actually looks like he would have looked back then? And do we have to destroy all the church windows where he is a white guy, too?

Some just care too much and start trespessing. Nobody likes to be patronised.

I wasn't the one who complained about the black guy playing Caesar, if anyone cares too much about who gets to play Caesar, it has to be Myth. I don't complain when a white guy plays him either.

Fragony

02-22-2018, 18:58

I will adress you personally if it's for you. I do that now, do you understand what annoys me about all this?

Montmorency

02-22-2018, 19:55

I don't, because i don't condone changig historical facts for the sake of a political agenda.

"The Nashville Shakespeare Festival Presents...

Julius Caesar"

No political agenda here.

Husar

02-22-2018, 20:13

"The Nashville Shakespeare Festival Presents...

Julius Caesar"

No political agenda here.

Oh, I couldn't make out what it said there at first, it's not even a movie, but a theater play then.
What's next then? Black kids can't go to theater class because we only perform ancient greek plays? :rolleyes:

drone

02-23-2018, 01:21

Strike For The South

02-23-2018, 17:42

For clarification, the "actor" is Eddie George, a retired American football player for the Tennessee Titans (Nashville). I don't know the specifics of this production, it might be a pet project funded by him.
Great player, That 99 Titans team was a joy. I still hate Bud Adams.

"The Nashville Shakespeare Festival Presents...

Julius Caesar"

No political agenda here.

There is though, it is simply the dominant agenda. It has the luxury of being transparent.

Montmorency

02-23-2018, 20:04

There is though, it is simply the dominant agenda. It has the luxury of being transparent.

That's the interpretation of the alt-right. It's correct in the same sense as "the personal is political", but...

Fragony

02-24-2018, 07:51

That's the interpretation of the alt-right. It's correct in the same sense as "the personal is political", but...

Alt-right, what a nice new word it is, got anything else to say

Husar

02-24-2018, 15:14

Guy who invents new words all the time that noone else understands complains about meaning of well-defined, widely used, new term.

HopAlongBunny

02-25-2018, 04:56

Oh the misery :no:
A black man playing a persona out of Greek myth? Where will it ever stop~:mecry:
Of course we won't dare mention the European creation of demonstrably false histories for both North America and Africa pre-colonization.
Tara nullius anyone?
A greater fraud is hard to imagine.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/black-panther-and-the-real-lost-wakandas

Fragony

02-25-2018, 07:14

Guy who invents new words all the time that noone else understands complains about meaning of well-defined, widely used, new term.

At least I'm creative, comes with having a mind of your own. Newspeak is for the system-lackeys

Suraknar

02-26-2018, 07:29

This is actually a bad analogy, because the use of a color is such a basic thing that no person or group could reasonably claim ownership of it. The thing to acknowledge is that in the context of a Western culture there is no need for deference or restraint in the circulation of Western ideas and symbols; that ship sailed a thousand years ago.

Well, you missed the point completely. The purpose of the analogy is to convey an idea or make a point using familiar notions or concepts. In this case I used color. I could have used Food. It really matters not, instead of commenting on the form please comment on the substance.

I do not wish to engage in dialectics over the form of a container, I rather discuss the content in other words, the former being a complete waste of time and irrelevant to the thread.

As such the point here was a reply to your comment that Western Civilization has appropriated Ancient Greek Myths and History as part of its own identity and as such can alter them as it sees fit. Well, you can alter them but that does not make them valid. And second of all and most importantly (my color analogy), the act of appropriating Greek Culture in to Western Culture does not remove or alter the fact that Greek culture belongs to Greek people because they are the originators of it in the first place.

You can appropriate what you wish but that does not remove it from me. Whether you like it or not.And if you wish to alter it for your pleasure fine, but thata lteration cannot be imposed on me as the new revised version. It is a fake in my eyes.

===============

Now, I have been watching Troy, I watched the first two episodes. So far it is a caricature. No different than the series of Xena Warrior Princess, or Hercules with Kevin Sorbo, albeit of course in a 2017 tone and narrative style.. It is anachronistic in many respects, mentions of areas and regions which were not named so back at these times either.

As I kept watching episode two, at the scene where Agamemnon was sacrificing his daughter iphigenia, watching his wife scream and cry, I realized that she was dressed in traditional south African fashion. This then reminded me of the Afrocentric Revisionism attempts of 2007. When several scholars started coming up with Hypotheses that Ancient Greeks were actually Libyan off shots, and article after article advanced more hypothesis of Nigerian, Yemeni and Semitic origins...the series adopts that Hypothesis in its visual representation.

Unfortunately for them..all this started clearing up...and surprisingly news posted on BBC too mind you.

First an article from 2013 reporting DNA results on Minoan remains.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22527821

And more recent studies a Comparison of Minoan, Mycenean and modern Greek DNA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

So this actually also gives an answer to your own statement that Ancient Greeks are not related to Modern Greeks which I disagreed with.

It turns out as I though, as every Greek knows actually. And now supported by direct Genetic Evidence associated to the archaeological sites and geographical region.

For me that settles it.

I shall continue to watch the series, but of course, it is just a piece of entertainment without any intrinsic historical or educational value...in other words... "whatever!"

Cheers!

Husar

02-26-2018, 14:42

Gilrandir

02-26-2018, 18:44

What if a white actor plays a Greek but speaks English with a British accent? Isn't that wrong, too, because, you know, ancient Greeks didn't speak English with a British accent?

There are three possible approaches to language used on screen in movies where foreign languages are to be spoken.

One is the "Apocalypto" approach when characters speak the language of their country (I believe they do - cum grano salis) and spectators get subtitles.

The second is the "Avatar" approach when different languages are spoken and one of them is understandable to spectators.

The third is when all languages spoken are translated into the language understandable to spectators (not dubbing the speech, but like Greeks and Persians all speak English).

Each choice has its pluses and minuses and each director adopts the approach which is most suitable for his message.

CrossLOPER

02-26-2018, 19:17

Seamus Fermanagh

02-26-2018, 20:27

I believe that Tosa's favorite thread-closing line now applies here. This is now circular in direction, so let's do a 360 and get the heck out of here.

Husar

02-26-2018, 20:31

There are three possible approaches to language used on screen in movies where foreign languages are to be spoken.

One is the "Apocalypto" approach when characters speak the language of their country (I believe they do - cum grano salis) and spectators get subtitles.

The second is the "Avatar" approach when different languages are spoken and one of them is understandable to spectators.

The third is when all languages spoken are translated into the language understandable to spectators (not dubbing the speech, but like Greeks and Persians all speak English).

Each choice has its pluses and minuses and each director adopts the approach which is most suitable for his message.

Wow, since I've never seen a movie, that was of course all unknown to me. :rolleyes:

I'm somewhat sorry for being so aggressively sarcastic, but how dumb do you think I am?
I mean, that wasn't why I asked, I asked because when the skin color doesn't fit, we get outrage. But when the language doesn't fit, I never saw all the outrage about how Troy for example wasn't like Apocalypto.

People say they're not racist but their outrage somehow only comes up in relation to skin color, suspicious, innit?

Fragony

02-26-2018, 21:18

Whatelse would it come from

spmetla

02-26-2018, 22:23

People say they're not racist but their outrage somehow only comes up in relation to skin color, suspicious, innit?

People look different from one another, it can't be helped. People have views on how people in myths/legends/history/religion should be displayed. That doesn't necessarily make them racists. That some undoubtedly are does not mean they all are.

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/Submit
noun
plural noun: racists
1.
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
"the comments have led to her being called a racist"
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
adjective
plural noun: racists
1.
showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

To lighten it up a bit here's some Father Ted:
I Hear You're A Racist Now, Father! - Father Ted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkL91LzCMc

Montmorency

02-26-2018, 23:00

Husar

02-26-2018, 23:55

People look different from one another, it can't be helped. People have views on how people in myths/legends/history/religion should be displayed. That doesn't necessarily make them racists. That some undoubtedly are does not mean they all are.

Yes, I think there's a difference though between having a gut reaction and opposing this artistic freedom in a drawn out debate and making up arguments like "the blacks want to take over our culture now". Just because someone lets a black actor play a white guy now that doesn't stop the next one from making him white again. I also don't like the "positive blackness" when it is overdone because it basically accepts the idea that white people and black people are or have to be different somehow.

And it also can't be helped that people sound different by the way, or that they have different characters and different facial features. The question was why skin color is singled out. Hollywood can change many aspects of historical figures in their portrayal, but now that they dare change skin color, somehow it's the new outrage because accuracy? Most historical movies have plenty of other inaccurcies after all, so why is only skin color apparently worthy of outrage? Wasn't there some outrage about the black Stormtrooper in Star Wars as well? Where's the accuracy there, in a fictional story?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/20/twitter-trolls-boycott-star-wars-black-character-force-awakens-john-boyega

Yes, might not be the same people etc., but perhaps we can all chill a bit when it's just an entertainment product that is never 100% accurate and not suitable to teach children anyway.

Fragony

02-27-2018, 01:01

The fuss about a black stormtrooper I don't understand it's really silly, but a figure from Greek mytholigy should just stay true to classical and renaisance art. Artistic freedom is fine, but why.

Gilrandir

02-27-2018, 06:04

Wow, since I've never seen a movie, that was of course all unknown to me. :rolleyes:

I'm somewhat sorry for being so aggressively sarcastic, but how dumb do you think I am?
I mean, that wasn't why I asked, I asked because when the skin color doesn't fit, we get outrage. But when the language doesn't fit, I never saw all the outrage about how Troy for example wasn't like Apocalypto.

People say they're not racist but their outrage somehow only comes up in relation to skin color, suspicious, innit?

I enumerated the approaches to expose the conclusion - each director decides what suits his designs better.

spmetla

02-27-2018, 08:48

Yes, might not be the same people etc., but perhaps we can all chill a bit when it's just an entertainment product that is never 100% accurate and not suitable to teach children anyway.

The chill factor is certainly important. That's why I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to cast whomever they want but that we shouldn't try to squash any protest to 'controversial' castings with labels of racist, sexist, etc...
If racists are protesting it then they'll demonstrate that with probably very blatant poor arguments, I just can't stand being put in the same light as them.

My preferring an Achilles that might somehow *look* greek makes me as much a racist as preferring the next James Bond remain male makes me a *sexist*.

And it also can't be helped that people sound different by the way, or that they have different characters and different facial features.
Casting choices by sound are also very important and people do protests. The Transformers machines were considered racist against blacks:
No One Wants To Own Up To Racism In Transformers
http://www.slashfilm.com/no-one-wants-to-own-up-to-racism-in-transformers/

British accents are perfect for film villains because it makes them appear less trustworthy, expert claims
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/british-accents-perfect-film-villains-makes-appear-less-trustworthy/

People will always complain about things in art, just let them do so. There's no need for a multi-cultural gestapo style response by all 'progressives' when someone dislikes casting choices. We should be able to tolerate lots of opinions so long as those opinions aren't actual efforts to deny other people their equal rights. Save calling some racist or sexist when they demonstrably are, not when you have suspicions about secret leanings because they don't like theater and film casting choices.

Fragony

02-27-2018, 10:43

Husar

02-27-2018, 13:59

Come to think of it, from what direction did the fuss about the black stormtrooper come from, extreme right nutjobs or SJW-types. The empire is basicly nazi's in space, and everybody knows only whites can be facist or priviliged.

The black stormtrooper switches to the good side pretty much five minutes after he is introduced or thereabouts. And while I'm aware you're being sarcastic, you're wrong about that last thing, there are some black fascists following Trump for example.

The chill factor is certainly important. That's why I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to cast whomever they want but that we shouldn't try to squash any protest to 'controversial' castings with labels of racist, sexist, etc...
If racists are protesting it then they'll demonstrate that with probably very blatant poor arguments, I just can't stand being put in the same light as them.

My preferring an Achilles that might somehow *look* greek makes me as much a racist as preferring the next James Bond remain male makes me a *sexist*.

I think that saying it's invalid, fake and someone is trying to impose it on you, implying that they can't steal it from you and whatnot goes a bit beyond "meh, it's not my taste". In fact I'm not immune to a "racist" thought here or there and I also don't enjoy looking at Conchita Wurst, but I don't write lengthy posts about how black people are trying to destroy my culture. Conchita Wurst is destroying my culture though. :dizzy2: Eh, anyway, see following quote for reference, I think it implies ill intent where there is none, why?

As such the point here was a reply to your comment that Western Civilization has appropriated Ancient Greek Myths and History as part of its own identity and as such can alter them as it sees fit. Well, you can alter them but that does not make them valid. And second of all and most importantly (my color analogy), the act of appropriating Greek Culture in to Western Culture does not remove or alter the fact that Greek culture belongs to Greek people because they are the originators of it in the first place.

You can appropriate what you wish but that does not remove it from me. Whether you like it or not.And if you wish to alter it for your pleasure fine, but thata lteration cannot be imposed on me as the new revised version. It is a fake in my eyes.

spmetla

02-27-2018, 20:13

I think that saying it's invalid, fake and someone is trying to impose it on you, implying that they can't steal it from you and whatnot goes a bit beyond "meh, it's not my taste".
When people question one's motive for not liking something it'd be ideal that there'd be more to it than not likely black people or something. People don't let it stand at "it's not my taste" and demand reasons.

but I don't write lengthy posts about how black people are trying to destroy my culture.
As for Suraknar, he is in my opinion overly sensitive but he's allowed to be. There are people that try and rewrite history to fit current attitudes towards race (ancient Egypt was black Nubian instead of brown Egyptian, Cleopatra was black), that too extends to Greek history. Besides, as we've seen with the Macedonia issue the Greeks in general are very intolerant of anyone claiming anything Greek as theirs. With a history of war with all it's neighbors include it's NATO ally Turkey and the current exasperated political situation due to austerity and migrant crisis it's no wonder that they are hypersensitive.

His attitude isn't dissimilar to people that say that Avatar was cultural appropriation of Black Africans without any actual on screen representation. That the Last Airbender was a wrong, whitewashed appropriation of an East Asian story. He sees his culture as under attack. It's not, but who's to dictate whats the appropriate way to feel about ones culture? Changing the race of the leading heros and gods in one of Greece's oldest cultural legacy was bound to draw a negative reaction, especially from Greeks. Not everyone has 'evolved' to not caring about culture or race so saying that his protest is invalid and that he's racist for being offended isn't right either.

To caveat, I don't agree with his position that Greek opinions are most important on this matter. Should we worry that Europeans will be offended that all our bad guys in films are British, German, or Russian? Should welsh/britons be offended when there being a black Guinevere in the TV show Merlin? What some people call progress others call race baiting, it happens, we don't all have the same attitudes towards race and culture.

I also don't think this casting choice had anything to do with the history re-writing that he was complaining about, I see it as just a casting choice to check the diversity boxes as well as generate extra/free publicity through controversy. Artists can do whatever they want but people are allowed to criticize. If they choose to cast ancient Greek heroes and gods with black people it will be controversial, Zeus may not have many followers in present day but he's a definitely greek deity, changing his race was bound to upset. The claim that 'it's not a documentary so who cares' is true but it's also very callused, if an artist makes a film with a gay, mixed race, gender neutral Vishu, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammad it will undoubtedly draw a lot of ire. So long as that criticism doesn't extend into violence, threats, or calls for racist legislation then let it be.

This has been a very circular discussion though, I think I'll see myself out now.:creep:

Husar

02-27-2018, 20:36

This has been a very circular discussion though, I think I'll see myself out now.:creep:

I can make it even more circular by saying that your argument is just as circular.
If Suraknar has the right to criticize the art, then I have the right to criticize the criticism.
If others can wrongly accuse art of cultural appropriation, then I can wrongly accuse them of racism.
If noone is to judge his feelings about the art, then surely noone will judge my feelings about his criticism.

And while this also applies to your criticism of my criticism of Suraknars criticism of the art, you also validated my criticism because surely you wouldn't want to question my right to voice my criticism while defending someone else's right to voice mine? Note that even if you did, I would surely not want to question your right to do that. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:

Now you may ask though, if my post is superfluous due to the circularity of this all, is then not every piece in this circle just as superfluous except perhaps the original piece of art that many enjoy? Or is it just as superfluous as all the criticism it spawns and who is to be the judge of that? :dizzy2:

The market? And if so, why do people discuss it in the first place instead of voting with their money? What is communication and why do we discuss anything if all discussion is circular, pointless, every opinion is valid? What's invalid about the opinion that all historical figures should be replaced with blacks and who is to be the judge of that? Even my post feels like a circle now.

Click me, you know you want to (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153237-BBC-and-Black-Achilles-Controversy-Politically-Corectness-Gone-Mad)

spmetla

02-27-2018, 21:18

Husar

02-27-2018, 22:50

Ugh, I was trying to get out of this. My arguments are as circular as yours, absolutely. You have a right to argue as well, I just protest the harsh labels that are applied so easily, words have power, they should be used carefully.

A lot of sophistry on all sides in this thread (including me).

Well, technically I asked whether there could be other reasons than racism for doing so and I certainly noted that you provided some.
I don't remember whether I said or forgot to mention that I certainly have some "racist" gut feelings myself sometimes so I'm not trying to preach from a high horse in every case. I could even swear that it was this thread where I questioned the very side I just took (though was taking the devil's advocate position to some extent) and disappointed Montmorency (yes, still haunts me...). I think to some extent there is some merit in arguing for the sake of arguing because it allows everyone to weigh and know all the arguments and even if that does not immediately convert everyone, it puts them into everyone's head and the gears begin to grind... Isn't that the idea of arguing back and forth in scientific circles anyway? :shrug:

As for the power of words, maybe, sometimes. In Germany we have the saying:

Worte sind Schall und Rauch.
Words are sound and smoke.

:clown:

This reminds me a bit of the "Black lives matter" vs "Blue/All lives matter" thing where it's basically the implication of the latter that the former is a hostile and exclusive agenda is what makes it racist. So when I read "And if you wish to alter it for your pleasure fine, but thata lteration cannot be imposed on me as the new revised version." it's the implication that something is meant to be imposed where I see the parallels. Like there were some evil conspiracy that wanted to make all culture black. To me it seems similar to the other "movements" implying that blacks wouldn't care about anyone else. Just to clarify that. :shrug:

Fragony

02-27-2018, 23:13

You have no racist gut-feelings Hus, you just notice that someone looks different, as long as you don't dislike them for looking different it's all ok

Montmorency

02-27-2018, 23:55

When people question one's motive for not liking something it'd be ideal that there'd be more to it than not likely black people or something.

I think this thread has done a good job in highlighting, for one, the differences in how people understand racism. Where you are mostly concerned with "intent", others may not care very much about intent and more about the symbol or the structure itself. Most of the time people don't intend harm to others, after all.

Just something to remember when there's confusion over how terms are applied. Thread can nap.

Fragony

02-28-2018, 00:20

I think this thread has done a good job in highlighting, for one, the differences in how people understand racism. Where you are mostly concerned with "intent", others may not care very much about intent and more about the symbol or the structure itself. Most of the time people don't intend harm to others, after all.

Just something to remember when there's confusion over how terms are applied. Thread can nap.

A bit of a poisoned dagger you have there, and you probably know you are carrying it. I can read between the lines, you see it as something inherent, but what if it isn't. Ever considered that you might be wrong about everything in the universe and surroundings on top of that

Montmorency

02-28-2018, 01:14

A bit of a poisoned dagger you have there, and you probably know you are carrying it. I can read between the lines, you see it as something inherent, but what if it isn't. Ever considered that you might be wrong about everything in the universe and surroundings on top of that

I have a fear that humans are inherently, fractally wrong about everything, fixed by the boundaries of our being.

Maybe it's mysterious. Maybe it doesn't matter any which way and there is no difference between life and death.

:C

Fragony

02-28-2018, 08:43

I have a fear that humans are inherently, fractally wrong about everything, fixed by the boundaries of our being.

Maybe it's mysterious. Maybe it doesn't matter any which way and there is no difference between life and death.

:C

Life is flirting a bit with the girl at the supermarket, the world is beyond our control

Suraknar

02-28-2018, 17:57

Not sure what the uproar is about, who is trying to force anything down our throats as "the new version"?

And if I own all of Bach's music because I'm German, can I ban all Greek orchestras from playing Bach by my power of Supermensch? :dizzy2:

It's like you all didn't play any Total War games because the soldiers aren't 1:1 representations of real soldiers who lived and fought back then and omg, that battle never happened in reality, what a bad game!

What if a white actor plays a Greek but speaks English with a British accent? Isn't that wrong, too, because, you know, ancient Greeks didn't speak English with a British accent?

I do not mind Total War, I am not obsessed by Historical Accuracy of it. I like to mod it for gameplay reasons rather than Historical accuracy.

Also, I have always considered Total War Games as a "what if" scenario. Which starts at a certain Historical point but then lets the player create alternate history based on their decisions.

If you conquer Europe with Greeks or Ptolemaic Egyptians, Defeat Rome with Gauls or Celtic tribes from England, it is not Historical right?

The point here is that the game is made to offer alternate history.

The series about Troy is a different medium of entertainment. One where you have no interaction or say with you just watch it unfold. And some people are picky about how things are shown.

I mean lets be realistic here, there are people who get pissed and retort about Fantasy, or Sci-Fi book adaptations to the Big Screen, and you really expect that people will not make at least some comments about History to Big Screen adaptation?

It is absurd to expect that no one will comment and that everyone will like and applaud.

Cheers!

Husar

02-28-2018, 18:08

The series about Troy is a different medium of entertainment. One where you have no interaction or say with you just watch it unfold. And some people are picky about how things are shown.

I mean lets be realistic here, there are people who get pissed and retort about Fantasy, or Sci-Fi book adaptations to the Big Screen, and you really expect that people will not make at least some comments about History to Big Screen adaptation?

It is absurd to expect that no one will comment and that everyone will like and applaud.

Cheers!

Sure, but as we already established, it's just as absurd to think I'm not going to oppose it with my own view on the matter. :laugh4: :bow:

Suraknar

02-28-2018, 18:09

Suraknar

I think we're basically reconciled. I'm not saying modern Greeks don't have their unique relationship to foundational works, and I didn't claim that modern Greeks are not descended (genetically and culturally) from ancient Greeks.

The South African dress might be down to the filming location, South Africa.

So is the series enjoyable? (I liked Xena/Hercules.) If it helps, there's probably a general tendency in modern visual media such as cinema, TV, and games to reduce original creations to their iterable "shallow iconography".

Alright then, we are basically reconciled. :) (En raison de ton nom sur les forums je vais le répéter en bon Québecois, oui nous sommes réconcilies pour la plus part. Au cas ou tu en est un ;) )

As far as the Series is concerned, the series has some trouble catching my attention, I find myself getting distracted in some points and need to rewind and rewatch what is going on, it is nt captivating but I have not identified yet why, is it the dialog or something else?. Other than this overall I'd say it is fine.

I do not mind the choice of actors per se, they play their role well, I liked Nestor and I like the actor playing Aeneas too from another favorite series "How to get away with Murder". Need to watch more to characterize Achilles.

The visual, overall, is an interesting motif, but with the understanding that it is Fictional.

Cheers!

Suraknar

02-28-2018, 18:11

Sure, but as we already established, it's just as absurd to think I'm not going to oppose it with my own view on the matter. :laugh4: :bow:

Haha, of cource, this is the essence of a good discussion and exchange of ideas and perspectives :) :bow:

Suraknar

02-28-2018, 18:44

Husar

That said, you do mis-characterize me as racists if you do. I read some side discussions and I saw reference that you may have and I missed the actual reply. I was focused on the discussion with Montmorency.

I will repeat here what I said in my first reply to this thread.

I am someone who believes that Race does not exist in the first place. In that All humans on the planet regardless of our differences we are all the same Race. We are all Humans.

I recoil and deplore the fact that even today in the 21st century with all our latest knowledge on the subject we still hear and read mentions of people with racial qualifications.

In the US kids are still taught that Races exist and separations of people in to races is a real thing. It is very sad.

So you could not be farther from the truth if you indeed implied somehow that I was racist here.

Do not mistake my fervor towards Historical accuracy with racism. To say that ancient Greeks their gods and heroes were not African looking with dark skin is not a racist retort. It is a Historical accuracy one.

I had the opportunity to grow up traveling the world, which shaped my current view since I was a kid, I realized since early age that we are wrong to separate people in to races, later in life Academically I went in to the field of History and Anthropology and of Computer Science (on the side interests include Biology, Physics and Astrophysics, Cosmology and a bit of Quantum Mechanics, Computer Games, Game Design, Computer Graphics finally languages, I speak several). Yes there was a time where we could say more than one race walked upon this planet but these have been extinct and absorbed since. Neanderthals were a different race of Human, Denisovans, and even or Flores man. In fact, if the notion of purity even exists, the Purest humans on the planet today are Africans. The rest of us outside Africa are all Hybrids with Neanderthal and Denisovan and possibly another race in our DNA.

But today there is only one race in all its diversity. The human Race of which we are all part of no matter the color of our skin, the creed, the language the cultural traditions. And even more, we all truly did evolve first and came out of Africa.

Nevertheless, it is not reason to misrepresent History of the groups, communities and civilizations that formed thereafter. I think it is important to remain accurate in terms of the historical journey of each group of people in various regions of the planet because otherwise we blur the amazing diversity of our own human race. In the end we are all different today but equal and same at the same time.

Cheers!

Husar

02-28-2018, 19:34

Husar

That said, you do mis-characterize me as racists if you do. I read some side discussions and I saw reference that you may have and I missed the actual reply. I was focused on the discussion with Montmorency.

Well, I don't know you yet. I was saying that some parts of your post came across as the arguments a racist would make.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced you're a racist, just that I didn't like that part of your argument and that's partially because it is often used by racists (I might even agree with other parts of your argument).

The problem was not your concern with historical accuracy, but implying that someone would want to force a new version of history on you. The person making the film might deny that in pretty much the same way you deny that you had any racist intentions. The small difference being that you are here to defend yourself against my implications while the movie maker is probably not here to oppose your implication that they want to revise history and force that revision on you.

Since it is pretty common for artsy people to "reinterprete" old stories, like how Sherlock Holmes is ported into modern settings, we can also assume that someone just wanted to "reinterprete" these old Greek stories with some more modern ideas such as a more diverse cast of heroes (knowing the BBC, the characters are likely to also embody more modern ideas about freedom, equality, etc.). You don't have to like it (I don't even know yet whether I like it myself), but to say this means they want to force revisionism down your throat goes a bit far IMO, especially since you didn't prove that in any way.

Suraknar

02-28-2018, 23:30

Well, I don't know you yet. I was saying that some parts of your post came across as the arguments a racist would make.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced you're a racist, just that I didn't like that part of your argument and that's partially because it is often used by racists (I might even agree with other parts of your argument).

The problem was not your concern with historical accuracy, but implying that someone would want to force a new version of history on you. The person making the film might deny that in pretty much the same way you deny that you had any racist intentions. The small difference being that you are here to defend yourself against my implications while the movie maker is probably not here to oppose your implication that they want to revise history and force that revision on you.

Since it is pretty common for artsy people to "reinterprete" old stories, like how Sherlock Holmes is ported into modern settings, we can also assume that someone just wanted to "reinterprete" these old Greek stories with some more modern ideas such as a more diverse cast of heroes (knowing the BBC, the characters are likely to also embody more modern ideas about freedom, equality, etc.). You don't have to like it (I don't even know yet whether I like it myself), but to say this means they want to force revisionism down your throat goes a bit far IMO, especially since you didn't prove that in any way.

Well in that case, there is I beleive some confusion. Correct me if I am wrong but maybe you are refering to this comment of mine:

As such the point here was a reply to your comment that Western Civilization has appropriated Ancient Greek Myths and History as part of its own identity and as such can alter them as it sees fit. Well, you can alter them but that does not make them valid. And second of all and most importantly (my color analogy), the act of appropriating Greek Culture in to Western Culture does not remove or alter the fact that Greek culture belongs to Greek people because they are the originators of it in the first place.

You can appropriate what you wish but that does not remove it from me. Whether you like it or not.And if you wish to alter it for your pleasure fine, but that alteration cannot be imposed on me as the new revised version. It is a fake in my eyes.

This was in reply to a line of argument that actually stemps from a reply by spmetla

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?153237-BBC-and-Black-Achilles-Controversy-Politically-Corectness-Gone-Mad&p=2053772921&viewfull=1#post2053772921

Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post

@ Suraknar

If the film was for a primarily Greek audience I would agree, it is however not. As I've argued with Montmorency, this myth has been appropriated by general 'Western' society. It's one of the tragedies of something being so successful that the original 'owners' of something are overshadowed by the wider successive theme. [...]

It was a three way discussion there for a minite so the argument got carried away in my subsequent replies to Montmorency, yes it was a reply to this original statement.

Just to put in context for you here.

And by the way, how would my reply be racist in the first place? Care to explain?

===============

In addition here, artistic people may like to re-express things in their own view. But As I already argued in my previous replies we are not talking about a piece of fiction here. This is not Lord of The rings, or Sherlock Holmes...it is a piece of History of a people.

It maybe "Mythical" because it is old, but no different or more mythical than the Bible which is the Hebrew people's History. Greek people consider the Iliad their History. So I think there needs to be a level of caution here as to what extent artistic expression can go when we deal, and I specifically say, when, we deal with History AND we create content that is qualified as Historical.

If the content is not supposed to be Historical in nature, is a cartoon etc and purely for entertainment, I think there is no cause for concern. For all I care, you can say that Achilles was Martian and paint him Green.

Gilrandir

03-01-2018, 08:01

I do not mind Total War, I am not obsessed by Historical Accuracy of it. I like to mod it for gameplay reasons rather than Historical accuracy.

Although it belongs to a different thread:

What do you mean you mod it? Then you can't call it Total War any more. You can lay no claim on your modded game to have any connection to the Ancient Vanilla Total War. It is the stealing of name and history. You should call it Game Known As Total War Before I Started Distorting Its Flawless Initial Designs By My Unholy Interference.

Fragony

03-12-2018, 16:26

a completely inoffensive name

03-13-2018, 05:26

Fragony

03-13-2018, 08:03

It's not the only place it happened, yes, afraid to be called racist, exactly that

Sarmatian

03-13-2018, 08:38

I don't understand, what has this got to do with political correctness?

Fragony

03-13-2018, 10:18

I don't understand, what has this got to do with political correctness?

Because the police refused to do their job because of it, too afraid of Bambi's kick. There has been a similar incident like this, also in the UK, 'asians'could go their merry way because everybody was afraid to act, they were afraid they would lose their job if they would. Becauseeee ooffff political correctness

Montmorency

03-13-2018, 15:15

Could it be... sexism?

rory_20_uk

03-13-2018, 15:35

Or the class the victims were from - dross the police dislike since they have had so many dealings with the victims and their families on other matters they just really want nothing to do with the whole lot of them.

In every culture (that I am aware of), poor girls have been sold with scant interest in what happens to them. That doesn't make it any better, but in the UK we seem to have some odd pleasure in long, drawn out enquiries that catalogues what they think happened, saying how bad it was... and then nothing much changes - since so many of the reasons it happened in the first place would be extremely difficult to alter and cost a vast amount of money directly or indirectly which no one appears to be interested in funding. Social Services ticks their boxes, and completes the merry go round with the GP / Police / youth workers / charities / etc. No one has the resource or indeed the authority to do it all properly, so each tries to rope as many others in as possible to pass the buck. And everyone thinks "well, not my children".

~:smoking:

Fragony

03-13-2018, 15:41

Could it be... sexism?

Sexism isn't looked away from is it, another #metoo with ice please. #metoo is cozy, nice comfort-zone for fake-feminists. Ohohoh a hand on my knee what about my comfort-zone. No this is outright predatory behaviour and it was kept silent because of political-correctness.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-13-2018, 15:56

Sadly, girls from poor areas have been sold for the sex trade for millennia.

It's economics. The "extra" farm-girl eats nearly as much food as the farm-boy and cannot do as much work for the farm. Some culture's also require a dowry to go with any daughter into marriage. All in all, the economics of the equation are rather simple.

Absent the destruction of the market, I don't see the supply of sex slaves (not the 'Do you want top or bottom tonight, my dear?' kind), drying up any time soon.

:sad2:

Fragony

03-13-2018, 16:05

rory_20_uk

03-13-2018, 16:19

Their own aren't their pray, these they still have to trade

Simply because their relatives would not go to the police wringing their hands they'd find the person and skin him alive. And possibly kill the female as well. But that is their cultural heritage and so apparently that is fine and lovely.

~:smoking:

caravel

03-13-2018, 16:28

spmetla

03-13-2018, 19:35

Political correctness or lack there of will always be a problem for police forces. Sorta like the Stop and Search/frisk programs get flak for being racist. The cops walking the streets that do go and 'pick on' known offenders/criminals can be hampered by calls that they are targeting the minority groups.
Unfortunately in most western countries the minority groups and immigrants will be a large proportion of the poor and impoverished and therefore will also do a larger amount of crime relative to their population size.

Sadly for many of these girls a common view of third-world people is that girls are there to be used for sex. When overseas when talking with my interpreters they often thought that the female soldiers get passed around for sex. Major reason why they (Afghans and Iraqis) thought this is because like most men they watch porn and the 'actresses' in porn are predominately white or east asian. As such they'll likely have seen plenty of white or japanese/thai girls in sex acts long before they've actually met one and that will affect their world view. Just like many Westerners view Southeast Asian girls as all in the sex industry, if you take a trip to the Philippines, Thailand or Cambodia people will be suspected of sex tourism if traveling solo. An 'asian massage' is seen in a different light than just a massage.

This is unfortunately a cultural thing that is quite common in South and Southeast Asia and it should not be surprising that this practice is imported and maintained by these immigrant/minority communities. They'll protect the honor of 'their women' and traffic whatever other vulnerable women are around in their community. It by no means was started by these communities and the practice has been around for ages but the racial factors in it are very much a part of targeting the other while protecting their own.

https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/region/europe/
How many people are in modern slavery in Europe?

Despite having the lowest regional prevalence of modern slavery in the world, Europe remains a destination, and to a lesser extent, a source region for the exploitation of men, women and children in forced labour and commercial sexual exploitation. According to the most recent Eurostat findings, European Union (EU) citizens account for 65 percent of identified trafficked victims within Europe.[1] These individuals mostly originate from Eastern Europe, including Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia.[2] Non-EU trafficked victims are predominantly from Nigeria, China and Brazil.[3] Forced labour and commercial sexual exploitation remain the most commonly reported forms of modern slavery in Europe;[4] nonetheless, instances of other forms of modern slavery, such as forced child marriage, have been identified in Turkey

https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2016/258843.htm
https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2016/258843.htm

The Philippines is a source country and, to a lesser extent, a destination and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. An estimated 10 million Filipinos work abroad, and a significant number of these migrant workers are subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor—predominantly via debt bondage—in the fishing, shipping, construction, education, nursing, and agricultural industries, as well as in domestic work, janitorial service, and other hospitality-related jobs, particularly across the Middle East, Asia, and North America. Traffickers, typically in partnership with small local networks, engage in unscrupulous recruitment practices that leave migrant workers vulnerable to trafficking, such as charging excessive fees and confiscating identity documents.

Montmorency

03-13-2018, 22:49

Multiple factors...

After the similar Rotherham and Rochdale scandals, where British-Pakistani grooming gangs operated similarly to those in Telford, it's clear that police and authorities, including social services and local councils failed. It's also emerged that not just white girls were the victims, but "asian" girls were also included. These were covered up by family to avoid bringing "shame".

It was pointed out with regards to Rotherham and Rochdale that the victims were often dismissed contemptuously due to their working class background and regarded as willing participants / "girlfriends" of offenders, or just making up stories, etc.

It's also a valid point that in boroughs with a large "asian" population, police and local authorities would not want to put their head on the block and face "racist" allegations. When allegations do (and did) escalate to local authorities, it's again up to someone to discern if there is any substance to the claims. In the case of Rotherham, the Casey report 2015 found that:

The risk of alienating part of the electorate by pointing out the obvious - i.e. that an asian grooming gang is targeting vulnerable under age (mainly white) girls, is often too big a gamble. Also such language, has the tendency to "mobilise" so called "far right" groups. It was pretty obvious from both Rotherham and Rochdale that no one wanted to take this on, the victims were seen as low value and it was safer to just turn a blind eye.

"Political correctness" from police or local authorities may have been the gag, but racism from both is an equally acceptable theory (if we're going to theorise).

Telford is the 3rd installment, but it's very likely there are more to come.

This scandal seems to be similar to one a decade ago in the same area. As Rory points out, many of the accused are/were not prosecuted or convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sex_abuse_ring

I suspect it is more a matter of sexism and classism than "political correctness". I doubt figures exist as such, but hypothetically you would have to demonstrate for example that police are more responsive to sex crimes with white perpetrators than with Asian, Arab, or black perpetrators.

Political correctness or lack there of will always be a problem for police forces. Sorta like the Stop and Search/frisk programs get flak for being racist. The cops walking the streets that do go and 'pick on' known offenders/criminals can be hampered by calls that they are targeting the minority groups.
Unfortunately in most western countries the minority groups and immigrants will be a large proportion of the poor and impoverished and therefore will also do a larger amount of crime relative to their population size.

Stop-and-frisk is a terrible, unconstitutional policy that feeds and relies on racism, burgeons police malevolence and erases trust in police authority.

Indeed it is a failure (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/new-york-city-stop-and-frisk-crime-decline-conservatives-wrong/) of a policy in its stated goals, with most victims of police being totally blameless (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/the-problems-with-stop-and-frisk.html) despite doing "a larger amount of crime relative to their population size". As it turns out, group guilt is a terrible moral and practical basis for policy, or else we would just deport all men or something and substantially eliminate crime that way.

Meanwhile, the corrupt NYPD (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/secret-nypd-files-hundreds-of-officers-committed-serious?utm_term=.ypLRd7d16#.sidPD5DaN) protects its wrongdoers and punishes officers with a 'bad cultural fit.

This is unfortunately a cultural thing that is quite common in South and Southeast Asia and it should not be surprising that this practice is imported and maintained by these immigrant/minority communities. They'll protect the honor of 'their women' and traffic whatever other vulnerable women are around in their community. It by no means was started by these communities and the practice has been around for ages but the racial factors in it are very much a part of targeting the other while protecting their own.

I'm not seeing much in the way of figures in these new (or old) reports, but nothing indicates that girls from shared ethnic communities were spared in particular. I would think it's a question of power and access in general. How powerful is the crime ring or its individual members, and what is the geographic and social access to women to prey upon?

Suraknar

03-14-2018, 17:32

Although it belongs to a different thread:

What do you mean you mod it? Then you can't call it Total War any more. You can lay no claim on your modded game to have any connection to the Ancient Vanilla Total War. It is the stealing of name and history. You should call it Game Known As Total War Before I Started Distorting Its Flawless Initial Designs By My Unholy Interference.

LOL, what is your point here exactly?

There are mods for Total War games, they are refereed to as Total War Mods..right? I mean anyone making a Mod for a Total war game will refer to it as a Total War mod because it is a modification of the Total War game..not for Hello Kitty Online.

If you want to say that the Troy Series is a Modification of Homer's Iliad then yes we agree. It is said so in the opening credits anyways "Inspired by Homer's Illiad and the Greek Myths"..it does not claim to be a historical work..it is "inspired" by an original work and expresses a specific Modified version of it.

Just like a Total War mod...

Suraknar

03-14-2018, 18:07

Now here is political-correctness gone wrong, what if the fear of not being 100% OK paralyses you https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-worst-ever-child-grooming-12165527?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap Most of these poor girls could have been helped, if it wasn't for political correctness. Shame on you, check the sheets there's blood on it. These poor girls, how could you let it happen to them

This is a very sad story indeed. And very sad about the suffering of all the girls. It is upsetting to see that the authorities have been, apparently, sitting idle towards the Organized Crime behind all this.

I am not sure I would categorize this as "Political Correctness" issue though. Often what has been revealed in similar cases in various parts of the world (Human Trafficking is s a big issue all over the world). is that the authorities have been bribed and paid to look the other side and do nothing. So it is possible that this is what has happened here too.

These cases are a mix of failings and issues, classified s Corruption, Organized Crime, Justice System, Procedural and Legislative Failings as well as Economical Challenges related rather than Political Correctness..in my view.

Send in special inquiry of uncorrupted Squads to deal with both the Authorities Involved and the Organized Crime and liberate the poor Girls and Women under slavery.

All the Best!

Gilrandir

03-14-2018, 18:10

LOL, what is your point here exactly?

There are mods for Total War games, they are refereed to as Total War Mods..right? I mean anyone making a Mod for a Total war game will refer to it as a Total War mod because it is a modification of the Total War game..not for Hello Kitty Online.

Just like anyone living in the land called Macedonia will refer to himself as Macedonean.

Suraknar

03-14-2018, 22:18

Just like anyone living in the land called Macedonia will refer to himself as Macedonean.

Hahah..this is out of topic here. We have a thread about FYROM. But I will say..no they cannot call themselves "Macedonian"...under that logic..

They can call themselves a "Modified Macedonian"... ;)

Or, a more friendly name " New Macedonian", "Vardar Macedonian"..yes sure.

Just like a "XYZ Mod Total War".

Cheers!

Gilrandir

03-15-2018, 17:42

Hahah..this is out of topic here. We have a thread about FYROM. But I will say..no they cannot call themselves "Macedonian"...under that logic..

They can call themselves a "Modified Macedonian"... ;)

Or, a more friendly name " New Macedonian", "Vardar Macedonian"..yes sure.

Just like a "XYZ Mod Total War".

Cheers!

If you so much obsessed with ancient history as justification for modern toponymics, then, technically, modern Greece can't bear this name since in the time of Alexander and Philip there was no Greece. There was Attica, Laconia, Beotia, Thessaly, Achaea, Messenia... But no Greece.

Suraknar

03-16-2018, 07:49

If you so much obsessed with ancient history as justification for modern toponymics, then, technically, modern Greece can't bear this name since in the time of Alexander and Philip there was no Greece. There was Attica, Laconia, Beotia, Thessaly, Achaea, Messenia... But no Greece.

Well, you are bringing up an interesting point however, dear friend, it lacks a bit in rigor.

The short answer to your statement is that while there may not have been a country called Greece per se as we understand the notion of a country today based on the definition of a nation-state as established in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), there was a people called Greeks, (Hellenes, Ελληνες) and there was a land of the Greeks, called Hellas, Ελλας, and Ελλαδα, Hellada ( the H is not pronounced).

The longer answer... the modern term in English of "Greek" and "Greece" comes actually from the Latin "Graeci" and "Graecia" which is how the Romans refereed to The Greeks and the Land of the Greeks. And lets not forget either the appellation of "Magna Graecia".

Interestingly enough this Latin appellation comes itself from Greek roots such as Graikos (Γραικος). Which comes from old Greek in the Mycenaic period. This changes after the Trojan War to Hellenes and is expressed as such in the Illiad.

But also we know of the two names from Aristotle's treatise Meteorology,(Meteorologica).

Furthermore we have mentions of Hellenes in an inscription by Echembrotus refered to the 48th Olympiad 585 BCE.

So in fact, already by Alexander's time the various Greek Tribes as per their affiliation to various City-States and surrounding regions called and refereed to themselves collectively as Greeks, Hellenes. They all spoke the same Language and all also believed in the same Gods and shared same Myths.

Yes there were Minoan Greeks and Mycenian Greeks, and Achaean Greeks and Ionian Greeks and Dorian Greeks, Thessalian Greeks, and Athenian Greeks and Spartan Greeks and Macedonian Greeks...but they were all Greeks, living in the Lands of the Greeks...

All the regions you mentioned were in Graecia, Hellas....Greece. Even if they were not united under one King or Ruler (until Phillip II-Alexander)..their Identity was Greek, Hellenic.

As evidenced in many occasions like the one from Simonides of Ceos in his epigram on the tomb of the Athenians who were killed in the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) wrote "Ἑλλήνων προμαχοῦντες Ἀθηναῖοι Μαραθῶνι" "Fighting at the forefront of the Hellenes, the Athenians at Marathon".

One was Athenian and Hellene. Not just a separate Athenian...

It is a gross misunderstanding, in my opinion, to treat all the different tribes of Greeks as separate ethnicity, and this is the case when it comes to Macedonians and especially from people outside Greece and ignorant of its History and internal relationships between the Tribes of Hellenes.

Every single Greek person /facepalms and /rollseyes (and laughs about) several times in their lives by reading such statements about the erroneous separation of the Greeks and false conclusions made towards Greece and Greeks, by people that are not Greek..

It is becoming ridiculous...I start wondering if people outside Greece actually have a mental problem or something when it comes to these topics.

Nevertheless, up to now..we could give the benefit of the doubt, due to lack of concrete evidence but not anymore. Yet, with the advent of Genetics we now have evidence. Genetics has confirmed that from from the Minoan times to today there is a relationship of the people and they all are part of the same group, regardless of their city state and localized name (Athenians, Spartans, Corinthian Thespian, Thessalians Macedonian etc)

Can we please update the school books and Teachers/Instructors Knowledge and teach people the right way about Greece and Greeks once and for all?

Thank you for your time, all the best to you.

Gilrandir

03-16-2018, 12:46

The short answer to your statement is that while there may not have been a country called Greece per se as we understand the notion of a country today based on the definition of a nation-state as established in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), there was a people called Greeks, (Hellenes, Ελληνες) and there was a land of the Greeks, called Hellas, Ελλας, and Ελλαδα, Hellada ( the H is not pronounced).

Unfortunately, Spartans didn't know that a couple of thousands years later in a land called Westphalia a group of historians and politilogists (since those are the people authorized to make such definitions and it is they who compiled the document, right?) would get together to write... not a history book nor a treatise on social and ethnic groupings of people... but "a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Münster and Osnabrück, effectively ending the European wars of religion". I'm sure these documents had all the chances to explain to them how they must feel towards being one nation with Athenians. It's a shame the Spartans never lived to read it. If they could even read.

The longer answer... the modern term in English of "Greek" and "Greece" comes actually from the Latin "Graeci" and "Graecia" which is how the Romans refereed to The Greeks and the Land of the Greeks. And lets not forget either the appellation of "Magna Graecia".

Interestingly enough this Latin appellation comes itself from Greek roots such as Graikos (Γραικος). Which comes from old Greek in the Mycenaic period. This changes after the Trojan War to Hellenes and is expressed as such in the Illiad.

But also we know of the two names from Aristotle's treatise Meteorology,(Meteorologica).

Furthermore we have mentions of Hellenes in an inscription by Echembrotus refered to the 48th Olympiad 585 BCE.

So in fact, already by Alexander's time the various Greek Tribes as per their affiliation to various City-States and surrounding regions called and refereed to themselves collectively as Greeks, Hellenes. They all spoke the same Language and all also believed in the same Gods and shared same Myths.

Yes there were Minoan Greeks and Mycenian Greeks, and Achaean Greeks and Ionian Greeks and Dorian Greeks, Thessalian Greeks, and Athenian Greeks and Spartan Greeks and Macedonian Greeks...but they were all Greeks, living in the Lands of the Greeks...

All the regions you mentioned were in Graecia, Hellas....Greece. Even if they were not united under one King or Ruler (until Phillip II-Alexander)..their Identity was Greek, Hellenic.

As evidenced in many occasions like the one from Simonides of Ceos in his epigram on the tomb of the Athenians who were killed in the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) wrote "Ἑλλήνων προμαχοῦντες Ἀθηναῖοι Μαραθῶνι" "Fighting at the forefront of the Hellenes, the Athenians at Marathon".

One was Athenian and Hellene. Not just a separate Athenian...

It is a gross misunderstanding, in my opinion, to treat all the different tribes of Greeks as separate ethnicity, and this is the case when it comes to Macedonians and especially from people outside Greece and ignorant of its History and internal relationships between the Tribes of Hellenes.

Whatever you might say, as far as the NAMES are concerned "Macedonia" pre-dated "Greece" as country names. So your arguments don't sound convincing to me. Not unless you substantiate your claims with a reference to a Constitution or two. Perefrably the FYROM one.

Every single Greek person /facepalms and /rollseyes (and laughs about) several times in their lives by reading such statements about the erroneous separation of the Greeks and false conclusions made towards Greece and Greeks, by people that are not Greek..

It is becoming ridiculous...I start wondering if people outside Greece actually have a mental problem or something when it comes to these topics.

This is all I needed to know. You are either a Greek or have mental problems.

Can we please update the school books and Teachers/Instructors Knowledge and teach people the right way about Greece and Greeks once and for all?

Why don't you issue a call to all sensible Greeks... I beg your pardon, according to what you have just said a sensible Greek is a tautology... so, to all Greeks to get together on some square and express their indigantion at the quality of teaching Greek history in the schools outside Greece. I even have a motto to be written on banners: "History is a Greek word".

Suraknar

03-18-2018, 08:16

Whatever you might say, as far as the NAMES are concerned "Macedonia" pre-dated "Greece" as country names. So your arguments don't sound convincing to me. Not unless you substantiate your claims with a reference to a Constitution or two. Perefrably the FYROM one.

Actually my argument was founded on Historical and Archaeological Evidence. If you ignore it, that is not my fault.

Plus you seem to argue by resorting to name calling, and are dismissive of reason, this is a very poor way of arguing and does not give you any credibility whatsoever or make for any valid counter-argument, let alone evidence.

As it stands your words have no value at all. And I can't but ignore them. There is nothing else to discuss here with you.

Cheers!

Gilrandir

03-18-2018, 14:58

Actually my argument was founded on Historical and Archaeological Evidence. If you ignore it, that is not my fault.

Plus you seem to argue by resorting to name calling, and are dismissive of reason, this is a very poor way of arguing and does not give you any credibility whatsoever or make for any valid counter-argument, let alone evidence.

As it stands your words have no value at all. And I can't but ignore them. There is nothing else to discuss here with you.

Cheers!

Name calling? Now found your argument on evidence, please.

But generally, I'm gald that we finally understood each other. We find each other's arguments of no value and deprived of credibility. Amen.

Suraknar

03-18-2018, 23:42

Now Back on topic,

5 Episodes in,

I find that I have still some difficulty following the series bit, having trouble focusing and being attentive to it as much as lets say when I watch Vikings or the recent Britannia series or Game of Thrones...

From one side the series is expressing some interesting details not usually seen in other iterations, but on the other hand there are very boring lengths to it...it is not captivating.

The series lacks Drama, Suspense and Action, and feels rather depressing...emotionless..bland..

And this is not because of the choice of the actors, I think the actors for the most part as quite good, even Achilles, the threesome scene of episode 4 also touch on a sensitive theme for most but it is in line with ancient Greek Society. I found that scene quite sensual and one could feel the love Achilles has for Patroclus... yet that was only a rare moment in the 5 episodes up to now where emotions emanate towards the viewer...

Fragony

03-19-2018, 08:45

Going to give it a shot once it comes to Netflix, I will probably enjoy it. Series from BBC are almost always expertly made (especially the over the top gory medieval ones).

Myth

03-20-2018, 11:47

20638

Husar

03-20-2018, 12:11

20638

You are aware that this is a bad comparison, right?
Because Martin Luther King's skin color is of integral importance for his role in history, but that is not the case for Achilles.
One was a leader in a conflict about skin color, the other was chasing a girl for his boss. There's a difference.

Montmorency

03-20-2018, 12:47

20639

Viking

03-20-2018, 20:54

You are aware that this is a bad comparison, right?
Because Martin Luther King's skin color is of integral importance for his role in history, but that is not the case for Achilles.
One was a leader in a conflict about skin color, the other was chasing a girl for his boss. There's a difference.

There are differences, but whether those differences matter is as always subjective.

If moviegoers can accept the premise of a work of fiction that zombies are real, then accepting the premise that a European-American was treated as an African-American shouldn't be that hard in comparison, one could think.

Another aspect is abstraction: is not ultimately the bad thing about discrimination the effects that it has rather than the property that is its basis? Does the latter even matter once you have accounted for the former? In fiction, the consequences of discrimination are whatever the author wants them to be, regardless of its basis.

With this BBC adaptation, Achilles could be interpreted as being treated at a slightly higher level of abstraction when he is portrayed by an ethnic African - this Achilles can no longer be Greek, but the casting is consistent with a more generic Achilles character that has no specific ethnicity, just like a more generic character of Martin Luther King that has no ethnicity.

Husar

03-20-2018, 22:35

There are differences, but whether those differences matter is as always subjective.

If moviegoers can accept the premise of a work of fiction that zombies are real, then accepting the premise that a European-American was treated as an African-American shouldn't be that hard in comparison, one could think.

Another aspect is abstraction: is not ultimately the bad thing about discrimination the effects that it has rather than the property that is its basis? Does the latter even matter once you have accounted for the former? In fiction, the consequences of discrimination are whatever the author wants them to be, regardless of its basis.

With this BBC adaptation, Achilles could be interpreted as being treated at a slightly higher level of abstraction when he is portrayed by an ethnic African - this Achilles can no longer be Greek, but the casting is consistent with a more generic Achilles character that has no specific ethnicity, just like a more generic character of Martin Luther King that has no ethnicity.

Yes, but the question of ethics, as subjective as you may deem it to be, can still be answered differently based on the circumstances.
The historical significance of Achilles' actions is not changed by his skin color, but MLK's entire fight was based on the idea of others that his skin color made him inferior. Surely you could make some movie about him that has absolutely nothing to do with the historical story, but would it really be about the historical MLK then?
You can also name a random Chinese gangster in a Tarantino movie Martin Luther King, but I don't think that is what the poster Myth posted implies.

In other words, by changing Achilles' ethnicity, the story stays otherwise intact, in MLK's case you remove the root of the conflict he was historically involved in. You have to alter the entire historical story significantly to make it "fit". Again, an abstract movie about an MLK who is not the historical guy but gets discriminated against for other reasons is not what the poster is about. In the historical context, the differences do matter because the ethnicity is an integral part of the story of MLK. Whether every Greek hero was ethnically Greek is not very relevant for the war they fought. It's quite possible that they did have black soldiers here and there.

Montmorency

03-20-2018, 23:39

That's the question I was exploring with my poster above: how many layers of abstraction? What would it be like, for example, to portray Martin Luther King in a MLK biopic as an animated Brandenburg Gate? What would it mean?

What if in a LOTR film reboot, Samwise is depicted as a Nazgul, and one of the Nazgul looks like a fat hobbit? With no other changes to the plot or script, could it avoid incoherence? Is there a distinction between absurdity and incoherence?

Fragony

03-21-2018, 01:24

Yes, but the question of ethics, as subjective as you may deem it to be, can still be answered differently based on the circumstances.
The historical significance of Achilles' actions is not changed by his skin color, but MLK's entire fight was based on the idea of others that his skin color made him inferior. Surely you could make some movie about him that has absolutely nothing to do with the historical story, but would it really be about the historical MLK then?
You can also name a random Chinese gangster in a Tarantino movie Martin Luther King, but I don't think that is what the poster Myth posted implies.

In other words, by changing Achilles' ethnicity, the story stays otherwise intact, in MLK's case you remove the root of the conflict he was historically involved in. You have to alter the entire historical story significantly to make it "fit". Again, an abstract movie about an MLK who is not the historical guy but gets discriminated against for other reasons is not what the poster is about. In the historical context, the differences do matter because the ethnicity is an integral part of the story of MLK. Whether every Greek hero was ethnically Greek is not very relevant for the war they fought. It's quite possible that they did have black soldiers here and there.

But why. Artistic freedom is fine, but I don't blame people for seeing an agenda

Myth

03-21-2018, 12:42

Fragony

03-21-2018, 13:07

I do not mind it but I can understand it if some do, I simply don't understand why they did it this way, nobody likes a hand in their pants when it's slowly creeping up without consent.

Husar

03-21-2018, 14:15

Achilles is a Greek hero, part of the Greek mythos and cultural (if not historical) heritige. European civilization flourished from bronze age Greece and the greeks are ethnically white people with white gods and white heroes.

Black people have myths and a cultural heritige of their own. The african version of Zeus is named Chango (Shango) and all of the afro steps in salsa and rumba are taken directly from traditional african dance that tells the story of Chango, the thunder he caught and the goddesses he fornicated with.

I would hate a white Chango as much as I would hate a black Achiles and if you don't understand what I imean I see little reason to continue talking to you on this topic.

But no, the Greeks are descendants of black people.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-ancient-greeks-were-black-norman-mccreary

There is frequent mention of the Garamantes of the Fezzan, in Classical literature of Greece and Rome. The Garamantes were recognized as a Black tribe. They were known to the Greeks and Romans as dark skinned. In Ptolemy (I.8.5.,p.31) a Garamante slave was described as having a body the color of pitch or wholly black.

Graves (1980) and Leo Frobenius linked the Garamante to the ancient empire of Ghana (c.300 BC to A.D. 1100). Graves (1980) claims that the term Garamante is the Greek plural for Garama or Garamas. He said that the present Jarama or Jarma are the descendants of the Garamante; and that the Jarama live near the Niger river.

The Olympian creation myth, as recorded by Pindar in Fragment , and Apollonius Rhodius, makes it clear that the Garamantes early colonized Greece. Their descendants were called Carians. The Carians practiced apiculture. As in Africa the Carians practiced matrilineal descent. According to Herodotus , even up until his time the Carians took the name of their mother.

Many of the Greek myths are historical text which discuss the transition of Greece from an matriarchal society to a patriarchal Aryan society. The term Amazon was often used by the Aryans to denote matriarchal societies living on the Black Sea. The battle between Thesus and the Amazons, led by Queen Melanippe, records the conflicts between the ancient Aryan-Greeks and the Libyco-Nubians settled around the Black Sea.
[...]
Apollonius Rhodius (.iv.1310) tells us that the goddess Athene was born beside Lake Triton in Libya. The goddess Athene, was called Neith by the Egyptians and Nia by the Cretans in Linear A writing. This shows that the Garamantes took this god to Europe in addition to Demeter and Amon (=Ammon ,Amma).

By 3000 BC, the Garamantes has spread their influence to Thrace and early Hellenic Greece. Hesiod, who was a Kadmean (i.e., of Egyptian descent), in Works and Days , said that before the Hellenic invasion the Grecian people lived in peace and tranquility and had matriarchal societies. The name Europe comes from Aerope, the daughter of King Catreus, a Cretan.

Even their gods were Africans...

You can't just whitewash European history as though the white man and the black man were completely different. It's just a Melanin difference, get over it.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-21-2018, 17:05

As I understand it, the currently accepted theories of our origins suggest that we are all refugees from the Olduvai gorge. Anything that does not hearken back to that single era of shared culture is, of course, tainted and impure.

So John Wayne had as much right as anyone to portray Temujin. :grin:

rory_20_uk

03-21-2018, 20:15

So sometimes we are all the same and anyone who says there are differences is wrong / ignorant.

But then a white person decides to have cane rows. And the backlash starts.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

03-21-2018, 21:19

Seamus Fermanagh

03-22-2018, 04:20

Husar

03-22-2018, 15:51

So sometimes we are all the same and anyone who says there are differences is wrong / ignorant.

But then a white person decides to have cane rows. And the backlash starts.

~:smoking:

I saw some videos/texts where people are angry about that and I just don't get it.

It makes no sense to say "you can't deny black people access to your shop!" and then turn around and say "hey, this is my culture, white people can't access it!"

The whole "but we were the victims!" is just an excuse to do the same thing you complained about in the first place and two wrongs don't make a right. At this point we can only hope that the debate won't end like the Israel-Palestine conflict, that is full of the same behavior on both sides. :sweatdrop:

rory_20_uk

03-22-2018, 16:10

Indeed. The UK - whilst being faaaaar from perfect - has historically been extremely welcoming to different ways of doing things and although there is an "English" language this is mainly an amalgamation of words from many different cultures over a very long time (not the Celts - I said culture, not a group of blood drinking, woad wearing, druid following pre-Saxon archaic vestiges). Especially the French use to mock our "mongrel tongue". As is most of what the people in the UK eat (partly as our "native" food leaves quite a bit to be desired).

But then what isn't a mix? Tobacco, maize, horses, pasta - ideas have been exchanged for thousands of years. And yet there are those which think they truly have a disctinct culture that is not only set in glass but must not be polluted by others - and in this context it is often "white" people (although my skin rarely looks like a piece of A4 this term is fine) or "Caucasian" (although I have never been near the caucus).

It is happening here. I had a work colleague who said I was "English" since I was white and she was "British" since she was not. She was rather surprised when I immediately called her a racist and informed her she is English as I am as we both speak the language, were born in the country and have the passport.

Once people do not think that they are part of the country there is going to be a problem.

~:smoking:

Gilrandir

03-22-2018, 16:48

Especially the French use to mock our "mongrel tongue".

In fact, French is no less mongrel - a descendent of vulgar Latin.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-22-2018, 18:08

In fact, French is no less mongrel - a descendent of vulgar Latin.

And Gaelic, and touches of German and Arabic

Montmorency

03-23-2018, 05:09

I saw some videos/texts where people are angry about that and I just don't get it.

It makes no sense to say "you can't deny black people access to your shop!" and then turn around and say "hey, this is my culture, white people can't access it!"

The whole "but we were the victims!" is just an excuse to do the same thing you complained about in the first place and two wrongs don't make a right. At this point we can only hope that the debate won't end like the Israel-Palestine conflict, that is full of the same behavior on both sides. :sweatdrop:

Well, first let me say it's correct that if one envisions and agitates for a more equitable future one should be thinking about how to elucidate the result in which "white" may be just one group among many, nothing special (assuming the continued existence of modern categories). The modern world and its arrangements are contingent, not an immutable fact of the universe; once it can no longer be claimed that whites hold hegemonic sociopolitical status, quite a lot of contemporary thinking may no longer apply. What this looks like, and whether it's even possible are worthwhile discussions, but let's just tuck it away for now.

The basic distinction argued between "appropriation" (or adaptation, or exchange) in the generic sense and appropriation in the naughty sense has to do with cultural/political power.

For example, here's an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/grandmas-food-how-changing-tastes-are-killing-german-restaurants/2018/03/19/de4c4994-0b93-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html) that could be interpreted as indicative of a corrosive effect on German-American culture of American appropriation of German cuisine. German food basically is American food at this point, so "traditional" German cuisine is largely unmarketable and one must give the mainstream customers what they want, which is trendy gastropub brunch food with a vague ethnic theme. Like what's happened with Italian, Latin American, and "Asian" cuisine (though all of these have yet managed to maintain themselves fairly widely in non-Americanized forms; maybe recency of mass immigration, among other other factors, makes a difference). But in comparison with other forms of appropriation, it would be pointed out that German-Americans are part of the dominant group in America, so they haven't ultimately lost anything...

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/

...a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.

[...]

Some say, for instance, that non-Western people who wear jeans and Indigenous people who speak English are taking from dominant cultures, too.

But marginalized groups don’t have the power to decide if they’d prefer to stick with their customs or try on the dominant culture’s traditions just for fun.

[...]

In other words, context matters.

But claiming that the dominant culture has a right to take freely from disempowered groups sounds a lot like the lie of the “white man’s burden” from the past. Colonizers used this concept to claim they had a “duty” to take land, resources, and identity from Indigenous people – trying to justify everything from slavery to genocide.

We have a lot of work to do to heal from the impact of oppression from the past through present day. Many examples of cultural appropriation may seem like not a big deal, or like we should have “more important” things to worry about.

But changing oppressive everyday norms is a huge part of the work. It’s one of the ways we can help stop the way society dehumanizes, erases, and ostracizes people of color.

If the choice is between your freedom to wear a costume because it could be fun, or an ethnic group’s ability to maintain the sacredness of a tradition that helps them resist harm, it’s clear that skipping the costume puts you on the side of anti-oppression.

[...]

I’m not saying you automatically can’t enjoy Mexican food if you’re not Mexican, or do a yoga-inspired practice if you’re not Indian, or use any other culturally specific practice in the US.

But I am encouraging you to be thoughtful about using things from other cultures, to consider the context, and learn about the best practices to show respect.

Above is a survey of how the term "appropriation" is typically used, and what that means. It's not a deep analysis, but it covers all the major points so you should go ahead and read it. Most of these points raised are substantively true, I think, so the underlying contention between proponents of sensitivity and those confused over what the issue even is would be: 'so what?' Accepting everything written there as true, people might come to multiple different conclusions about the significance of the phenomenon and what ought to be done about it. Personally I find it difficult to align with this set of qualms and priorities, primarily because:

Cultural elements can and should be divorced from their original context. A cultural element and a cultural element in context really are two different things. Propounding a fake religion made up of certain tropes isn't pillaging Amerindian heritage if one disclaims continuity.

More tendentiously, I would say I'm suspicious of the fetishization of tradition and legacy anywhere. If marginalized or exploited cultures are degraded over time, I don't consider it to be a significant loss. I admittedly run the risk of callousness, but my position is that ethnic content has no intrinsic value - it's a trinket, a plaything - and everybody should be looking for a new heritage anyway. One can't make a brave new world stocked with old-world shibboleths. And as I'm wont to declare, not even "the West" can last. What does it matter if one culture disappears a little earlier than another?

Viking

03-23-2018, 10:48

The historical significance of Achilles' actions is not changed by his skin color, but MLK's entire fight was based on the idea of others that his skin color made him inferior. Surely you could make some movie about him that has absolutely nothing to do with the historical story, but would it really be about the historical MLK then?

If everything else about the character were the same, the movie would provide a solid insight into who the real person was.

(you focus heavily on the skin colour here, but if you take someone with similar skin colour but from a different ethnic background, you'll run into similar issues)

In other words, by changing Achilles' ethnicity, the story stays otherwise intact [...]

Whether every Greek hero was ethnically Greek is not very relevant for the war they fought.

That depends on how you look at it. If you look it as a a Greek story, one of the fundamental aspects of story has been changed. It's not just people fighting, it's people of a particular ethnicity fighting.

Given that conflicts both have tended and still tends to correlate heavily with ethnicity, the potential relevance of the ethnicity of the heroes is obvious.

You have to alter the entire historical story significantly to make it "fit".

Not necessarily. You can instead let the audience view the character as if he is African-American, even if he is portrayed by someone that is not.

It's quite possible that they did have black soldiers here and there.

I am sure MLK had some European-American helpers here and there.

That's the question I was exploring with my poster above: how many layers of abstraction? What would it be like, for example, to portray Martin Luther King in a MLK biopic as an animated Brandenburg Gate? What would it mean?

I don't know about animated gates, but animated cars are en vogue. They even have colours..

If marginalized or exploited cultures are degraded over time, I don't consider it to be a significant loss. I admittedly run the risk of callousness, but my position is that ethnic content has no intrinsic value - it's a trinket, a plaything - and everybody should be looking for a new heritage anyway. One can't make a brave new world stocked with old-world shibboleths. And as I'm wont to declare, not even "the West" can last. What does it matter if one culture disappears a little earlier than another?

From a capitalistic angle, one could argue that different cultures competing with one another could produce 'better' cultural norms, or that the mere existence of other cultures can strengthen the argument to change a culture in a 'better' direction, since it is easier to envision what a different contemporary culture would be like when different contemporary cultures already exist (i.e. a different culture in a contemporary setting is hence demonstrated to be both at all possible and stable and, perhaps, capable of producing a 'good' society).

Husar

03-23-2018, 13:15

If everything else about the character were the same, the movie would provide a solid insight into who the real person was.

(you focus heavily on the skin colour here, but if you take someone with similar skin colour but from a different ethnic background, you'll run into similar issues)

Except that the signs back then didn't read "ethnicity xyz can't use this bus/shop/water fountain", they explicitly referred to blacks or coloreds and whites.
I'm not the one who focuses on skin color, the racists that MLK opposed did. And the people who don't like a black Achilles do as well.
You're apparently trying to ignore that they did.
And yes, it would provide that insight, but the context of his struggle would be illogical and make no sense.

That depends on how you look at it. If you look it as a a Greek story, one of the fundamental aspects of story has been changed. It's not just people fighting, it's people of a particular ethnicity fighting.

Given that conflicts both have tended and still tends to correlate heavily with ethnicity, the potential relevance of the ethnicity of the heroes is obvious.

But if ethnicity is so important, you can't just take a white dude either because white isn't an ethnicity, and neither is "Greek". A modern Greek would surely have a completely different ethnicity in most cases than the four ethnicities that made up ancient greek city states:
http://www.explorethemed.com/EthnicArchaic.asp?c=1

In that case you can't have the movie at all because it will be inaccurate whatever you do.

Not necessarily. You can instead let the audience view the character as if he is African-American, even if he is portrayed by someone that is not.

You can try that, but it makes little sense because he will be discriminated against for looking a certain way but not actually look that way. It makes little sense.

Montmorency

03-23-2018, 14:43

I don't know about animated gates, but animated cars are en vogue. They even have colours..

What would it mean if MLK were an animated car and every other character live-action human?

Not necessarily. You can instead let the audience view the character as if he is African-American, even if he is portrayed by someone that is not.

What do you mean "let the audience view"? You would only be able to do this with an abstraction of the character, and the abstraction of the person of MLK is fundamentally concerned with the politics of race. You could try to make it a Hamilton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_(musical))-style production in which race and character are detached systematically within the scope of the production, but the value would be debatable. It comes down to what the creator's "message" is, probably allegorical. Bottom line, it can't be done as a straightforward representation but as a concrete authorial argument. The merit would have to be assessed individually. Maybe short-feature rather than full-length, but a production with a white MLK would probably be about the mythicization of the MLK personage and how he has been denuded of ideological content in popular consciousness. So you can't do it arbitrarily.

Or a film portraying Pope Julius II as a Protestant could be making commentary on alleged personal beliefs of Julius II, or the nature of organized religion, or something. You could however leave out Julius II's warmaking or relationship to arts patronage without thoroughly compromising the identity of the character if it's not strictly relevant to the story. Depending on the tone of the production, George Washington could come with or without dentures and a particular hairstyle - you get the picture.

Viking

03-23-2018, 17:41

Except that the signs back then didn't read "ethnicity xyz can't use this bus/shop/water fountain", they explicitly referred to blacks or coloreds and whites.
I'm not the one who focuses on skin color, the racists that MLK opposed did. And the people who don't like a black Achilles do as well.
You're apparently trying to ignore that they did.

In America, the term 'black' was, and to a great extent still is, more or less synonymous with 'person of (West/non-Arabic) African descent'.

And yes, it would provide that insight, but the context of his struggle would be illogical and make no sense.

I am assuming that the viewer already has some basic familiarity with who MLK was and what he fought for, but does not really know who he was as a person (which is much more than skin colour).

But if ethnicity is so important, you can't just take a white dude either because white isn't an ethnicity, and neither is "Greek". A modern Greek would surely have a completely different ethnicity in most cases than the four ethnicities that made up ancient greek city states:
http://www.explorethemed.com/EthnicArchaic.asp?c=1

In that case you can't have the movie at all because it will be inaccurate whatever you do.

I already discussed that with Montmorency earlier - some things will look more off than others, depending on the audience.

Relatedly: if impeccable CGI were used to make the actor on the poster have the same skin colour as MLK (but not change e.g. facial features or spoken accent), a lot of people would still not like the casting.

You can try that, but it makes little sense because he will be discriminated against for looking a certain way but not actually look that way. It makes little sense.

Depends on what expectations you have from a movie. Does looking at a continuous stream of computer-generated pixels and pretend it's an actual dragon 'make sense'? Does it 'make sense' to pretend that you are looking at something real when you are looking at a movie? (for people that score low on the "openness to experience" personality trait, the answer seems to often be in the negative area for either question)

Plays have much lower standards for realism in many areas (like the surroundings), but plenty of people still go to the theatres.

What do you mean "let the audience view"?

Merely that they should look past the fact they did not get the phenotype of the portrayed person exactly right with the casting. Like if the actor has a mole on their face while the real person portrayed did not. They should pretend or imagine that the actor has the right skin colour and look past the inaccuracy.

If every other actor has the anticipated ethnicity, this will be less difficult. It will not be to everyone's taste, but that is beside the point; taste is subjective.