I don't know the context of that clip, but there were absolutely black Africans in Anglo-Saxon England. Probably not very many, but their presence is recorded. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a black mercenary or even slave might find his way into the Anglo-Saxon army.
@goat I doubt it. There may have been some who came up as part of the Roman army 1000 years earlier, but they would have been gone, or the gene pool diluted, by 1066.
On what source do you base your claim
DANC
@goat I doubt it. There may have been some who came up as part of the Roman army 1000 years earlier, but they would have been gone, or the gene pool diluted, by 1066.
On what source do you base your claim
We have their bones.
There was a lot more intercourse between far-flung regions in the middle ages than most assume. You are correct to note that the Roman ages were a high-point for this sort of thing. The foederati - and later the legions proper - helped move people all over the Roman world, increasing ethnic diversity everywhere. But it's not like it just stopped when the Western empire collapsed. Trade to the east in China continued. And, yes, trade over the Sahara to central Africa also continued.
Hell, in the 14th century, Ethiopia and Aragon traded embassies and briefly toyed with a marriage alliance against the Muslim world betwixt them.
I don't know the context of that clip, but there were absolutely black Africans in Anglo-Saxon England. Probably not very many, but their presence is recorded. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a black mercenary or even slave might find his way into the Anglo-Saxon army.
However, there is no contemporary record of African troops at Hastings, and the Bayeux Tapestry—our most detailed visual source—shows only European warriors
Hell, in the 14th century, Ethiopia and Aragon traded embassies and briefly toyed with a marriage alliance against the Muslim world betwixt them.
That’s several hundred years later and many miles away.
I don't know the context of that clip, but there were absolutely black Africans in Anglo-Saxon England. Probably not very many, but their presence is recorded. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a black mercenary or even slave might find his way into the Anglo-Saxon army.
However, there is no contemporary record of African troops at Hastings, and the Bayeux Tapestry—our most detailed visual source—shows only European warriors
Who cares? It's a distinct historical possibility. Why does it offend?
I don't know the context of that clip, but there were absolutely black Africans in Anglo-Saxon England. Probably not very many, but their presence is recorded. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a black mercenary or even slave might find his way into the Anglo-Saxon army.
However, there is no contemporary record of African troops at Hastings, and the Bayeux Tapestry—our most detailed visual source—shows only European warriors
Who cares? It's a distinct historical possibility. Why does it offend?
no, it isn’t. Because remaking history to be something other than it is ruins the entire concept.
you think it’s appropriate to show a bunch of white Zulu warriors fighting the British, Jesus as a Muslim, Moses as a Mongul? What the fuck are we even doing here?
I don't know the context of that clip, but there were absolutely black Africans in Anglo-Saxon England. Probably not very many, but their presence is recorded. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a black mercenary or even slave might find his way into the Anglo-Saxon army.
However, there is no contemporary record of African troops at Hastings, and the Bayeux Tapestry—our most detailed visual source—shows only European warriors
Who cares? It's a distinct historical possibility. Why does it offend?
no, it isn’t. Because remaking history to be something other than it is ruins the entire concept.
you think it’s appropriate to show a bunch of white Zulu warriors fighting the British, Jesus as a Muslim, Moses as a Mongul? What the fuck are we even doing here?
It's one guy. Surrounded by white guys. Just like an actual African in England at the time would have been. It's not remaking anything.
Are we going to complain about people wearing kilts in braveheart?
Unfortunately, accuracy has never been a priority.
@jdb wait, I thought the goal was colorblind. If the best actor is Black, why not let them be a Saxon? Just curious since I hear the colorblind concept on this board often.
Are you familiar with the term “whitewashing”? Your premise seems to be ok so long as it’s folks of color taking parts that the characters are white in canon but when it goes the other way there’s outrage for whitewashing. Do you think if a movie revolving around slavery casts a white person in the role of a slave that people would be ok with it because they’re the best actor for the part?
Oh we probably did need to get involved in some form or another. I'm just saying Hitler did the world a favor with Operation Barbarossa, and under no circumstances should we have been providing aid to the Soviets.
Pretty easy to say almost 90 years later though.
@jdb wait, I thought the goal was colorblind. If the best actor is Black, why not let them be a Saxon? Just curious since I hear the colorblind concept on this board often.
Are you familiar with the term “whitewashing”? Your premise seems to be ok so long as it’s folks of color taking parts that the characters are white in canon but when it goes the other way there’s outrage for whitewashing. Do you think if a movie revolving around slavery casts a white person in the role of a slave that people would be ok with it because they’re the best actor for the part?
So tell me, what are the exact rules? Seriously, when is it ok to consider color and when is it not? All I hear from the right is "colorblind". Occasionally "meritocracy" until they realize people born billionaires have not merited it.
Are we supposed to be totally colorblind or not? As Goat mentions above, do we know for a fact there was not a single Black at Hastings?
When are we going to stop portraying Jesus as White? That is an important question. There is less of a chance that He looked like most painting and actors that have portrayed Him. Have you ever complained about that. Here is the most sold painting of Jesus of all time.
@jdb wait, I thought the goal was colorblind. If the best actor is Black, why not let them be a Saxon? Just curious since I hear the colorblind concept on this board often.
Are you familiar with the term “whitewashing”? Your premise seems to be ok so long as it’s folks of color taking parts that the characters are white in canon but when it goes the other way there’s outrage for whitewashing. Do you think if a movie revolving around slavery casts a white person in the role of a slave that people would be ok with it because they’re the best actor for the part?
So tell me, what are the exact rules? Seriously, when is it ok to consider color and when is it not? All I hear from the right is "colorblind". Occasionally "meritocracy" until they realize people born billionaires have not merited it.
Are we supposed to be totally colorblind or not? As Goat mentions above, do we know for a fact there was not a single Black at Hastings?
When are we going to stop portraying Jesus as White? That is an important question. There is less of a chance that He looked like most painting and actors that have portrayed Him. Have you ever complained about that. Here is the most sold painting of Jesus of all time.
Historical & canonical accuracy is important (to me) as it relates to characters & historical figures. I don’t want to see Winston Churchill played by a person of colors, nor do I want to see MLK jr played by a white person. As far as the Jesus question, it’s interesting that you are willing to question whether we know for a fact that there were not black soldiers at Hastings but not whether we know for fact what Jesus’ skin color was…
@jdb wait, I thought the goal was colorblind. If the best actor is Black, why not let them be a Saxon? Just curious since I hear the colorblind concept on this board often.
Are you familiar with the term “whitewashing”? Your premise seems to be ok so long as it’s folks of color taking parts that the characters are white in canon but when it goes the other way there’s outrage for whitewashing. Do you think if a movie revolving around slavery casts a white person in the role of a slave that people would be ok with it because they’re the best actor for the part?
So tell me, what are the exact rules? Seriously, when is it ok to consider color and when is it not? All I hear from the right is "colorblind". Occasionally "meritocracy" until they realize people born billionaires have not merited it.
Are we supposed to be totally colorblind or not? As Goat mentions above, do we know for a fact there was not a single Black at Hastings?
When are we going to stop portraying Jesus as White? That is an important question. There is less of a chance that He looked like most painting and actors that have portrayed Him. Have you ever complained about that. Here is the most sold painting of Jesus of all time.
You are being obtuse. I want history to be portrayed as it was supposed to be, not based on some woke slant.
I've always liked Daniel Day Lewis. I have no interest in watching him play Michael Jordan in a Bulls docudrama over a black man. I have no interest in watching Michael B. Jordan portray Serena Williams.
Let's just be normal and realistic for once. Is that so much to ask?