Black actress as queen of England

[hankhatesyouall 2,731]

11 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

I don’t want to argue with you either, we’ve disagreed in the past many times and I don’t mean to denigrate you I just think your perspective is so different that I have hard time understanding it

re: double standards, I never see people this up in arms and so many white ppl complaining when a white actor portrays a black character which still happens. Yet when the reverse happens it’s a huge media story and controversy and history is being erased apparently. Doesn’t that seem to indicate a double standard to you? 

In a movie about stonewall that came out a few years ago they had a white actor throw the first brick, when everyone knows (or the story goes) that Marsha P Johnson a black trans woman threw the first brick. How many black trans actors are regularly getting roles in movies verses white men? I guarantee you it’s like a 10-90 split and that is a highly optimistic estimate, maybe 1-99 is more realistic.

So do you see the issue?

eta: this happens less in historical films now (roles for poc being erased) but it happens a lot in fiction adaptations still. So many black characters in books get portrayed by white people in film versions, i’m on my way to work but i’m Sure I could find a list. The last air bender movie (where the cartoon specifically portrayed characters inspired by various Asian & Inuit cultures but the movie cast white kids in primary roles) and that zombie movie with Nicholas hoult where the girl was black in the book but white in the movie come to mind. Also running with scissors where in the novel the main characters friend is an obese girl but the film cast waifish Evan Rachel wood bc god Forbid you see a fat person in a movie that isn’t a comedy. Those are actual double standards.

That's a well-known lie. In reality, she didn't arrive at Stonewall until about 2 a.m.

 

[Economy 47,492]

10 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

We do not live in a post racial society tho so that’s why it’s not the same

Correct. But i dont see how creating NEW double standards in reverse is suppostu accomplish this. The goal should be promoting full equality and eliminating double standards not creating new ones in their place. Thats the kind of thinking that sometimes turns me off from the reasoning of full on progressives that i find extreme and why i dont always identify fully as a progressive even if i agree with most of the goals in principal

 

And to be frank i think its starting to backfire a little. Cuz a lot of the bigoted ppl u see (especially the more subtle ones that dont acknowledge they still are but are) just get very turned off when the movements try to put things in reverse instead of equal and dont take it seriously

 

I wouldnt be surprised if it has at least some role to play in why the US seems to be getting worse lately (even before trump) instead of better

 

Progress on accetance seemed to be more consistent the decades prior to the modern way of activism. The extreme modern way of activism in my opinion just seems to turn off the very ppl that need to hear it the most

[babs 5,093]

I think depicting an english monarch in previous centuries as black sends the wrong message. She was ABLE to be that character during that time BECAUSE she was white and her family was white. Taking that piece of the puzzle out already makes the plot make no sense if we are aiming for realism. This should be fine if we are taking other liberties on the work though, so I won't make a final judgement until we see the finished product anyways.

[Economy 47,492]

8 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

Economy coming thru with the Pantone colours of race 

I dont know what the word pantone means

[GagaSine 7,464]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Correct. But i dont see how creating NEW double standards in reverse is suppostu accomplish this. The goal should be promoting full equality and eliminating double standards not creating new ones in their place. Thats the kind of thinking that sometimes turns me off from the reasoning of full on progressives that i find extreme and why i dont always identify fully as a progressive even if i agree with most of the goals in principal

 

And to be frank i think its starting to backfire a little. Cuz a lot of the bigoted ppl u see (especially the more subtle ones that dont acknowledge they still are but are) just get very turned off when the movements try to put things in reverse instead of equal and dont take it seriously

 

I wouldnt be surprised if it has at least some role to play in why the US seems to be getting worse lately (even before trump) instead of better

But it’s not a double standard, it is levelling the playing field. But that’s just how I see it.

bigots will be bigoted, I don’t see the point of catering to people like that. It is the opposite of unifying, as they will simply drive out the ppl they are bigoted against.

it seems a bit messed up to imply that more opportunities for people of colour makes racism worse, that’s a pretty lazy analysis. It’s a bit like saying speaking up against sexism is why women experience more domestic abuse. If they’d just fall in line men wouldn’t hit them. 

[GagaSine 7,464]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I dont know what the word pantone means

It’s like paint colours. It just made me laugh cuz you made me think of like, “Jesus was more of a taupe than an eggshell or mocha” 

[DirrtyPony 1,330]

I find it strange that of ALL of the completely inaccurate depictions of people in film over the decades, a black woman playing a white woman is the one that people have a problem with.

They could turn this story into a fairytale, as long as the character is the accurate race.

[Lona Delery 7,180]

its about suspension of disbelief for me  
Hermione Granger being a POC in the harry potter play is not distracting cuz race doesnt play a part in the story and its believable. A historical person changing race is weird af, whether its Jesus or the Queen
 

[GagaSine 7,464]

9 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

That's a well-known lie. In reality, she didn't arrive at Stonewall until about 2 a.m.

 

My point is that was the dominant narrative for years and considered the “truth” yet they still white washed it

and by several accounts it was a woman of colour who initiated the riot when a officer struck her with a baton anyway 

[Economy 47,492]

1 minute ago, GagaSine said:

It’s like paint colours. It just made me laugh cuz you made me think of like, “Jesus was more of a taupe than an eggshell or mocha” 

 

well even in those Countries theres a big range of colour among individuals anyway so who can even say what colour Jesus would be. Ppl can onky argue on speculation anyway

[VOLANTIS 16,322]

4 hours ago, Gabi001 said:

Ok, so lets make Hitler black and Gandhi blonde european. It doesn't make sense.

So many white Jesuses and nobody lost their marbles. 

[Guest]

This is the most hilarious woke thing Ive ever seen and I am here for it so people realize that woke extremists are going too far and need to be stopped

[Delulu Rogers 6,952]

26 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

while i understand your point, i think the reason why so many people have an issue with Jesus being played by white men is that he has always been portrayed as white. the majority of the depictions we see of Jesus are white, whether that be in paintings, carved on crossings, or in film, to the point that many truly believe that he was white, though he likely wasn’t.

I think that just a result of predominantly white countries being the ones to create movies of Jesus so naturally they got white people to play him. I'm sure that if movies about muhammed were made it would only be arab ppl portraying him since middle eastern countries are the ones most likely to make a movie about him. That still doesn't address the double standard that we all know would happen if a white person was playing a non-white role under those claims. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, FATCAT said:

History isn't being re-written. 

Yes because back then africans didn't live in England and certainly weren't the Queens and Kings of it, so if you decide to swap the race it's historically inacurate and therefore re-written

[Economy 47,492]

3 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

But it’s not a double standard, it is levelling the playing field. But that’s just how I see it.

bigots will be bigoted, I don’t see the point of catering to people like that. It is the opposite of unifying, as they will simply drive out the ppl they are bigoted against.

it seems a bit messed up to imply that more opportunities for people of colour makes racism worse, that’s a pretty lazy analysis. It’s a bit like saying speaking up against sexism is why women experience more domestic abuse. If they’d just fall in line men wouldn’t hit them. 

U could call it playing the leveling field if simply trying to eliminate double standards at this time is insufficient. I still dont agree with using that kind of tactic because i always grew up with the thinking of ethics that 2 wrongs dont make one right or that u dont solve an issue by someone by replicating the same issue in reverse to the opposite person like some kind of vendetta

 

But even tho i dont agree with u i do at least understand the reasoning for ur opinion so i dont think its an unreasonable opinion

 

As for the bigots my point is ppl can change over time and thinking can change over time... especially if they arent hardcore bigots but rather ppl with some internal racial prejudice maybe they arent even aware of... ppl like that may be reached and over the decades many clearly have...

 

But in my opinion agressive tactics can backfire by turning ppl off and not even listen and it pushes ppl away. I know even individually i find it easier to reach ppl with conversation than getting angry or scolding. Yeah sometimes with conversation u may still fail to reach someone, but when ur agressive u almost never do often it results in an angry mirrored response

 

Since the age of social media progressive activism has often taken a very agressive route with ppl snapping very quickly with those that arent fully on board anf agressively pushing ideas that if some dont fullt agree with they just snap at u (the double standard discussion we had some users would of just gone full off)

 

Im saying i dont think these agressive tactics are helpful in reaching the ppl that most need to be reached. They may work in making media and entertainment more aware out of fear of being cancelled, but im not so sure its working that well among the general population tbh