Yes it was, and I just checked, its name was changed in 1924 to the catchy "Stalino", before being renamed again Donetsk in the 1960s, when Stalino probably felt a bit on the nose.
Good article. As you say ahistorical casting and storylines aren’t new and we all put up with them all the time. I think when people object to this stuff it’s often because they sense (correctly) that it’s being done as a way of calculatedly invading your a political opponents psychological space - rather than because the world has changed or people want different kinds of stories or whatever. It’s not diverse casting, it’s diverse casting *at* a particular type of viewer (often the predominant one that watches the show).
I think minorities that are really interested in history dramas will actually resent this. You are right that it is white middle class people who promote this stuff, but they are doing it to please black activists rather than blacks in general.
I was persuaded to watch Game of Thrones by a black guy in work. There are 2 or 3 very minor black characters in a cast of hundreds.
The most impressive rant I saw against the race swapping in Amazon's Tolkien series was from a black Youtuber
This reminds me of the programme the National Trust launched a few years ago to recruit minority mentors who would in turn engage their respective "communities" and make NT properties more inclusive and accessible.
I've not seen a single stat or write-up summarising the outcome of these efforts. Has the % of non-white visitors gone up meaningfully? Are they even tracking the results or is the point simply to boast about the existence of these programmes on the website and get some press about it?
Your arguments failed to convince me of your purely historical desires for visual and ethnic accuracy. By paragraph give [substack], I knew where this racist/ethnic apologia was leading. Your arguments about the screens' (large and small) and stages' casting requirements are embarrassingly obvious; reaching for rationales that are quite absurd. Keats' wrote,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
I take his meaning as the lips, face, or skin tone of the reader/speaker changes the meaning not.
Yes. Ed’s point that we are unlikely to see black Nazis on the TV is spot on (though there were a few soldiers from the Indian subcontinent in the Waffen SS, as well as the son of the British MP and political ally of Churchill, Leo Amery). A drama set in 1930s Berlin showing men with side-locks smashing the windows of a shop with a Star of David on the door would confuse and upset people as well I suspect.
That's exactly the point of it. It's the same with the Pride flags. It's not there to make a trans person feel included, it's for the rest of us. 'OK we've put this here, do you have a problem with that?"
A good piece, and I agree. You are, as ever, coolly rational in your analysis. I, on the other hand, find colour-blind casting offensive and deeply irritating. Not to mention sinister. I look forward to Pedro Pascal (who appears to be in everything) playing Nelson Mandela.
OTOH, as for Lawrence Fox being a dullard over '1917', I thought the inclusion of the Indian soldiers was entirely fair. (1) The scene suggested the unit was made up of stragglers from half a dozen different regiments, including Scots. I'm not an expert on WW1 but I can easily imagine that's feasible. (2) This is where a not-very-accurate nod to history is entirely fair. Thousands of Indian soldiers fought bravely for Britain. That is a simple truth. To bend it slightly to honour them seems justified.
coincidentally the following week I got into a conversation with a Sikh man, not about the film, but just about his family and he talked about his grandfather and great-uncles on the western front.
Yes, though it was the British Empire back then, not Britain as it is today. Sikhs were part of the empire. By the same token, we hear a lot about Canadians and Aussies doing the same, but they were the ones who were dependent on the empire for their defence - it wasn’t charity, they needed the Royal Navy etc. more than Britain needed Australia. There wasn’t even a Canadian or Australian flag, anthem or passport until around 1948.
Speaking as an American who knows a ludicrous amount about the actual history ... no matter how much I intellectually understand it, emotionally it makes zero sense to me how all of you just somehow introduced passports and anthems and became completely separate nations on inertia.
We had a big bloody revolution. That I can wrap my heart around. Canada and Australia just somehow drifting away? My head gets it. My gut not at all.
Nice point. The US government insisted on it during WWII. It is even written down in the so-called Atlantic Charter. In practice, a lot of Brits left the UK in the 1940s and 1950s for the (ex) empire, so there was still some mixing. Churchill called them rats. Others called it “the brain drain”.
yes exactly. the people from the more northern seven kingdoms look northern European, the ones in the south look Spanish, the wildlings are pasty Scots.
Really interesting article. Doesn’t all this just feed the narrative that progressive elites simply lie to promote their contemporary world view on any variety of subjects? Many have now had enough and have simply tuned out. That’s why they aren’t watching linear TV (especially BBC drama), rarely go to the cinema and prefer the information environment they can control online. It may soon result in a large shift in political allegiance, particularly in younger men.
It must be understood that progressives regard as abhorrent the very idea of the English existing as a distinct ethnic group, and they have long set their mind to ensure all groupness is dissolved for the greater good of mankind. In the physical world this means endless immigration - as diverse as possible. In the symbolic world it means e.g discriminating against the indigenous population in casting - and especially when casting historic productions about their existence as a group - as Ed alludes a process of humiliation . Were this happening to any non Western group there would be a Palestine type reaction from progressives. It would be regarded as symbolically genocidal. But normal people are not as dramatic as progressives or creatives so they have sort of let it pass until now. But post GF the efforts became
so blatant, so in your face, that they now strengthen rather than weaken the sense of the English as entitled to a group identity. A right that seems to be freely accorded to all non Western groups. And you see that in things like raising of flags which is obviously an expression that the English are here and real
Once had this conversation with a shouty Welsh nationalist. I pointed out, in a Balkans-style scenario in the UK - a war - the English would be the Serbs. It wouldn't be pretty.
The other point here is that when it comes to British ethnic groups they are very interlinked, quite alike and broadly compatible - but for narcissism of small differences, which can play an outsized role at times
Ed, another great column but all of this begs the question: what are some “docu-series” (or movies) that you recommend, either because they got the history right and/or you just really enjoyed? If you have already done this is a column, I apologize, but as I finished this, I was thinking, “but what does Ed like?” 🧐
Better yet, would love to see recommended books, documentaries and online courses that you have found compelling. We amateur historians (your readers) are a curious and voracious bunch!
The most readable introduction to 1066 was actually a book I read from the Bayeux Tapestry museum gift shop on the same topic. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece by Carola Hicks.
Two bangers in a row, Ed! When I watched the final installments of Wolf Hall, I was completely distracted by the inclusion of black actors in Henry's court and as ladies-in-waiting. Inevitably I began wondering what else about the story had been fabricated and politicised to satisfy progressive elites and irritate people like me.
As you say, the double standards here are particularly aggravating. Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor (because Lord forbid actors pretend to be someone they're not), which means that in complete fictional dramas, representations must remain faithful to identities, but in historical dramas, inaccurate representations are not just harmless, but essential to promoting cultural truths!
Re: Inevitably I began wondering what else about the story had been fabricated and politicised to satisfy progressive elites and irritate people like me.
As I posted elsewhere the main complaint about the history it depicted was that it made Cromwell a nicer guy than he likely was. The real Cromwell was as greedy as anyone when it came to reaping the profits of the expropriated monasteries. It's not really clear he had any sincere religiosity (show-Cromwell is portrayed as sincerely and even a bit radically Protestant) and he did not seem to have many regrets about Cardinal Wolsey's fall (Wolsey was his original patron and mentor) or about Anne Boleyn's fate.
Of course every historical epic takes a few liberties. Some things are massaged a bit to increase the drama. Side events may be left out. Timelines compressed. Characters vilified or sanctified. Wolf Hall did a better job than most do of sticking to the historical narrative.
Re: Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor
Oh good grief! Gay actors continue to play straight leads-- even romantic straight men leads. Jonathan Bailey as Anthony Bridgerton is a current example. No reason straight actors shouldn't play gay, if they can do so convincingly.
The next time we have film or show about a pope, can only a Catholic play His Holiness?
Mantell’s vision of Thomas Cromwell doesn’t mesh well with the thick-necked brute in his Holbein portrait. But I don’t think she’s trying to portray the historical Cromwell. She’s doing something different with his character: creating clear-eyed observer who is the center point for entering into events and circumstances and people of that historical time. She does it brilliantly, with very high literary quality and great historical understanding. That’s what the best historical fiction achieves, to my mind.
My limited knowledge of Hillary Mantel is that she was anti-Catholic. My speculation is that her mythologizing of Cromwell is rooted in this bias. Could be way off with that.
I should say that, leaving aside the irritating historical inaccuracies, Wolf Hall was incredibly fun to watch. In terms of theatre and filmmaking, it was a fantastic achievement. The acting, lighting, music, costumes, artistry were magnificent and totally captivating. In those respects, it was the highest form of British theatre.
Anti-Catholicism was common in the UK for a long time. When my father was in England as an American GI in WWII he dated an English woman who asked him if he was Catholic because she would never date a man who was.
It hasn't got anywhere close to dying out, if you ask me. Tony Blair waited until he left office before his public conversion. Maybe I see it more because I'm Scottish, but there's always been a cultural fault line.
My partner's grandmother (born 1925 in Surrey) explained to me a few years ago that her local Scrabble group met in a local church. Then she whispered with slight recoil, "It's actually a Catholic church but, you know, they give us the hall and we don't engage with them otherwise".
I was a bit surprised she said this, lol, especially since I'm Spanish.
"Re: Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor"
I wish it had been: I probably wouldn't have gone to see it in that case, and saved a couple of hours.
"No reason straight actors shouldn't play gay, if they can do so convincingly."
Hugh Grant did it pretty well. Jeremy Strong and Al Pacino have both played Roy Cohn. Cohn was also Jewish, and while Strong's father was, Pacino didn't even have that. AFAIK, no one has complained.
I for one can't wait till historical dramas show the Middle Ages with cyborgs because [insert Western European country here] has always been a transhumanist country!
I really enjoyed Armando Ianuccis “The Personal History of David Copperfield” which was very explicit in its color blind casting but fit in with his vision of a supremely whimsical take on the story.
It didn’t try to convince you that Dickensian England was diverse, but it played into the whimsy of having a black actress and a Chinese actor having an Indian child.
Fully agree with this - if they lean into it completely and do it 'theatrically' it's fine. It's when it's one random black dude in the Joust, or two Asians discussing the Restoration, or whatever, that it is incredibly jarring.
Perhaps in some sense the current elite/progressive cadres are descendants of the aristocratic Normand that marginalized the Anglo-Saxon English. The “beat” goes on
My wife thought it would be nice to take the kids to a performance of The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe at Sadlers Wells. I immediately thought, Uh oh, I know what that will be like, and had a look at the reviews. Lo & behold, the entire family is played by black actors and the White Witch is... yeah, white.
Unlike Ed, I'm incapable of being phlegmatic & grown up about this stuff, I just hate all of it. Whether "well meaning" or not, the overall effect is to belittle & humiliate white people. Or if you want to get fancy about it, it's literally the 'replacism' that Renaud Camus talks about.
I also wonder about the effect on my children. I don't know what that effect will be, but I can't help thinking it's not going to be good. All their favourite characters in all sorts of books turned into people of another colour because... well, what?
I kind of feel though anyone with any brains once they reach a certain age will disabuse themselves of.this nonsense. But perhaps the collapse of reading and self-reflection among the next generarion makes this over-optimistic.
In my experience, "educated" young people don't want to hear anything that isn't part of the simple political narratives they've been taught. It's like they've been taught that even hearing such things is immoral.
I’m a big Tolkien fan but I haven’t bothered with the Rings of Power because of the casting. A progressive couple I know told me I’m being unreasonable, and that it’s “weird” I would even notice there are black hobbits and black elves, especially because it’s fantasy.
But it’s for the same reason I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously if a hobbit wielded a lightsaber. A lightsaber is no more implausible than a magic ring, but it would be out of place and break the immersion. Anyone with a scintilla of curiosity about the geography of Middle Earth will be constantly wondering how black-skinned hobbits evolved in the temperate climate of the Shire. More likely they’ll just dismiss the whole enterprise as political.
A curious historical inaccuracy from the past is Hollywood's 1950's biopic of Goya, 'The Naked Maja'. Not only does it portray the Duchess of Alba as living during Napoleon's invasion of Spain (by which time she was in fact dead), but it also portrays Goya - who was completely deaf by the time he painted the Duchess - as being able to hear. It's a striking missed opportunity to portray a disabled person whose disability did not prevent him from accomplishing great things.
TBF, Hollywood wasn't even pretending to represent disabled people at the time. I don't even know if it is now: it doesn't seem to be. Disabled people who accomplish great things do rather make the rest of us look bad. I think the 70s was the peak of disabled representation, perhaps with Ironside (played by the able bodied Raymond Burr) in his wheelchair. I don't think a book like "The Small Back Room" whose antihero is disabled would be filmed today. (I haven't seen the Powell and Pressburger film, so I'm not sure if he's disabled in that, TBF.)
It's funny because a historical drama about some Yoruba kingdom in the 18th century with an all black cast (throw in a few evil white slave traders if you like), would actually be very interesting. But instead they do this.
Yeah it really would, and Britain has enough black actors for the BBC to do it, but it would be sensitivity-read to death, they would fear risking criticism from Nigerians, there would be pressure to remove any senior non-black creatives in the making of it.
I heard that Wolf Hall would have "colorblind casting" in the second series and innocently thought that must mean they're doing an episode about that John Blanke trumpeter guy.
" There were thousands of Britons in Ottoman-era Smyrna, for instance, and many Scots in 17th century Poland"
Donetsk, the main city in Ukraine's Donbas, was founded by a Welshman in the 19th Century. I don't have a photo but I assume he was black.
Wasn’t the town originally called “Hughsovska”?
Yes it was, and I just checked, its name was changed in 1924 to the catchy "Stalino", before being renamed again Donetsk in the 1960s, when Stalino probably felt a bit on the nose.
Well done.
Good article. As you say ahistorical casting and storylines aren’t new and we all put up with them all the time. I think when people object to this stuff it’s often because they sense (correctly) that it’s being done as a way of calculatedly invading your a political opponents psychological space - rather than because the world has changed or people want different kinds of stories or whatever. It’s not diverse casting, it’s diverse casting *at* a particular type of viewer (often the predominant one that watches the show).
true. Incidentally, wonder if colour-blind casting increases the number of minority views. I imagine probably not a lot.
I think minorities that are really interested in history dramas will actually resent this. You are right that it is white middle class people who promote this stuff, but they are doing it to please black activists rather than blacks in general.
I was persuaded to watch Game of Thrones by a black guy in work. There are 2 or 3 very minor black characters in a cast of hundreds.
The most impressive rant I saw against the race swapping in Amazon's Tolkien series was from a black Youtuber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85S-6s6i1zU
This reminds me of the programme the National Trust launched a few years ago to recruit minority mentors who would in turn engage their respective "communities" and make NT properties more inclusive and accessible.
I've not seen a single stat or write-up summarising the outcome of these efforts. Has the % of non-white visitors gone up meaningfully? Are they even tracking the results or is the point simply to boast about the existence of these programmes on the website and get some press about it?
Your arguments failed to convince me of your purely historical desires for visual and ethnic accuracy. By paragraph give [substack], I knew where this racist/ethnic apologia was leading. Your arguments about the screens' (large and small) and stages' casting requirements are embarrassingly obvious; reaching for rationales that are quite absurd. Keats' wrote,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
I take his meaning as the lips, face, or skin tone of the reader/speaker changes the meaning not.
Yes. Ed’s point that we are unlikely to see black Nazis on the TV is spot on (though there were a few soldiers from the Indian subcontinent in the Waffen SS, as well as the son of the British MP and political ally of Churchill, Leo Amery). A drama set in 1930s Berlin showing men with side-locks smashing the windows of a shop with a Star of David on the door would confuse and upset people as well I suspect.
Except, of course, in those infamous (Gemini?) AI-generated images, as AI is programed with 'progressive' values - one reason I tend to avoid it.
That's exactly the point of it. It's the same with the Pride flags. It's not there to make a trans person feel included, it's for the rest of us. 'OK we've put this here, do you have a problem with that?"
A good piece, and I agree. You are, as ever, coolly rational in your analysis. I, on the other hand, find colour-blind casting offensive and deeply irritating. Not to mention sinister. I look forward to Pedro Pascal (who appears to be in everything) playing Nelson Mandela.
OTOH, as for Lawrence Fox being a dullard over '1917', I thought the inclusion of the Indian soldiers was entirely fair. (1) The scene suggested the unit was made up of stragglers from half a dozen different regiments, including Scots. I'm not an expert on WW1 but I can easily imagine that's feasible. (2) This is where a not-very-accurate nod to history is entirely fair. Thousands of Indian soldiers fought bravely for Britain. That is a simple truth. To bend it slightly to honour them seems justified.
yes it was a very weird case to use!
coincidentally the following week I got into a conversation with a Sikh man, not about the film, but just about his family and he talked about his grandfather and great-uncles on the western front.
Yes, though it was the British Empire back then, not Britain as it is today. Sikhs were part of the empire. By the same token, we hear a lot about Canadians and Aussies doing the same, but they were the ones who were dependent on the empire for their defence - it wasn’t charity, they needed the Royal Navy etc. more than Britain needed Australia. There wasn’t even a Canadian or Australian flag, anthem or passport until around 1948.
Speaking as an American who knows a ludicrous amount about the actual history ... no matter how much I intellectually understand it, emotionally it makes zero sense to me how all of you just somehow introduced passports and anthems and became completely separate nations on inertia.
We had a big bloody revolution. That I can wrap my heart around. Canada and Australia just somehow drifting away? My head gets it. My gut not at all.
Nice point. The US government insisted on it during WWII. It is even written down in the so-called Atlantic Charter. In practice, a lot of Brits left the UK in the 1940s and 1950s for the (ex) empire, so there was still some mixing. Churchill called them rats. Others called it “the brain drain”.
Also crazy how compared to these new shows, even Game of Thrones feels more realistic as a guide to British history.
yes exactly. the people from the more northern seven kingdoms look northern European, the ones in the south look Spanish, the wildlings are pasty Scots.
Didn't Snoop Dogg actually believe it was history.
ha didnt know that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-32688956
he's not entirely wrong though
Really interesting article. Doesn’t all this just feed the narrative that progressive elites simply lie to promote their contemporary world view on any variety of subjects? Many have now had enough and have simply tuned out. That’s why they aren’t watching linear TV (especially BBC drama), rarely go to the cinema and prefer the information environment they can control online. It may soon result in a large shift in political allegiance, particularly in younger men.
It must be understood that progressives regard as abhorrent the very idea of the English existing as a distinct ethnic group, and they have long set their mind to ensure all groupness is dissolved for the greater good of mankind. In the physical world this means endless immigration - as diverse as possible. In the symbolic world it means e.g discriminating against the indigenous population in casting - and especially when casting historic productions about their existence as a group - as Ed alludes a process of humiliation . Were this happening to any non Western group there would be a Palestine type reaction from progressives. It would be regarded as symbolically genocidal. But normal people are not as dramatic as progressives or creatives so they have sort of let it pass until now. But post GF the efforts became
so blatant, so in your face, that they now strengthen rather than weaken the sense of the English as entitled to a group identity. A right that seems to be freely accorded to all non Western groups. And you see that in things like raising of flags which is obviously an expression that the English are here and real
Sent from Outlook for iOS
Once had this conversation with a shouty Welsh nationalist. I pointed out, in a Balkans-style scenario in the UK - a war - the English would be the Serbs. It wouldn't be pretty.
The other point here is that when it comes to British ethnic groups they are very interlinked, quite alike and broadly compatible - but for narcissism of small differences, which can play an outsized role at times
Ed, another great column but all of this begs the question: what are some “docu-series” (or movies) that you recommend, either because they got the history right and/or you just really enjoyed? If you have already done this is a column, I apologize, but as I finished this, I was thinking, “but what does Ed like?” 🧐
Better yet, would love to see recommended books, documentaries and online courses that you have found compelling. We amateur historians (your readers) are a curious and voracious bunch!
I will do a book list soon have been meaning to for ages
Off the top of my head the channel 4 1066 docudrama from about ten years ago is excellent
You keep promising this....
I'd also be interested in a list of the Substack articles you've written that you think are the best. You must have written a lot by now.
The most readable introduction to 1066 was actually a book I read from the Bayeux Tapestry museum gift shop on the same topic. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece by Carola Hicks.
Two bangers in a row, Ed! When I watched the final installments of Wolf Hall, I was completely distracted by the inclusion of black actors in Henry's court and as ladies-in-waiting. Inevitably I began wondering what else about the story had been fabricated and politicised to satisfy progressive elites and irritate people like me.
As you say, the double standards here are particularly aggravating. Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor (because Lord forbid actors pretend to be someone they're not), which means that in complete fictional dramas, representations must remain faithful to identities, but in historical dramas, inaccurate representations are not just harmless, but essential to promoting cultural truths!
Re: Inevitably I began wondering what else about the story had been fabricated and politicised to satisfy progressive elites and irritate people like me.
As I posted elsewhere the main complaint about the history it depicted was that it made Cromwell a nicer guy than he likely was. The real Cromwell was as greedy as anyone when it came to reaping the profits of the expropriated monasteries. It's not really clear he had any sincere religiosity (show-Cromwell is portrayed as sincerely and even a bit radically Protestant) and he did not seem to have many regrets about Cardinal Wolsey's fall (Wolsey was his original patron and mentor) or about Anne Boleyn's fate.
Of course every historical epic takes a few liberties. Some things are massaged a bit to increase the drama. Side events may be left out. Timelines compressed. Characters vilified or sanctified. Wolf Hall did a better job than most do of sticking to the historical narrative.
Re: Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor
Oh good grief! Gay actors continue to play straight leads-- even romantic straight men leads. Jonathan Bailey as Anthony Bridgerton is a current example. No reason straight actors shouldn't play gay, if they can do so convincingly.
The next time we have film or show about a pope, can only a Catholic play His Holiness?
Mantell’s vision of Thomas Cromwell doesn’t mesh well with the thick-necked brute in his Holbein portrait. But I don’t think she’s trying to portray the historical Cromwell. She’s doing something different with his character: creating clear-eyed observer who is the center point for entering into events and circumstances and people of that historical time. She does it brilliantly, with very high literary quality and great historical understanding. That’s what the best historical fiction achieves, to my mind.
My limited knowledge of Hillary Mantel is that she was anti-Catholic. My speculation is that her mythologizing of Cromwell is rooted in this bias. Could be way off with that.
I should say that, leaving aside the irritating historical inaccuracies, Wolf Hall was incredibly fun to watch. In terms of theatre and filmmaking, it was a fantastic achievement. The acting, lighting, music, costumes, artistry were magnificent and totally captivating. In those respects, it was the highest form of British theatre.
Anti-Catholicism was common in the UK for a long time. When my father was in England as an American GI in WWII he dated an English woman who asked him if he was Catholic because she would never date a man who was.
It hasn't got anywhere close to dying out, if you ask me. Tony Blair waited until he left office before his public conversion. Maybe I see it more because I'm Scottish, but there's always been a cultural fault line.
My partner's grandmother (born 1925 in Surrey) explained to me a few years ago that her local Scrabble group met in a local church. Then she whispered with slight recoil, "It's actually a Catholic church but, you know, they give us the hall and we don't engage with them otherwise".
I was a bit surprised she said this, lol, especially since I'm Spanish.
"Re: Tom Hanks remarked that his character in Philadelphia should have been played by a gay actor"
I wish it had been: I probably wouldn't have gone to see it in that case, and saved a couple of hours.
"No reason straight actors shouldn't play gay, if they can do so convincingly."
Hugh Grant did it pretty well. Jeremy Strong and Al Pacino have both played Roy Cohn. Cohn was also Jewish, and while Strong's father was, Pacino didn't even have that. AFAIK, no one has complained.
And Ian McKellan was the best Romeo and Macbeth I've seen (on stage).
I for one can't wait till historical dramas show the Middle Ages with cyborgs because [insert Western European country here] has always been a transhumanist country!
I really enjoyed Armando Ianuccis “The Personal History of David Copperfield” which was very explicit in its color blind casting but fit in with his vision of a supremely whimsical take on the story.
It didn’t try to convince you that Dickensian England was diverse, but it played into the whimsy of having a black actress and a Chinese actor having an Indian child.
Yes fair enough.
While it's not really for me personally, I think Bridgerton is the best example of this – no claim to anything beyond fantasy, so why not have fun?
Fully agree with this - if they lean into it completely and do it 'theatrically' it's fine. It's when it's one random black dude in the Joust, or two Asians discussing the Restoration, or whatever, that it is incredibly jarring.
Perhaps in some sense the current elite/progressive cadres are descendants of the aristocratic Normand that marginalized the Anglo-Saxon English. The “beat” goes on
This might be literally true. It would be interesting to run their genealogies and surnames.
My wife thought it would be nice to take the kids to a performance of The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe at Sadlers Wells. I immediately thought, Uh oh, I know what that will be like, and had a look at the reviews. Lo & behold, the entire family is played by black actors and the White Witch is... yeah, white.
Unlike Ed, I'm incapable of being phlegmatic & grown up about this stuff, I just hate all of it. Whether "well meaning" or not, the overall effect is to belittle & humiliate white people. Or if you want to get fancy about it, it's literally the 'replacism' that Renaud Camus talks about.
I also wonder about the effect on my children. I don't know what that effect will be, but I can't help thinking it's not going to be good. All their favourite characters in all sorts of books turned into people of another colour because... well, what?
We didn't go to Sadlers Wells.
I kind of feel though anyone with any brains once they reach a certain age will disabuse themselves of.this nonsense. But perhaps the collapse of reading and self-reflection among the next generarion makes this over-optimistic.
In my experience, "educated" young people don't want to hear anything that isn't part of the simple political narratives they've been taught. It's like they've been taught that even hearing such things is immoral.
Nicholas Taleb made an interesting and unorthodox post about what might be called "multicultural realism":
.https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/the-insidious-racism-of-mary-beard-et-al-8b6b768b4575
I’m a big Tolkien fan but I haven’t bothered with the Rings of Power because of the casting. A progressive couple I know told me I’m being unreasonable, and that it’s “weird” I would even notice there are black hobbits and black elves, especially because it’s fantasy.
But it’s for the same reason I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously if a hobbit wielded a lightsaber. A lightsaber is no more implausible than a magic ring, but it would be out of place and break the immersion. Anyone with a scintilla of curiosity about the geography of Middle Earth will be constantly wondering how black-skinned hobbits evolved in the temperate climate of the Shire. More likely they’ll just dismiss the whole enterprise as political.
me neither! It sounds petty so I don't make a point of it but I'm not bothered to watch it. Sounds not very good either. Ditto with the GoT spin-off.
A curious historical inaccuracy from the past is Hollywood's 1950's biopic of Goya, 'The Naked Maja'. Not only does it portray the Duchess of Alba as living during Napoleon's invasion of Spain (by which time she was in fact dead), but it also portrays Goya - who was completely deaf by the time he painted the Duchess - as being able to hear. It's a striking missed opportunity to portray a disabled person whose disability did not prevent him from accomplishing great things.
TBF, Hollywood wasn't even pretending to represent disabled people at the time. I don't even know if it is now: it doesn't seem to be. Disabled people who accomplish great things do rather make the rest of us look bad. I think the 70s was the peak of disabled representation, perhaps with Ironside (played by the able bodied Raymond Burr) in his wheelchair. I don't think a book like "The Small Back Room" whose antihero is disabled would be filmed today. (I haven't seen the Powell and Pressburger film, so I'm not sure if he's disabled in that, TBF.)
It's funny because a historical drama about some Yoruba kingdom in the 18th century with an all black cast (throw in a few evil white slave traders if you like), would actually be very interesting. But instead they do this.
Yeah it really would, and Britain has enough black actors for the BBC to do it, but it would be sensitivity-read to death, they would fear risking criticism from Nigerians, there would be pressure to remove any senior non-black creatives in the making of it.
I heard that Wolf Hall would have "colorblind casting" in the second series and innocently thought that must mean they're doing an episode about that John Blanke trumpeter guy.