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.
All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
Google AI seems to think African sailors were commonly accepted and integrated in to British society, and that its plausible, if not likely, that they would have also enlisted and served as soldiers during the referenced time.
They also made the distinction...maybe sensing my American Whiteness, that the term "black" that I typed is a more modern term, and people of African descent, in those times, were not seen how they have been in modern America. So records of "Black Soldiers" would be much more difficult to come by than what we see when we research them in our own history.
Im talking about Marv. He seems to be mocking the idea in this thread and attributing it only to the right.All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
Im talking about Marv. He seems to be mocking the idea in this thread and attributing it only to the right.All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
so effectively doing the same thing as jdb...just the opposite direction.
although I find the topic title rather humorous given good number of people on the right try to whitewash history and make sure kids learn the fake version that puts white ancestors in only a positive light.
On the flip side, in what aspect does the left try to prevent people from accepting history or try to coverup parts of history they don't like? And something that is a widespread opinion among the party and not just a random wacko that happens to be a liberal.
As for this specific topic about a black person in the movie, you can't blame the left as a whole for how a movie director casts parts to people. You would find many people on the left that wish movies were as accurate as possible. And if the thread had kept political attacks/accusations out of it, we might actually have had a reasonable discussion on the matter. Given how jdb started the thread, he didn't want reasonable discussion.
Im talking about Marv. He seems to be mocking the idea in this thread and attributing it only to the right.All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
I don't think only the right is to blame, but the thread deserves a good mocking.
Blame for what? What do you believe is wrong with the notion that we treat other people the same despite the color of their skin?Im talking about Marv. He seems to be mocking the idea in this thread and attributing it only to the right.All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
I don't think only the right is to blame, but the thread deserves a good mocking.
And before anyone tries to gaslight about this, Marv appears to simply be repeating the current position of anti-racist progressives:
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/05/why-color-blindness-is-dangerous/
Why ‘color-blindness’ is dangerous
White leaders calling for ‘color-blind’ policies exacerbate injustice
https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2009/colorblindness-the-new-racism
Blame for what? What do you believe is wrong with the notion that we treat other people the same despite the color of their skin?Im talking about Marv. He seems to be mocking the idea in this thread and attributing it only to the right.All I hear from the right is “colorblind”.
That’s sad. When I grew up, the notion of colorblindness was something you heard from the left. But I guess they’ve now given that up, much like they gave up a culture of free speech.
Read what JDB just quoted. This was colorblindness. The actor was not chosen to make a statement about diversity or anything woke.
I don't think only the right is to blame, but the thread deserves a good mocking.
And before anyone tries to gaslight about this, Marv appears to simply be repeating the current position of anti-racist progressives:
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/12/05/why-color-blindness-is-dangerous/
Why ‘color-blindness’ is dangerous
White leaders calling for ‘color-blind’ policies exacerbate injustice
https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2009/colorblindness-the-new-racism
Blame for decidedly non-colorblind threads like this.
I'll tell you one black guy that wasn't at Hastings..."Payback"...
@bradstevens The way I see it (and everyone else should, too) is this: When it comes to the race of an actor, it shouldn't matter whatsoever, unless the race of the character is important to the narrative. When it comes to characters which already have an assumed race - either because the story has been told before, or because it is set in a particular historical context - then the simplest excuse for changing the race of that character is the colorblind one: the guy was simply the best actor for that role. It sounds like that's what happened here. They didn't set out to have that soldier be a black guy, but for whatever reason, he impressed in his audition, and got the part. Good for him.
But that's not the only valid reason. I do think there is a non-colorblind reason to change the race of a character, too, and that's because you're trying to explore a different version of the narrative in which the new race plays an important part. If, for example, you wanted to retell Romeo & Juliet set in modern South Central LA, it would make sense to purposefully cast black actors, because their race is an important part of the version of the story you want to tell.
Then there is the third reason: artistic affirmative action. Purposefully casting a black guy in a traditionally white role simply because you want to make Hollywood a little more diverse. I don't think that's a very good reason, but I also don't think it's the reason these kinds of things usually happen. It is, however, the reason folks like JDB jump to when something gets their knickers in a bind.
Finally, in this particular case, none of these need apply at all, because as we've already covered, England at the time of the Norman invasion almost certainly had some dark-skinned African residents, and we don't know for sure if any of them actually fought at Hastings. It's within the realm of possibility. We have no records suggesting it happened, but we also have no records claiming Harold's entire army was made up of 100% pure-blooded lily white Anglo-Saxons, either. It's a blank. People can fill it in however they want, so long as it's plausible. And the idea that one or even a handful of Africans who had made their way to England found themselves fighting for Harold is entirely plausible.
No one has even said anything about the fact they cast a Danish actor as William! That should be the true source of outrage - they couldn't find a qualified Frenchie?
I think there is also a bit of a difference here between casting a random black guy as an extra or whether he is a main / supporting character that is supposed to be representing a known historical figure.
(BTW, if people are truly offended by this, they should reeeeaaaalllly avoid ever watching Hamilton).
I think there is also a bit of a difference here between casting a random black guy as an extra or whether he is a main / supporting character that is supposed to be representing a known historical figure.
(BTW, if people are truly offended by this, they should reeeeaaaalllly avoid ever watching Hamilton).
Or...
.
@bulk-vh is that good? Loved the first one so much haven’t watched. And I love Denzel