BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?

[Gilrandir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Husar]

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]

[Viking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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...orman-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]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

To be fair, most such concerns are about monetization. Wherefore the problem lies with capitalism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

"backlash" was nice wordplay there.

[Husar]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Gilrandir]

Especially the French use to mock our "mongrel tongue".

In fact, French is no less mongrel - a descendent of vulgar Latin.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In fact, French is no less mongrel - a descendent of vulgar Latin.

And Gaelic, and touches of German and Arabic

[Montmorency]

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.

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 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...riation-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]

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]

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.