Black Anglo Saxons in 1066 according to new BBC movie

I'm not triggered by a $10 bill.

Yes, that's correct.

I've never seen a man support this ideology who isn't one or more of the following:

a) a raging narcissistic looking to maintain power (often an older man in a professional environment)

b) a simpleton

c) 'poorly-made', physically speaking

d) attempting to do it to get women in his in-group to like him

IQ and personality test results on adherents would be fascinating.

No I do not agree with Olivier playing a Moor. And Denzel as Julius Caesar, or Hannibal, is wrong. As much as I admire his acting, it just isn’t accurate for a serious historical drama.

If you only watched British tv, you would get the idea that Britain was 70-80% black/South Asian, with the occasional Chinese and white person. From the tv advertisements, you would also think that there was a rule that white women must only be in relationships with black men, that all Chinese men are single and that only South Asian women are desirable. Its a running joke that the only white people allowed in tv adverts now are white women with black men. There is a very successful advertisement with a beautiful blonde woman advertising washing powder, but its only allowed because she has a faint Irish accent and is with a baby and it stands out as being unusual because of her colouring.

Most tv sports presenters are black or Asian if they are in front of the camera. In athletics its Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis and Janette Kwakche, in fact they have to bring Michael Johnson over to keep the quota up). Mainly though the white presenters are only voices, you don't see them in the studio. Theres some really bad non-white BBC presenters, one in particular barely says anything at all and is obviously completely disinterested, and he is sort of astonished whenever the camera turns to him, but has had a great career for years barely doing or saying anything. Then the media portrays him as being handsome or a hunk or whatever, and I can honestly say that I've never met anybody who agrees. Same with Rishi Sunak, failed Prime Minister, he was portrayed in the media as "Dishy Rishi" for a while, despite looking like a tiny deflated balloon.

I avoid watching the BBC now because its more like indoctrination training, and the only modern dramas they have don't focus on characterisation but on shock value, usually meaning women and children are kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Theres barely any comedy shows on British tv any more, for obvious reasons.

So white people can practically get a job on any production, but black people should be heavily restricted to the one or two black characters written specifically for them (i.e. Othello)??

OP is gonna flip his lid when the new Obama movie starring Ryan Gosling comes out next year.

Well, hardly. Dr Who is portrayed by a black actor. The detective series Luther has Idris Elba (black) in the lead role. Noel Clarke (black) has been pretty prolific, until the allegations of sexual abuse were made against him that is. Please don't tell me that Paterson Joseph doesn't get roles, he is one of my favourite actors. David Gyasi, Adrian Lester, David Oleyowu, Chewitel Eyifor, Ashley Walter, Clint Dyer, Lennie James, Aml Ameen, Delroy Lindel, Danny Sapani, Charles Venn, Ray Fearon, Michael Obiora, Ricky Whittle, Hugh Quarshie, Colin Salmon, John Boyega, Robbie Gee, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jimmy Akingbola, Eamonn Walker, Daniel Kaluuya, Arinzé Kene, Alfred Lewis Enoch (Harry Potter?), I've had to stop there because there are many other examples of British born black actors not being restricted to black roles.

How many white blonde women by contrast are playing the role of famous black women of the last 40 years by comparison?

The problem for the makers of British films and tv series is that the country is multicultural today while its history is anything but. It would be difficult to engage with audiences that never see themselves on screen. So the past is revised to be more accessible.

But the issue goes beyond race. Historical dramas are full of anachronisms - of speech and social attitudes. Figures from the past are frequently dressed in the social attitudes and manners of the present. They are often proto-feminist and early advocates for gay rights and use phrases and expressions that could only come from these times. Some of this may be intentional by the makers of these programmes - a desire to be "inclusive" and enable audiences to identify with what they see on screen. But it is also probably an unconscious reflection of the attitudes of those producing these dramas, who are often young, earnest and left-leaning. They project themselves on to the screen.

If history was determinedly presented as it truly was it would show a very different country from today and one whose practices and attitudes would often alienate if not repel. But, then, that is why the present is different; we have chosen to move from what we and our forbears once were. So film that is entertainment and not documentary chooses to show us as we are now and prefer to be, at the cost of historical accuracy.

Yes, thank you. Best post of the thread so far, and it's buried on page 3.

I'll add that we're very selective in what we "expect" out of period dramas and historical fiction. There's a lot of war and not a lot of famine or disease, despite the fact that these were much more common (and often went along war). We want shows about heroes and conquerors, not random peasants working in their fields and dying during childbirth.

I'm not saying there aren't prominent black actors.

But are people really arguing any production that's set in Britain before the 19th century must have an all-white cast?

There's only one Shakespeare character that's non-white (Ortello) - should NO black or asian actors ever appear in any Shakespeare play apart from if they're playing Ortello? That's obviously absurd and racist.

^^ This. This is much more significant than any literally superficial difference in skin color.

Was it diverse 1,000 years ago? The answer is no. I always get annoyed when they throw in random people from a different part of the world in movies/shows that take place a reeeeaaallly long time ago when communities had zero diversity. There doesn't need to be random white people in an ancient egypt movie, there doesn't need to be white or black people in an ancient chinese movie. There doesn't need to be asian people in a viking movie. If there is one random person from a part of the world that doesn't make sense, then they better explain the rare situation that brought them there, because it would have been very abnormal. When movies bring people in out of place like that it makes it obvious that it's a movie and the viewer can no longer feel like they're actually transported to that time and place. It'd be like seeing a car drive down the road during a movie on the roman empire. Just not accurate to the times.

How come they never do remakes the other way? Is that not "hip and trendy"? Not "groundbreaking"? Seriously they should do an biopic of MLK and cast King as a skinny white nerd. Maybe they can get reviewbrah to play the part. Or do a movie about Malcom X starring a chinese actor with a super thick accent. Why isn't that "groundbreaking"?

Because race was central to the story of MLK and Malcolm X so you're not able to tell the story effectively if you don't cast a black actor.

If you can find a white character who's race is central to their story then I'd argue they should be played by a white actor.

Blackwashing is arrogant pseudo history. Blackwashing is also mostly done to European societies it’s so strange .

Many ancient pictures depict him as a white man with dark hair.

Why are white minorities in Britain extremely underrepresented in media ? That is a good question to ask