BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?

[Gilrandir]

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]

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]

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]

chief Greek god.

That was a Korean plant to mislead the Greeks!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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

Heh, here as well a qui bono thingie.

[Sarmatian]

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]

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]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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]

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 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]

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

[Montmorency]

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 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]

"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]

Delete Please double post

[Suraknar]

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]

But really the biggest problem with movies like these has more to do with them being hot garbage.

[Greyblades]

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]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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]

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]

But did she flush?

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.

[Sarmatian]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

Same difference.

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