Started watching HBO's Gunpowder. It's about the famous Gunpowder Plot in England.
I was wondering how accurate it was. Time did an article on it:
time.com
But the scribes and men of learning are black. I thought most people couldn't read in 1604 and most in England weren't Black. Where Blacks a segement of the elite or have they always lived in the UK (or at least a long time)?
>Where Blacks a segement of the elite or have they always lived in the UK (or at least a long time)?
no, that’s 100% revisionist history. Blacks were non-existent, until maybe the 19th century where you started to see some marginal ethnically Black urban enclaves in london.
There were a few blacks from the Guinea coast living in Britain. Mostly Akan and Volta-Niger speakers.
Gunpowder has colorblind casting do it’s irrelevant.
Who cares? It's all papist propaganda anyway
No. It's an attempt to shoehorn them in at every turn.
Of course there may have been the odd negroid who had made his way to England, and perhaps lived a free life, but as somebody else pointed out modern media corporations take these minor details and spin them into ideological propaganda.
There was a big brouhaha earlier this year about that Paul Watson mocking a cartoon with a negroid Roman in Britain, but what nobody mentioned was that the BBC - as part of the same series of children's educational videos - featured a West African-looking black as William the Conqueror's right hand man (something they also did in a live action clip for a history documentary last year), a negro showing primitive huwitey how to work metal in the Bronze Age, and a fucking Pict (!) that looked like Idris Elba
It is ridiculous
Can we not have threads like this? They upset me greatly.
We all know its not historically accurate and we all know its because of diversity/colour blind casting already. We all know its not going to end because people complain about it.
Try to see through race. They're just actors.
No, this is history. I bet Daniel Day-Lewis would play Shaka Zulu better than Mr Mgebwe Ndembe from the slums of Johannesburg.
I know who I'd expect to get the part though
>But the scribes and men of learning are blac-
HAHAHAHA OF FUCKING COURSE THEY ARE
Can we expect ANYTHING different these days? Un-fucking-real.
Well put
Don't kid yourself. You're just a racist. You wouldn't have a problem with an Irish actor, or anyone who isn't 100% Anglo Saxon playing an Englander if they were white enough.
see pic
>HBO's
Its made by the BBC.
Not him but miscasts are bad no matter what race. Seeing Anglo-Saxons from southern England playing Roman noblemen from 60 BC is just as cringeworthy.
>Don't kid yourself. You're just a racist. You wouldn't have a problem with an Irish actor, or anyone who isn't 100% Anglo Saxon playing an Englander if they were white enough
Of course not. But that's why they're actors. They effect the manners and actions and speech of the people they are imitating (feel free to respond with a snide remark about how little Old French or Middle English I would understand - guffaw!). What completely ruins the viewers' ability to immerse themselves in a retelling of historical events is having a token negroid play a part that could and should be a pasty ass honky.
I maintain that you need to see through people's race. If you're affected by a black man playing a white historical figure, it's because your experience is being ruined by racist associations you've made with black men. It's purely a racist view.
Bait.
not
Your own view is racist. "I don't see colour" is just another way for racists to hide their privilege and preferences. Unless you are actively trying to help POC by choosing them over wh*tes you're just another racist *sshole.
Yes it's obviously bait because you refused to reply to me here . When someone replies to you, you're obliged to reply because it's a polite thing to do, yet you didn't and instead replied to that other guy with bait
now this is bait. Nice digits too
>television/movies have to be 100% accurate with their casting
Would you be upset if someone playing George Washington did not grow up in Virginia, serve in the British army against the French and Indians, as well as have wooden teeth?
I didn't reply to it because I wasn't talking to you. Interrupting our conversation is impolite, might I add.
Would you be upset if Nelson Mandela was played by a fat white woman from Kentucky?
>implying Romans weren't British
Yes
So you agree egregious miscasts are a pretty bad thing.
The British were Romans at one point, but that doesn't make all Romans British. Certainly not Caesar, Cicero etc.
These are entirely different things user. You need to keep up the veil of believably in media otherwise it just falls in to pointless debates like this entire thread. All you need for Washington is a white who in similar in appearance and height who can pull off an accent. The same failure in story telling and discussion would happen if a tv show represented Washington with an Irish or French accent for example.
It's one thing for someone to be different that was from centuries ago and the only real difference is skin color.
It's a completely different story if it's someone of not only a completely different gender, but has no relation to the person whatsoever.
not him. i understand the anger that other qualified white actors might have been passed over in favor of a less talented black actor who gets his position because 1) strictly racial quotas out of a sense of social justice when almost all actors are poor and 2) because controversy sells and gives free advertising to the show as demonstrated by OP's baitpost and the triggered replies. But once you acknowledge these flaws, done out of cynicism on the studio's part, I don't see why you shouldn't enjoy the show for what it is, and your attempts to turn the gun and say "no ur reverse racist REEE" is pathetic and a deflection from your barely concealed racial animosities
>only real difference is skin color
That's a pretty massive fucking difference buddy. And it's not like Britain has a shortage of white actors and extras they could cast.
>not him. i understand the anger that other qualified white actors might have been passed over in favor of a less talented black actor who gets his position because
Can you prove this?
Skin color doesn't matter to the overwhelming majority of society.
Stop taking things you read on Veeky Forums as real.
Also, in old civilization race mattered very little. Someone would never have been denied a post in 16th century Britain based solely on race.
>Gender is a large observable part of a person
>Race is not
How does a person reach thins kind of thinking? On a scale of notability race and gender are equals.
>tfw you find the person you saved a image from because you named it similarly
Is this bait?
I mean honestly.
You guys are pretending that BBC represents society. It doesn't. BBC is 1, a corporation which strives to make a profit (therefore appealing to a larger audience using nogs and poos is logical), and 2, it's governmental, which means it's responsible for the well-being of the British people. The best way to harmonize the British people is to cast black and white actors alongside each other, showing friendly interaction. It's necessary in such a multicultural society.
Race is even more obvious than gender. There are men who could pass as women and vice versa, but there isn't a single pure blooded black African who could pass as a white person.
You're confusing the social status associated with race with race itself, those are not the same thing. Race is an observable, biological trait.
>corporation which strives to make a profit
It's publicly funded.
I'm talking about HBO. I was just reminded of the black people used on the BBC kids programme.
I have a friend named Jeff, Bobby, and James.
Tell me which ones are black, and which ones are white.
Now, I have 3 other friends: Sophia, John, and Samantha.
Tell me which ones are girls/boys?
Well yeah but then we have to understand they're casting those people in order to portray multiculturalism as a good thing in order to decrease friction in society. You could argue whether that's a noble goal or not, but the fact remains it's still an idelogically charged casting and not historically accurate casting
Are you blind? When people meet we notice things about each other straight away. Race, height, sex, hair colour, the clothes they are wearing. When you shake hands with a person you can tell if they are a labourer or not for example.
I can only assume you live in a ethnically homogeneous region.
>Can you prove this?
no i cannot. BBC doesn't have racial quotas as far as i know. but certainly as a "percentage" one can expect actors in england to be overwhelmingly white, perhaps over 90% of them. Like any actor, a black actor has to be chosen because he has to be as talented as the competition. According to people in this thread, the said black actors are not talented. Therefore, the question arises whether these actors got their position for another reason other than their talents, namely corruption, a cynical advertising ploy, or through some unstated quota policy.
>I have a friend named Jeff, Bobby, and James.
>which ones are white
Those are all American names so none of them is white. That was pretty easy.
>Also, in old civilization race mattered very little. Someone would never have been denied a post in 16th century Britain based solely on race.
false flag?
I live in an area that is roughly 30/70 black white.
However around where I live is close to 50/50
>Text based discussion is the same as meeting a person irl
You need to get outside and communicate with people user. Real life isn't Omegle and people don't meet and ask "a/s/l?"
>Can notice the racial make up of his region and regions nearby
>I don't see race I swear
Just fuck off m8
I have a friend named D'Quantrelle, Nkwankwo, and Bjorn.
Tell me which ones are black, and which ones are white.
Now, I have 3 other friends: Hayden, Ryan and Sydney.
Tell me which ones are girls/boys?
>colorblind casting in a historical series
otherwise known as misrepresenting the setting
>Amerimutt
Figures