Casual racism or AIBU

[Kooksadooks]

Hello. I have a lot on my mind today but hope you are having a nice New Years Eve…
We (me, DP, MIL, FIL, DS ect) were sat around the TV over Christmas period.
The Channel 5 advert featuring Anne Bolelyn played by black actress Jodie Turner-Smith comes on and MIL starts complaining that she ‘doesn’t understand all this’ and ‘Anne Bolelyn wasn’t black’ and doesn’t understand ‘why white people cannot play black people’…
I bit my tongue, I appreciate that I am surrounded by people who agree with her and there’s no point in arguing with them about what I think, also not wanting to cause drama over Christmas but AIBU to feel uncomfortable at MIL’s comments?
I mentioned it to DP afterwards and he agrees with MIL

@DeeCeeCherry

All this is laughable.

Just because a Black Woman played Anne Boleyn.

After decades of...Tarzan🤣king of the jungle
White man in blackface "pharoahs" but somehow all the Black people around are slaves.

White man mudface makeup playing Native Americans

Various African queens portrayed by White as the driven snow actresses.

It goes to show how delicate, deluded and frankly ludicrous White privilege is.

You're rankled hecause it's your turn and it serves you all right

If Jesus a middle-eastern man and his family showed up during this festive season seeking shelter, you'd clutch your pearls until you choked with eyes bulging

Farcical folk

Quite!

After decades of...Tarzan🤣king of the jungle

You have some valid points but Tarzan was supposed to be white. Are you saying there shouldn't be a fictional character who is white and king of the jungle?

I think that's pushing it a bit! Maybe write your own book about a black fictional king of the jungle?

If one is looking for historical accuracy then clearly one wouldn't be racist by merely saying that a black person playing a person who was white is not an accurate portrayal but I'm confused by her saying that there is no reason that a white person can't play a black person. In what context? If the part requires a character who is black then it would be ridiculous to say that it should be played by a white person.

Of course when one considers the accuracy of historical/traditional portrayals of Jesus as a white European then maybe an argument could be made that it doesn't matter that much anyway!

Tbh I'm black and I agree with your MIL. I think it's ridiculous they keep trying to make period figures black or other ethnicities. It's like trying to rewrite history. If they want more black represented period dramas, They're better off making series about actual black monarchs in Africa or the Moors or Egypt or something. Rather than black facing over English monarchs. It's kind of embarrassing imo and just wish they stopped doing it.

@EmpressCixi I completely agree that there should be more diversity in theatre in terms of writing. But I also think that where theatre companies such as the RSC are concerned, where the great majority of their work is Shakespeare or renaissance works, then to exclude actors from roles in these plays, simply because their heritage doesn't match that of the original characters, is wrong. I have many actor friends who are deeply offended when it is suggested that their casting was simply an act of tokenism, rather than because they were the best person for the role. They are insulted by the suggestion.

Oh and you do know the pharaohs were Greek, don't you? So any depiction of them should be Greek and their servants would be, well, Egyptian looking? (The pharaohs intermarried, usually brother/sister etc so that their line was preserved)

Surely there is a point where an actor is so incongruent from an historical or historically significant character it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief and just seems odd and pointlessly distracting.
Failing that, I'll sit back and wait for a remake of Gone With then Wind with Marcus Rutherford playing Scarlett O'Hara. Because, why not?

This is something people can have totally different opinions about without any of them being racist.

Lots of people are not all that crazy about historical figures being played by people of other races because they don't find it credible in a realistic drama.

Others think it is a problem in terms of representation.

And some people feel that there is a double standard operating in the performing arts and that doesn't sit right with them.

It's possible to disagree with any of those things without thinking the only reason people might think them is that they are racists.

@DeeCeeCherry

All this is laughable.

Just because a Black Woman played Anne Boleyn.

After decades of...Tarzan🤣king of the jungle
White man in blackface "pharoahs" but somehow all the Black people around are slaves.

White man mudface makeup playing Native Americans

Various African queens portrayed by White as the driven snow actresses.

It goes to show how delicate, deluded and frankly ludicrous White privilege is.

You're rankled hecause it's your turn and it serves you all right

If Jesus a middle-eastern man and his family showed up during this festive season seeking shelter, you'd clutch your pearls until you choked with eyes bulging

Farcical folk

That's kind of the point though for many people.

They've been told, and maybe agreed, that these things were not good, and that it's really important to think they aren't good and change things.

Now sudden;y it's ok, or different when you reverse it.

People feel it's not a good change or reveals a certain disingenuousness.

@loislovesstewie

Oh and you do know the pharaohs were Greek, don't you? So any depiction of them should be Greek and their servants would be, well, Egyptian looking? (The pharaohs intermarried, usually brother/sister etc so that their line was preserved)

I think you are a bit confused there. The dynasty Cleopatra belonged to was Greek, which makes the tendency to want to push non-white people into that role in the theater as if that's a natural choice seem rather silly. It's often a little silly with roles that are supposed to be Moors as well.

But the ancient Egyptians overall were African, in the older period those living closer to the Med were lighter skinned and probably more mixed, those closer to Nubia more dark skinned, but later there was too much mixing to differentiate.

But the theater overall is a bit different than film productions, as the latter in some cases are going for realism in a way the theater doesn't so often.

No, I am not confused. The Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek which is what I am saying. They intermarried and never became Egyptian. The rest of the country was Egyptian and most of those were darker skinned. And the term 'Moors' was at one point applied to people who were Muslims no matter what their skin colour. Nothing, but nothing, is simple.

@DeeCeeCherry You sound very angry. Are you OK?

I like colour blind, and gender blind casting, ( female Hamlet etc) or like in Bridgerton. I think it makes old stories more interesting, gives a modern twist and couldn’t give a shiny shit if Anne Boleyn is played by a non- white actor in a made up tv series.
Not sure it’s racist for someone to say they’d prefer it to be more historically ‘accurate’- just shows a lack of imagination. It’s not like the dialogue and scenes are going to be ‘accurate’ -

@Pinkrose1111

Tbh I'm black and I agree with your MIL. I think it's ridiculous they keep trying to make period figures black or other ethnicities. It's like trying to rewrite history. If they want more black represented period dramas, They're better off making series about actual black monarchs in Africa or the Moors or Egypt or something. Rather than black facing over English monarchs. It's kind of embarrassing imo and just wish they stopped doing it.

But they’re not ‘making period figures black’, they’re just casting colour blind. No one at the RSC is claiming Henry V was black. As Shakespeare only wrote about two non-white roles, a major National institution whose work is overwhelmingly based on his plays either chooses colourblind casting or opts to be whites-only as regards actors.

@loislovesstewie

No, I am not confused. The Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek which is what I am saying. They intermarried and never became Egyptian. The rest of the country was Egyptian and most of those were darker skinned. And the term 'Moors' was at one point applied to people who were Muslims no matter what their skin colour. Nothing, but nothing, is simple.

You said the pharaohs, that includes a lot more than the Ptolemies, which was my point. Most of the dynasties were not Greek. So we are agreeing, and also about the Moors. Making those exclusively non-white roles doesn't really make a lot of sense in most cases.

But they’re not ‘making period figures black’, they’re just casting colour blind. No one at the RSC is claiming Henry V was black. As Shakespeare only wrote about two non-white roles, a major National institution whose work is overwhelmingly based on his plays either chooses colourblind casting or opts to be whites-only as regards actors.

Some people really dislike colour blind casting, or they dislike it in more historical type settings. Look at someone like Samuel Jackson complaining that the wrong type of black person was being cast in certain roles - not American.

I find that people often see television in general quite differently from the theater, unless it's a very non-realistic setting. That's not an unfair thing, television and film often go to a lot of trouble to immerse the viewer in a setting that feels realistic. Unlike theater where there is less realism and also a long tradition, especially in small theaters, of roles being played by whomever was avialable.

But it's also not like people are consistent. There was a big kerfuffle in the city I lived in when a small theater production of The Mikado, using very traditional costuming and setting, had European actors in the roles. Keep in mind that I live in a place with a very small Asian population, and an even smaller Japanese population. So no race blindness there even though it would be totally historically accurate for the play and also just realistic in terms of a small city theater production.

People feel like, it's ok to complain about and ultimately shut down a small production of TM because of ethnic representation, but Anne Boleyn should be played by anyone, (maybe even a man!) It doesn't create goodwill.

Agree completely with your MIL. My cynical side actually thinks it’s to get people talking about the programme and gain attention (good or bad)- pretty piss poor and deplorable to use the issue of race in this way if this is the case.

@SantaClawsServiette

But they’re not ‘making period figures black’, they’re just casting colour blind. No one at the RSC is claiming Henry V was black. As Shakespeare only wrote about two non-white roles, a major National institution whose work is overwhelmingly based on his plays either chooses colourblind casting or opts to be whites-only as regards actors.

Some people really dislike colour blind casting, or they dislike it in more historical type settings. Look at someone like Samuel Jackson complaining that the wrong type of black person was being cast in certain roles - not American.

I find that people often see television in general quite differently from the theater, unless it's a very non-realistic setting. That's not an unfair thing, television and film often go to a lot of trouble to immerse the viewer in a setting that feels realistic. Unlike theater where there is less realism and also a long tradition, especially in small theaters, of roles being played by whomever was avialable.

But it's also not like people are consistent. There was a big kerfuffle in the city I lived in when a small theater production of The Mikado, using very traditional costuming and setting, had European actors in the roles. Keep in mind that I live in a place with a very small Asian population, and an even smaller Japanese population. So no race blindness there even though it would be totally historically accurate for the play and also just realistic in terms of a small city theater production.

People feel like, it's ok to complain about and ultimately shut down a small production of TM because of ethnic representation, but Anne Boleyn should be played by anyone, (maybe even a man!) It doesn't create goodwill.

I would assume that there were no actors available to play the role in amateur dramatics. Far fewer people willing to do unpaid amateur roles and so the role goes to whoever is available. Watched a production of avenue q which, due to the location, was an all white cast. "Everyone's a little bit racist" was a bit cringe in that performance (but I think op should change her ringtone to it!)

I would assume that there were no actors available to play the role in amateur dramatics.Far fewer people willing to do unpaid amateur roles and so the role goes to whoever is available.Watched a production of avenue q which, due to the location, was an all white cast."Everyone's a little bit racist" was a bit cringe in that performance (but I think op should change her ringtone to it!)

That may well be the case, but perhaps they didn't look. But then, why should they, if colour blind casting is perfectly ok?

To me that's the issue. Most people are not spending hours thinking about theeries about casting. But they are hearing all kinds of people saying it's really bad to cast people who are not x. y, or z in certain roles, and at the same time that it is ok to do the same casting in the reverse way.

It tends to put people's back up a little. And then they also mix it up with their own personal preferences about realistic or non-realistic casting, and even ideas about making up actors to play other ethnicity which has become taboo.

None of it is really logical and that makes people more reactive in my experience.

And I also think in the case of this production, while they may not have planned to cast across race, they are very purposefully using it for publicity. So they have an interest in trying to push buttons with it in their advertising and they've done so very carefully.

So you disagree with your MIL but didn't have the guts to call her out....yabu

@SantaClawsServiette

This is something people can have totally different opinions about without any of them being racist.

Lots of people are not all that crazy about historical figures being played by people of other races because they don't find it credible in a realistic drama.

Others think it is a problem in terms of representation.

And some people feel that there is a double standard operating in the performing arts and that doesn't sit right with them.

It's possible to disagree with any of those things without thinking the only reason people might think them is that they are racists.

Not really.. actors are acting. I conclude that the only logical objection is racism. And I don't think that is unfair or a stretch. It is the racist making it an issue. So yeah.. racism. Not really another logical explanation. Actors do not need to be 'historically accurate ' in their ethnicity. They are acting

I agree with your MiL - it was jarring. I think it was a tokenism case - which I find a bit insulting.

There were black people in Tudor times

• let us hear their stories. Or other black stories that ARE accurate; Mary Seacole, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks. Why don't we get the stories of strong, black women.

And I couldn't care less if a fictional character is played by anyone. They aren't real!

I think it matters a lot less in the theatre too as you are expected to suspend reality anyway due to sets etc.

@Pinkrose1111

Tbh I'm black and I agree with your MIL. I think it's ridiculous they keep trying to make period figures black or other ethnicities. It's like trying to rewrite history. If they want more black represented period dramas, They're better off making series about actual black monarchs in Africa or the Moors or Egypt or something. Rather than black facing over English monarchs. It's kind of embarrassing imo and just wish they stopped doing it.

No one is "trying to rewrite history " or claim that famous historical figures were black. What they are saying is that actors can portray them regardless if they look like them. I think the "I am black so...." is not valid. You are one individual

Not really.. actors are acting. I conclude that the only logical objection is racism. And I don't think that is unfair or a stretch. It is the racist making it an issue. So yeah.. racism. Not really another logical explanation. Actors do not need to be 'historically accurate ' in their ethnicity. They are acting

That's very much your opinion. Lots of productions work hard at historical realism, including in casting. You might not care but some people do, including some non-white actors. This is why you get people upset when Angelina Joli was cast as a Hispanic woman, or Samuel Jackson unhappy that black British actors were cast as black Americans.

There are other people who prefer blind casting, but even they won't suggest that they get a white man to play Desmond Tutu, even if he can be convincing in the role.

Disagree with them by all means but are you really calling them racists?