BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?

[CrossLOPER]

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

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

[Fragony]

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.

Oh forget about it, we all have moodswings sometimes

[Crandar]

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

Not really. The Egyptian tradition argument is a myth, originated from Orientalists obsessed with the exotic East. Last royal brother sister couple was 1.000 years before the Lagids. In various periods, that used to be a small trend among commoners, but not during the Hellenistic era.

[Suraknar]

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of the responses by social media users:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the producers here, once again, confirm it.

Really a shame and it is on them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you criticize the concept of Disney's Hercules as much as you criticize this casting choice?

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

[Suraknar]

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

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

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

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

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

Would you criticize the concept of Disney's Hercules as much as you criticize this casting choice?

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

IMHO

---

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

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

[spmetla]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the sum of the worlds problems right there. Everyone feels justified in their actions and views. Pedophiles can say it was normal a few hundred years ago. Rapists can say the victims were too provocative.
Over all my issue wasn't really with you on this but with Crandar's opening post:

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

It needs to stop asap or otherwise an Orwellian future awaits us, where any means of expression will be censored by the plague of right-wing political correctness, always eager to silence any voice that challenges its dogmatic narrative.

His conclusions that to oppose this casting must be Orwellian is what I'm at odds with. There aren't people marching in the streets that Achilles must be a white guy, MPs aren't drafting laws to restrict such castings. Instead there's some minor protests against the casting and then it'll be dissipate into being a non-issue. His painting all that don't like the casting as right-wing tribalists is to offensive and his wanting to stop their expression is more Orwellian in thought than the reaction to the initial casting decision. This is the side of multi-culturalism that I don't like. Disagreeing with someone's art does not make someone a fascist.

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

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

@ Suraknar

If you are going to tell the story of Ancient Greeces's History at least get your facts right and tell the story as it should, be representative of History of the people whose story you are telling. So yea Greek people's idea of accuracy is what matters first and foremost.

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

[Fragony]

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

[Sir Moody]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

That's fair I guess

[Sarmatian]

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

What ticked you off?

[Fragony]

What ticked you off?

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spmetla]

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

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

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

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

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

That's part of the problem of most of Europe's states being the result of about 200 years of ethnic national movements, the nationality is tied directly to the language and ethnicity. A Hungarian or Pole (or any number of nationalities) of African ancestry will have far more trouble being accepted as a 'true' Hungarian or Pole because they don't look 'Hungarian' or 'Polish.' Just as a white guy or brazilian in Japan will be seen as an outsider. When a nations history has been largely defined by a struggle to become independent as an ethnically homogeneous nation-state it is very difficult to change that narrative.
JAPAN'S PROBLEM WITH RACE
http://www.newsweek.com/why-does-no-...-racist-364129
China’s Race Problem
How Beijing Represses Minorities
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...s-race-problem
Why Poland doesn’t want refugees
An ethnically homogenous nation battles EU efforts to distribute asylum seekers
https://www.politico.eu/article/poli...want-refugees/

Back to the topic sorta with this Washington Post article about the US winter olympic team:
Trying to make Team USA look more like America
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.86bc93c68a35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Since that point, we’ve just been trying to find ways to make sure our team looks like America,” he said............

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

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

We will see.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-...hit-or-a-myth/

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

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

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

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

But here I would rejoin:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

I mean, I was proud of myself.

[spmetla]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Viking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

Though if we take a look at this picture of looks blended by nationality...there are differences between a English guy and a Greek guy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

[Montmorency]

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

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


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

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

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

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


Hows the Norwegian here, by the way?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler alert: they get slaughtered by brigands

Keeping with the theme of the thread, the show above (Deadwood) cast a Scandinavian American as an Austrian Jew (because of the nose?).

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

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