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 fundamental problem is the lack of interest in white majority countries to produce stories from black majority countries. For example, is there an equivalent African Anne Boleyn?

ive never been to Africa so dont know what programmes are shown there and how/if white actors appear on African-produced series, films etc.

colourbling casting needs to be looked at in context.

Dual heritage children experience prejudice from mono-heritage people even when their two heritages are white. Humans are tribal and collect with others who resemble themselves and this is normal, biological behaviour. Yes, education can go a long way to opening minds but a "colour blind" society is a globalist fantasy utopia that will never come to be

Why does your experiene of racism trump mine? I have said racism is about 'otherness' - which includes things like being the wrong ethnicity as well as or instead of being the wrong colour. A surname does it in some places, in others your tribe will get you murdered.
My parents tramped the streets with me as a small, small child to be met with notices like these: no children, no dogs, no Irish.

I don't know what colour the woman is, nor her social class. Did you just tell someone of Irish descent with a mixed marriage that they don't know what racism is?
Anyway, all of this is way off piste and most seem wedded to CRT. I'm not - I do not believe that racism is the cause of everything that's wrong - a study of social history and women's history gives a lot of insight on what's wrong and the causes. It's not all about race.
But we were asked about colour blind casting.

@@Ceramiq " Yes, education can go a long way to opening minds but a "colour blind" society is a globalist fantasy utopia that will never come to be"

I don't think anyone with a brain wants a "colour blind society".

"Racism" is an unhelpful word because it relates to a term or concept "race" which is outdated - outdated because it has been seen to be inaccurate.

And is the reason for the recent disagreements on this thread about otherness and race.

Change the word race to the more accurate word ethnicity.

What black people experience is based on colour which is a viable cue of skin colour that this person is of a different ethnicity to a white person.
What a Jewish person experiences is based on ethnicity. So the colour of their skin is not a visible cue - they can "hide" their ethnicity to a degree. So for this thread we are not thinking about whether Jews or Irish or indeed Slavs are prioritised in casting - because this would not tick the "diversity" box.

Yes a black person absolutely experiences more overt persistent and personal negativity and abuse because of their colour. And yes, discrimination and oppression - "racism" - is also experienced by people whose colour is white but who are also "other" than the majority ethnically English.

The Institute for Race Relations definition of racism attached as screenshot

Hmm no screenshot trying again

Sorry should also have included their definition of race---- but have used up my photo allowance for the day ... it's on their website

Going back to the initial question raised in this thread…..

I think even historical classics could have more diversity if it’s done carefully. Preferably by someone who knows & loves the book already.

For example, Pride and Prejudice could have more diversity but because it’s already about prejudice, you wouldn’t want to make the story about racial prejudice. This would mean the Bennetts would have to be white as would Charlotte (who is described as having ‘plain’ looks).

There would be plenty of scope with the minor characters eg officers & neighbouring gentry. And looking at the main characters,
Mr Bingley & his sisters could plausibly be POC as they come from London & don’t have a family seat. Or, Mr Darcy & Georgiana could be mixed heritage and explained by showing a portrait of their mother as POC. This could fit in well with his reserved character & protectiveness of Georgiana.

I think that Uncle Gardiner is Mrs Bennett’s brother (so white) but his wife could be POC & their numerous children mixed heritage.

This thread has opened my eyes to a pretty complex issue. My opinion is that colourblind casting is not always a good thing, but many more roles could be opened up even within authentic style historical dramas.

Often in that order!

I might agree to the Institute's definition of race, I might not (depends how much it depends of CRT, with which I do not agree along with the the oppressor/victim narrative). But discrimination on the basis of ethnicity cannot be measured by individual experience, though exploring this can result in understanding of attitudes and ways to improve them. Examination of outcomes in terms of income, housing, education, job prospects and the acquisition of wealth etc will give a picture of whether a country is discriminating on grounds of ethnicity or not, or more as against less. On a less contentious subject, sexism, it is clear that there is sex discrimination against women in the UK in the sex differentials in pay though not in the outcomes for education, where more women go on to tertiary education than men. This sort of study is useful to us in looking for ways to limit discrimination of various groups.

Where did I say my experience of racism trumps yours? Your the one saying racism is not about skin colour. I'm merely pointing out that MY experience was based on skin colour. You seem to want an argument? Please stop repeating the same thing over and over to me. Thank you.

Final thought@CurlewKate it would have been better to title this thread "We shiny White is Right people are uncomfortable with artistic licence (and other whataboutery) in modern times, ethnic people know your place"

You can't polish a turd!

I had second thoughts about what I replied to this. I do not subscribe to the notion that only people of colour (a phrase I do not like, but will go with for now) can comment on/know what racism feels like. Anecdotal data is interesting but neither law nor policy can be based on it since it is unverifiable. Additionally, people of colour are not the only people who experience racism, which is about being the wrong ethnicity in any society.

I think I talk to a black woman, or Jewish woman about what I see as being racism, and we can discuss this. I am without a doubt that my definition of anti-Semitism does not match that of some international bodies, however, and I can hold that opinion. Thus, I believe the actions on 7th October in Israel were racist and anti-Semitic as well as being misogynistic in that women and girls were raped - sex-based violence - (some repeatedly). Being 'oppressed' in no way excuses those actions (not that I consider Hamas oppressed - they are terrorists). We do not - yet - police what people think or their opinions (though we are getting that way, to my horror).

a quick Google would have told you this: rHadrian (d. 709), the abbot of St Peter’s and St Paul’s at Canterbury, who played a pivotal role in the development of church structures in what is now England, was African. No doubt there are other examples. Certainly from the 1700's onward you'll find good examples of foreign people of colour in elevated positions in British institutions

I'm confused - why do you think it's impossible for someone to have been black in England in the 1600s? If that's the case I'd encourage you to do some reading because you're very mistaken.

Well said.

Hmmm I'm overweight as is DH. I worry about his health. Because I love hm.

I don't mind colour blind casting.
I don't worry that it will confuse people I don't know.

it’s worth noting that racism has two definitions now, the original being simply prejudice based on someone’s perceived race (I say received as biologically there isn’t really such a thing as race per se there are no subspecies of homo-Sapiens and we are all essentially the same race).

The second definition surfaced in academia in the latter half of the 20th Century which has in effect replaced the earlier one in much of public discourse. This generally requires a dominant race, so white people in most western nations. Within which certain defaults sets of assumptions baked in at an institutional level privilege one set of people over others.

I think it wastes a lot of time currently as we discusses these issues as people are working with different definitions. I still think the idea of being so very bothered that fictional or even historical characters have to be played by 1:1 replicas of the original source. Especially juxtaposed with the western world’s view of the biblical Jesus. Nobody really bats much of an eye that depicts him a Caucasian, but colourblind casting is such a big conversation.