Can we talk about colourblind casting...

[CurlewKate]

...without the thread descending into a woke/anti-woke stramash?

Obviously it's a great advance that black actors now have access to many more parts than they did- and obviously in most cases it makes absolutely no difference to the play, show, whatever. But I was watching Shardlake,and it struck me that it was impossible that the Abbot of a 16th century monastery in rural England would be black. And that casting black actors in positions of power and influence might well give viewers a completely unrealistic idea of the status of black people in British history, and actually gloss over their struggles. So stylised historical figures, as in Shakespeare where we all know there's an element of fantasy (I recently saw a colourblind Coriolanus that was brilliant),no issue at all, of course. But historical dramas that are trying to represent life in the past roughly as it was-maybe actually unhelpful?

Incidentally, I know that one of the main characters in the Shardlake books is black. But he has a detailed backstory, and the discrimination he faced is part of his life.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was not the largest forced movement of African people. That 'honour' goes to the Eastern slave trade out of Zanzibar, run by Arabs, which lasted from c. 9th century AD to the 1880s, when Britain bought Zanzibar and shut the slave markets.
There are few signs of that slave trade now, since the males were mostly castrated (as were white males in the Barbary trade if they were not ransomed) causing many to die en route, and babies born to black women were often killed or the mother forcibly aborted.
Comparable is the slave trade from Sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa, organised by Arab traders and African chieftains (who also organised the Western trade).
Re MLK, my comparison was to the current role of Hamilton, who was white, being taken by a black man. Pretty sure Hamilton's life trajectory had a lot to do with being white and making him black therefore messes up the story. I do not suggest MLK be played by a white man (though you could do a colour reverse, which could work) since I know his life is affected by being black in the US. I am against colour blind casting if it makes the story nonsense.

All over the internet if you look. There is a push-back against 'white' feminism at the moment. I think 'Hags' discusses this.
You know very well I did not mean that black feminists are wrong because they disagree with me, but that in-fighting among feminists of all shades is detrimental to women's rights and plays straight into misogyny and the patriarchy. We should all know better than that! But we do not.

White working class people are discriminated against on the basis of race and class - they are seen as racist (because of their colour) in whatever they say about how society might be organised, and if they have the 'wrong' opinions and dare to vote for Brexit - being accused of racism for doing so, which is racism itself. Calling someone 'gammon' is a racist insult.

Not Queen Charlotte again! Her ancestress was living in Spain when part of the peninsula was still under Moorish rule and she was a king's wife or mistress (can't off hand remember which king). Very likely, if of African descent at all, Charlotte's ancestor was of similar appearance to Middle Eastern people today living along the north coast of Africa, that is olive complexioned with brown eyes.

Queen Charlotte was plain, sadly for her, but her features are not those of a sub-Saharan African and 500 hundred years is a lot of ancestors btw.

I think you’ve misunderstood the usage of ‘gammon’. And racism.

I don't think I have, having been on the end of it, and seeing my DC on the end of it.
Gammon is pink - only a white person can be called 'gammon'. I remember my DS being asked if his dad was dipped in chocolate. I recognise racism in whatever colour it comes.

It just limits the whole world if you could only tell stories from your own particular background that’s just ridiculous. That’s like saying you can’t study to become a doctor if your dad was a vicar.

That's a false analogy.

As someone who has lived a large part of their life in a different culture to my own, it is is exceedingly tiresome and frustrating when people from the culture I live in presume to tell me about my own culture and language.

Oh, totally agree that it would be far too restrictive to limit “all” appearances to your own background. I was just agreeing with the pp that it would be a good idea to tell more “minority” stories (I was thinking especially in the context of historical drama, where the history of a particular country is likely to be dominated by the ethnic mix and power balances of the time). So instead of the tudors, a drama around the leaders in Nigeria or Mali in 1400’s etc. But tv companies like to replay familiar stories and are often resistant to historical epics that many people don’t already know about from school etc.

But that too is a false analogy. An actor isn’t telling you about your culture they are playing a part in a piece of theatre.

I don’t watch culturally untruthful casting pieces, jarring and detrimental to the integrity of the piece.

The writer and the director are.

Exactly, but you’re blaming the actors

No I'm not.

I know that Islamic is not an ethnicity, what is the purpose of this sentence in your post? You seem to be be misunderstanding the historical definitions of the world Moor. She wasn't black whether you want her to be or not, it's you who seem to be trying to rewrite history here.

I gave up when Mary in the nativity was played by a boy in boys clothes, and a bump.
Also when Peter Pan was played by a girl in a dress, but still called Peter Pan.

Everyone is confused with people falling over themselves to be woke.

It gets tired.

I dunno, a woman might have had a bit of trouble repopulating Europe with her own DNA 😏

Black nobility had existed for centuries, originating in the baronial class of Rome and in the powerful families who moved to Rome to benefit from a family connection to the Vatican. These supported the Popes in the governance of the Papal States and in the administration of the Holy See.[2] Many of the members of Black noble families also became high-ranking clergy.

I gave up when Mary in the nativity was played by a boy in boys clothes, and a bump.
Also when Peter Pan was played by a girl in a dress, but still called Peter Pan.

The first of those is plain daft.
'Peter pan' however, has traditionally been a 'Principal Boy' role, albeit not in a dress.

How would people would think if a white actor played the part of Martin Luther King would it bother anyone or would it seem not right and be a distraction

If I am watching a drama set in England in the 14th century I know perfectly well that in many ways it's inaccurate (speech, height, health etc). I'm perfectly happy that a mixed group of actors from 2025 is playing the parts, why should colour be the one characteristic we're trying to coŕrect?

I wondered why the doctor from the wrong side of the tracks, who was rejected by the rector father for class issues (he gets her in the end) in Miss Austen was black? What did it add? And this was based on real people? Not fiction. Were they admirably colour blind?

Yes but the books are carefully historically researched. The story my be fiction but there has to be a maintenance of credibility or the whole thing becomes improbable.

Credibility again. If you see a Victorian female character wandering around with loose hair, over the age of 17 and no hat, you can't believe the rest of the story.

That's Panto. In the original play, he's absolutely a boy.