BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?

[Fragony]

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.

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

[Husar]

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.

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]

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

[Montmorency]

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]

"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?

[drone]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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]

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]

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]

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

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh the misery
A black man playing a persona out of Greek myth? Where will it ever stop
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-...-lost-wakandas

[Fragony]

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]

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/...nt-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]

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?

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?

[Gilrandir]

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]

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?

They're white if it suits them.

Race and gender are mostly artificial constructs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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.

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]

Whatelse would it come from

[spmetla]

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

[Montmorency]

@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".

[Husar]

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/201...ns-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]

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]

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

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]

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-want...-transformers/

British accents are perfect for film villains because it makes them appear less trustworthy, expert claims
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-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]

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.

[Husar]

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. 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]

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.

[Husar]

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

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.

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?

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

[spmetla]

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).