Is historical revisionism ever justified?

I dont think you can judge an individual for being racist when the year was 1814 considering everyone was racist back then and thats just what they were taught, slavery had not even been abolished then

According to the episode London was 50% black in 1814 and there was no racism, the sole racist incident was when the evil white aristocrat/industrialist (He was both, despite those being two entirely different social circles who ansolutely hated each other) told a black woman to "stand to her betters" and then got punched for it.

Honestly, does anyone expect historical accuracy from Doctor Who?

It's not about Veeky Forums but the 5,000 autists with frog emojis in their Twitter handle shitposting about blacks and jews in the replies of every post by a major journalist or TV writer.

Media types interact with hard alt-right figures almost every day thanks to Twitter, and they really believe they're doing good work by triggering the Pepes with forced progressivism.

Such a shit example. That kiss happened in response to the outcry over desegregation and Loving v. Virginia, in which a white man was allowed to legally stay married to his black wife.

Gene Roddenberry, a hardcore progressive, thought he could "stick it to the man" by pushing boundaries in his show about space aliens.

I don't

I also don't expect blatent lies about history from it either

>one a soldier in the British Army
Honestly that one is not even *that* implausible. Could very well be a company marine on shoreleave. It's the wealthy ones that are absolutely unlikely. If they were a secretary and a maid, ok. But they're clearly an independent couple.

>They only do this to get a reaction out of you
What the fuck do you think this is, elementary school bullies?

The shot callers in Media and entertainment have their agendas (if this isn't evident by the loads of celebrities shilling for leftist politicians), they want to set a pace, they want to shape a tomorrow.

What a ridiculous answer you have given.

>The liberals who write this believe they're helping push back against bigotry by making racists mad.
You don't honestly believe this, do you? It's just a cross of virtue signalling and audience targeting. They're doing it because they think it improves both the company's and the programme's popularity.
If Doctor Who was produced by Fox News or whatever the british equivalent is, it would be the exact opposite for the same exact reasons.

No, don't you see? Reactionaries are pushing an agenda on society. Poor innocent progressives are just reacting to it

It's so splendid to see the PROGRESSIVES saying they're just reacting, whereas the REACTIONARIES are actually pushing for change.
It's like a whole new layer of irony.

Not to mention how history is supposed to be ever progressing leftward, yet looking at the past we're supposed to see a much more tolerant world.
I'd say it's funny to see how lefties contradict themselves continuously, but really it's just sad.

But remember, it's Sean Spicer and his "alternate facts" that are pushing doublethink

Why do Brittish series have so many blacks? They are 3% of their population but when you see their series it looks like they are 25% of their population. This is extremelly surprising if you take into account that there are way more Indians or Pakis than blacks in the UK

Because BBC may not stand for what you think it stands for, but it's still excruciatingly appropriate.

This isn't from startrek, it's from a British show a few years earlier. And no, it wasn't a reaction to anything, it was simply the media trying to do what they're doing now.

NuWho did their Paki thing in The Zygon Inversion.

Which, unlike this episode, was actually kinda nuanced showing, to some degree, both sides of the conflict and pointing to a bigger picture, culminating in this:
youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI

(Albeit no pakies in that scene - but the core plot was that a lot of the shape shifting aliens were posing as Paki immigrants.)

There was also the two parter: "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood" where the Doctor's black companion is forced to pose as his maid in England just prior to WW1. She experienced racism, sexism, and classism, all in one go, and it didn't seem nearly so preachy and unnatural as this. (And those were probably two of the best episodes of NuWho.)

[ Pic related is from the 80's mind you - Tom Baker and the Talons of Weng-Chiang. ]

>There was also the two parter: "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood" where the Doctor's black companion is forced to pose as his maid in England just prior to WW1. She experienced racism, sexism, and classism, all in one go, and it didn't seem nearly so preachy and unnatural as this. (And those were probably two of the best episodes of NuWho.)
Also the Doctor didn't go on a sperg rage and punch the guy who was racist for muh ebin modern day virtue signalling post

Also, the racism was much more racist. In the episode where he punched the racist guy he told a black women to "stand to her betters", which could be either because she was a women or black and was the predominate viewpoint in that society. In HN/FoB he downright said "It's a wonder you can tell if you're clean, because you constantly the colour of filth".

This episode was EXTREMELY out of character for the Doctor to punch someone for being rude to someone who in that society definately is not better than a white aristocrat. Could have been classism, racism, or sexism.

>They're doing it because they think it improves both the company's and the programme's popularity.
>If Doctor Who was produced by Fox News or whatever the british equivalent is, it would be the exact opposite for the same exact reasons.
Meh, as much as I hate to say it, this user has a point.

Keep in mind that Doctor Who's loudest fan base is freaking Tumblr - much like, certain politicians, the show may merely be stooping in an effort to galvanize its base, in the most base way possible.

But it's true, they've had shows with anti-racism and various other liberal political messages before, including one just last season, and they were considerably more subtle and even willing to show the other side of the argument in a sympathetic light from time to time. (I mean, the Paki immigrants really did turn out to be terrorists in November's 2015's Doctor Who - just, you know, ayy lmao terrorists.)

History is made to be revised to better show it how it essentially was. That being said, modern revisionism is usually idiocy perpetrated by social and psychohistorians for political pandering and is usually nowhere grounded in reality. The simple fact that people who have close friendships with people of the same sex automatically makes them homosexuals in the eyes of certain sects of current academia is proof enough that it's horsecock.

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume what the writer meant by that was that he was further from white than often depicted (semitic), rather than suggesting he was africa black

I normally would - but given how the rest of the episode went... This is a character who was supposedly present at Jesus's birth, the last supper, his death, and his resurrection, mind ye. (Granted, the show isn't known for its consistency.)

Actually both are pushing agendas. Reactionaries and Progressives are pretty infantile tbqh.

...

>Progressives are actually reactionaries

Hmm.

At least reactionary thinking is internally consistent

Actual revisionism (reinterpreting evidence or finding new evidence) is generally a good thing

There was probably around 20% of London population in 18th century who were what you would consider "black".

It really boggles my mind how the Left which is famous for, as it were, speaking truth to power, suddenly doesn't notice when the power structure and capitalists are talking like they do.

Should make them pause to reflect, but for some reason it doesn't.

Because the left, particularly the American left, hasn't realized that having a dumb opponent doesn't make you smart

That isn't even star trek. You are so fucking delusional.

This is probably what Jesus looked like

he wasn't white

London in 1814 wouldn't have been very racist towards blacks. Europe wasn't the deep south.

To some degree, yes. You're trying to tell a light story to young folks here, not make a documentary or teaching aid. So, yes, everyone in Rome speaks English, fine, TARDIS translation circuit magic fine. All the Nazis are entirely unsympathetic characters with no hint of family or motivation, fine. I mean, this is a tale for young folks, you need some solid good and evil, fine. Even the aristocrat/industrialist combo being the bad guy, fine. That's been every other Doctor Who villain since 1963. Even the Daleks are really just metaphorical Nazis living in their own tanks - even when Peter "Tarkin" Cushing was playing the Doctor in the first Doctor Who movie, they turned that up to 11 (coupled with some communist overtones). Fine, I can put up with all that.

But presenting ~1820's England as

They wouldn't have been actively hostile, but they wouldn't have acknowledge one as more than a scum class pleb. Servants or sailors mostly.
A couple dressed like gentry as in op's pic would have been stared at and certainly not been allowed at any social event.

I really wonder where Western society will be in say, 100 years with this pandering.

The counter reaction to all this bullshit is probably going to send us straight back to the 1820's. Sadly, one form of stupidity tends to be countered by another.

I doubt we will ever go that far back to be honest. I do not see Europeans very interested in their history or culture anymore. I usually end up teaching German or French people their own history, and I am a Slav.

There maybe a nuclear war at some point, that maybe in part due to that nationalist counter reaction putting extremists in power.

...and it'll probably kill more white people (including Slavs) than anyone else... (Well, okay, and a lotta Chinese, but we got those to spare.)

>that retarded factual reconstruction that gives him lazy eyes for no reason
How does anyone believe that shit? Here are the mandeans btw, actual living descendants of sarmatians. Jesus phenotypically would have probably looked like this. Not that different from your average Italian painting or Eastern Orthodox icon.

I doubt there will ever be a nuclear war. MAD doctrine is simply a fact of life. None wishes to be first to launch the nukes, everybody loses in the end.

They're not far off. Put 3's skin tone on 1 and then add 2's beard and it's almost exact.

You know, I am a agnostic, so I really do not care for Jesus that much. But it is amazing how leftists in West always try to provoke or shit on Christianity with things like that. Of course, they call it "science" when it could not be further from truth. Sure, Jesus was not a blonde blue eyed man, but he probably did not look like he was retarded as well.

>Oh no they're lying about history in my BBC sci-fi about time traveling inter dimensional aliens!

We're already seeing a rise of "Adapt or leave" thinking in the West. If the left were to continue to up the ante, a la antifa protests and the anti Trump race riots in California last year, it is not inconceivable that that will mutate into "adapt or die"

I hope so, but I'm afraid MAD is going to give way to NUTS, and once that genie is out of that bottle... While we might survive WW3, WW4-10 are going to happen in rapid succession straight after, and almost every one of them is going to involve nuclear exchanges.

Really, the balance of power these days is overwhelming US military force on the one side, and nuclear deterrent on the other. The first time we have a limited nuclear exchange, that peacemaker, the real reason there hasn't been a world war since 1945, goes straight out the window, and all bets are off.

>show about time travel
>"Look, kids, all of history was 50% black!"

>cutting off your nose to spite your face

I spit on you and people like you

>the alt right

Like this shit hasn't been pushed for decades now.

If it's driven by facts and not rhetoric, sure. That's how history works; as perspective is gained and more and better archaeological techniques are implemented, the new information gleaned either enhances or revises the extant narrative.

All are extremely unlikely. Black pop around the 1830s in the UK was around 20-30k.

>implying jesus existed

I feel like this stuff just plays even more into the bastardized pop culture version of history you hear about on tv. It's why most Americans believe our revolution was all about building a new nation from day one and things like that.

>black wealthy people in Victorian London triggers people
>still fine with Gerard Butler being a Egyptian God

>tfw no one in this thread actually care about historical inaccuracies

This dogwhistling is getting unbearable. Just admit that you do not give a shit about historic accuracy, and that you just hate black people.
Fucking say it, you cowardly, second-rate stormfag vermin.

Nobody is fine with Gerard "Helots were brotier" Butler, stop projecting laquisha

I wonder why stuff like this bothers me more than other historical inaccuracies. I'm not even a /pol/tard, but I hate the weird trend of inserting africans into history where they DEFINITELY weren't.

I mean why would leftists gamble their own credibility by doing this? Why not just create shows about African history instead?

I really want someone to make a new Zulu film but Shaka Zulu is a white guy.

If i was insanely rich i would do it, make a perfect film about African tribal conflict centuries ago and then set the main character as a small chinese man.

This is literally the point of economic globalism though. To make nations economies so globally interconnected, a war that isn't everyone else picking on one guy standing out of line is economically bad.

Did people actually watch that movie? Also czech'd

>Is historical revisionism ever justified?
All historiography is revionionist. What strikes me as odd is that "historical revisionism" has become a byword for "leftist revisionism" here on Veeky Forums.

Then how come theres no outrage about that except only by black people? I've yet to see anyone bring this up here.

Did anyone in this thread justify Gerard Butler playing an Egyptian? Stop strawmanning

If a white guy played a Sudanese king or something I think most people on this board would think that's retarded too

It's because only the right is allowed to do revisionism.

Open a thread about it here on Veeky Forums and enjoy those neat KKK-like responses
There was one about it 2 days ago, and it was a complete /pol/ shitfest

>you'll never be wealthy enough to troll on this level
Make a movie about the Sudanese kingdoms, but everyone's white and use really exagerated black ghetto accents.

You can not be a /pol/tard and think this kinda of thing is stupid

The world isn't as black and white as you think

What I see is that if someone blackwash his own history-based contents Veeky Forums and /tv/ will sperg out for days, if the same happens with white people anons will just tell you to chill out and stop being such a SJW.

What I want, at this point, is not people to change their mind: what I want instead is, at the very least, them to be honest. If you're racist just fucking say it, instead of being such a pussy while dancing arbitrarily around the concept of historic accuracy: we both know they don't give a fuck about it.

Are you actually retarded enough to consider this argument valid or are you just trolling?
Unless Gerald Butler played a distinctly white god amidst a full cast of egyptian actors, your argument holds no water at all.
It's obviously fucking impractical for a western production to have a full cast of egyptian actors (hell it's hard to even have a full british cast in a high level production), so as long as the white actors are there for practicality instead of political statement, it's not a fucking issue.
Nobody would give a shit about a nigerian movie about Rome featuring only fucking nigerians or a chinese movie about south east asia only casting chinks. The problem is deliberately making unjustified casting choices for obvious political motives.

not that user but

>Nobody would give a shit about a nigerian movie about Rome featuring only fucking nigerians or a chinese movie about south east asia only casting chinks. The problem is deliberately making unjustified casting choices for obvious political motives.

>if they don't explicitly tell us that it's whitewashing then it's not whitewashing
>also I refuse to hold blockbuster houses to any sort of artistic standard

Sure, it was ''too hard'' to find 10 egyptian guys and have them act as Gods. Truly impossible, especially in this day and age.
Three wealthy guys in the extras in a Dr Who (lol) episode? Let's have a thread which will go on for days, unless it gets so shitty that mods will have to delete it.

>What the fuck do you think this is, elementary school bullies?
He says on a website where saying shit to get a reaction out of others is a staple of board culture.

>find 10 egyptian guys
Top kek, and you are blaming others of not holding blockbuster houses to a decent artistic standard? I bet you couldn't name 5 egyptian actors without googling them if your life depended on it.
Besides, I still find it fucking hilarious how every time this movie is mentioned everyone complains about Butler but nobody mentions Boseman, like it isn't obvious what the critics' motivations are.
In the end, unless the gods are white and all mortals are egyptians, it doesn't really fucking matter. The issue isn't miscasting from the local talent pool, the issue is miscasting by looking out of the local talent pool to make a political statement.

I did before I got triggered by shit like this and the disregard of continuity that I stopped watching what was my favourite TV-show. I'll always have Classic Who and the Big Finish audio dramas at least.

Because it's probably even more retarded to cry about the ethnicity of divinities than historical figures. Ancient egyptians themselves believed their drawings of gods were approximations limited by human understanding. They believed their gods skins to be pure gold or silver anyway.

>I bet you couldn't name 5 egyptian actors without googling them if your life depended on it.

So? I'm not the one who is trying to release a shitty blockbuster whitewashed movie worldwide. It's not on me.
I bet you can't name 5 mongol actors, but you would still be puzzled by a movie about Gengis Khan in which Gengis Khan is interpreted by Channing Tatum.

>Besides, I still find it fucking hilarious how every time this movie is mentioned everyone complains about Butler but nobody mentions Boseman

>costant whitewashing
>one single black token
>lol why are people not talking about miscasted black guy

Thanks for proving my point (which was not about racial tension, but rather about how people do not really give a shit about historic accuracy).

>In the end, unless the gods are white and all mortals are egyptians, it doesn't really fucking matter.
Yet you have here about 20 anons triggered by the fact that there was a extra who was a wealthy black man in a shitty show such as Dr Who.

>The issue isn't miscasting from the local talent pool, the issue is miscasting by looking out of the local talent pool to make a political statement.
I'm not talking about miscasting and whitewashing, rather I'm talking about the reaction Veeky Forums has everytime these themes are approached. Don't move the goalpost.

Never watched it. It's capitecensi-tier scifi tbqh

>at the alt right

More like white people in general, which as a non-white I will never understand.

Every day in university all i hear is the same joke day in and day out.

>so can anyone tell me whats wrong about *insert european historical figure*
>*Liberal white person raises his hand*
>"Because he's an old dead white guy"
>Prof and liberals laugh
>a few whites seeth in their seats
>I'm just shocked

or

>Non-white prof
>I will not be teaching Pre romantacism in American Literature. because they are all old dead white males no one care what they think
>liberals laugh, a few white people seeth, me included this time

Answer me this Veeky Forums, why are white people such pussies these days?

Historical revision happens all the time in academia. New translations, archaeology, and research tends to upend what might once be 'well-established historical fact' every few decades, and it's usually justified once the weight of new evidence and scholarly review becomes irresistible.

That's not the same thing as ham-fisted, politically motivated pseudo-history, however. Movies or manifestos with historical inaccuracies are not examples of historical revisionism. They're just the latest example of undisciplined, popular and ideological appropriation of science and philosophy, and is much closer to historical negationism or denialism. You can justify them or not based on your own personal morals and politics.

But you don't justify historical revisionism in the first place anymore than you justify a scientific breakthrough.

We wuz timelords an shieeeet

I don't think this stuff is done to troll the right wing, it's done to pander to the left wing. At the most it's a signal to the alt-right of "we really don't give a shit if you cry over it". If the right wing cried less I don't think it'd result in less pandering to the left.

Disney didn't put a bunch of black people into the new beauty and the beast to piss people off either (though I'm sure they knew someone would get their nuts in a twist over it). They did it to appear 'progressive' to the sort of people who generally buy their shit anyway. The target audience isn't a bunch of pissed off /pol/tards.

>I bet you can't name 5 mongol actors, but you would still be puzzled by a movie about Gengis Khan in which Gengis Khan is interpreted by Channing Tatum.

There's actually a 50's movie where John Wayne plays Genghis Khan. Hollywood has been whitewashing Asians way more than Blacks desu.

>which as a non-white
opinion discarded

>I'm not talking about miscasting and whitewashing
You're literally the only one talking about whitewashing, in a thread about blackwashing to boot. And you complain about me moving the goalpost? This is whataboutism at its finest.

>rather I'm talking about the reaction Veeky Forums has everytime these themes are approached
Complaining rightfully by your own admission, since you say you care about historicity? I don't see why you'd have a problem with it.

Also I'd like to add that you're quite completely missing the point here. Nobody thinks the fucking gyppos are nordics because Coster-Waldau played Horus in an anglo production. It's neither the aim of the producers nor the interpretation taken by the audience, so it's not whitewashing. On the other hand, the BBC's aim in casting half the extras as minorities in the episode we're considering is to make a political statement. I really doubt you can't see the difference between the two situations, you just want to complain about the evil white man who's keeping you down (or who's keeping your poor beloved minorities who don't actually enjoy having you and people like you making them look like whiny morons down).

Why is everyone losing their shit at hollywood? It isn't their job as entertainment industries to be historically accurate, nor is it to produce culture-friendly content for the entire world.

Texas and Florida are rightful castizo clay,

>It isn't their job as entertainment industries to be historically accurate, nor is it to produce culture-friendly content for the entire world.

Yes it is their job to not misinform and indoctrinate the public, kids grow up on the television these days.

pretty good for reaction images though.

Either way, Hollywood has changed a lot from the 50s, even if the pendulum has started to swing to the opposite retarded extreme.

I'd be cool with any ethnicity being played by someone of (or similar looking) to that ethnicity. Some movies it's not a big deal, others it gets a bit obnoxious.

Still, in any case, it still gets me that there was that Great Wall movie with Matt Damon and everyone screamed bloody murder about Hollywood whitewashing Chinese history, and the movie was made by the fucking Chinese.

forgot the pic

>tfw non white too
>tfw when I know that feel

Well this whole civilization thing was fun while it lasted, not sure how I'm going to take going from all this to squatting in a Mexicali favela in a couple of decades

what a shame

>It isn't their job as entertainment industries to be historically accurate, nor is it to produce culture-friendly content for the entire world.
That basically applies to every instance of pop history portraying some inaccuracy, including the OP example I'd guess.

>You're literally the only one talking about whitewashing

Have you read any of my posts? I'm complaining about the fact that you can't complain about whitewashing on this board without getting shat on (just like you're doing) but as soon as it is blackwashing it's fair game.

Too bad that nowhere in my posts there is a justification for any of those practices: what I've always called for was historical accuracy.

>And you complain about me moving the goalpost?
I've placed a goalpost that was independent of the one placed by OP, and you decided to interact with it. I'm not responding to OP's questions, rather I'm questioning the behaviour of this board.

>Complaining rightfully by your own admission, since you say you care about historicity? I don't see why you'd have a problem with it.
I'm talking about the obvious double standard that is currently fully accepted on Veeky Forums.
I'm not mad at the criticism contained in this post, rather I'm mad at the lack of criticism everytime some Hollywood big shot decides to whitewash an important black person in one of his movies (namely: people don't give a fuck, and if you complain loudly people will just throw buzzwords at you, mainly ''SJW'').
I'm able to criticize both scenarios: I don't think that's the case for most anons here.

>Nobody thinks the fucking gyppos are nordics because Coster-Waldau played Horus in an anglo production.

>dude it's a shit inaccurate movie who can't get any sort of cultural reference right: let it be

>On the other hand, the BBC's aim in casting half the extras as minorities in the episode we're considering is to make a political statement.
The only difference is that one of those 2 political statements is explicit, the other one isn't.

>you just want to complain about the evil white man who's keeping you down
Your true colors are showing, my friend.

That's all well and good, but casting mostly minorities as extras in an 87% white country indicates that a political message is being put forward.