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

I think this sort of thing can work fantastically or fail miserably, if it's just sticking in a black person to appear woke it's just pointless, why not write a decent part for a black woman instead? If it done and cast very cleverly to play with the dynamics or turn things on their head or because it works really well in some way then fair play.

The best Tybalt (male character Romeo and Juliet) I ever saw was played by a black women at The Globe, blew me away, fantastic casting by the crazy but brilliant Emma Rice. The worst casting I ever saw was Hermione in The Cursed Child. All the other actors were really obviously chosen to resemble the cast from the film - except Hermione who didn't seem to bear any resemblance in any of her mannerisms. It seemed she'd been shoe horned in to make the cast more acceptably diverse and didn't work at all IMO.

But there’s hell on if a white actor plays a character who was black. Anne Boleyn wasn’t black so how is this ok?

@Ionlydomassiveones

I don’t see what’s racist about saying something factual. Anne Boleyn wasn’t black and it’s quite jarring for those of us who like historical drama to have the facts distorted. Same with war movies made in Hollywood that always make the Americans the heroes.

This stupid overreaction to any opinion that isn’t 100% ‘right on’ is why we’ve got this insufferable woke cancel culture. YABU. Get a grip and move on.

Bravo and good luck.

As pp have said, this is very common in theatre. I saw a play based on the life of Anne B where the king was black. Anne was played by a white actor.

What is needed is a big investment in black and brown writers who are writing their own stories. There are plenty of them about but they need to get produced. It's laziness really although there are initiatives about. When people talk about a female Bond, I'm thinking write her story! Produce it and get it out there. There needs to be more diversity.

@username1987a

As pp have said, this is very common in theatre. I saw a play based on the life of Anne B where the king was black. Anne was played by a white actor.

What is needed is a big investment in black and brown writers who are writing their own stories. There are plenty of them about but they need to get produced. It's laziness really although there are initiatives about. When people talk about a female Bond, I'm thinking write her story! Produce it and get it out there. There needs to be more diversity.

I think theater and film often function quite differently.

The problem with getting anything other than established film types made is a bigger problem I suspect. For high end films they are so expensive no one wants to do anything but Marvel, Star Wars, Bond, etc. It isn't really a good thing for anyone, even actors who I am sure are bored out of their minds.

@SantaClawsServiette I was talking about TV shows and shows on streaming services such as Netflix. I don't agree with historical inaccuracy. What I'm saying (not very well) is that we need to invest in stories from black and brown people. We need more Michaela Coels writing and directing their stories. I don't think the OPs MIL is racist with what she said. People can have opinions on things I hope and she has a good point. We need black and brown people writing and directing, we need more diversity in that respect. (And more women's stories too but I don't want to digress).

@WhoAre

I agree that they wouldn't even blink if it was the other way around!

Well I’m white, and I don’t think a white person should play a black person, or the other way around.

When they cast a black actress in that drama, I felt it was simply to make a statement rather than for genuine artistic purposes. She should have been played by a white actress for historical accuracy.

I would feel the same way if a white actor was cast to play a black historical character.

It’s not about racism, but making accurate historical portrayals.

I do agree that we need far more historical or fictional dramas on television that focus on black characters.

I admit I did not watch the programme being discussed though I did read some discussion about it at the time. But having read the points here about historical accurate representation, it occurred to me maybe the programme makers wanted to make a strong point about how disruptive Ann Boleyn was to Henry's court and to English history. As others have said the story is so well known and has been retold so many times to bring a fresh viewpoint is very difficult.

The story of Henry Viii and Ann Boleyn is so important to English history and also so grounded in the physicality of being a royal ruler (the struggle to have a living male heir, the development of Henry's appearance and character as he aged) that to have Boleyn represented by someone who looks different from other courtiers but is at the same time intimately enmeshed in the life of both the court and the country may have been intended to provoke thought about her role beyond what we tend to assume we know already.

There was an interesting series on BBC about her father, Thomas Boleyn, being so determindly pushy to get position and influence at Henry's court and how he used his children to further that ambition. Ann had spent quite a few years in France , one of the accusations against her when she fell was that she had too much foreign influence in herself and on Henry. Having an actress who physically stood out from the majority surrounding her could have been a more deliberate directorial tactic (sorry not correct word, can't think of it) than just colour blind casting?

[quote username1987a]@SantaClawsServiette I was talking about TV shows and shows on streaming services such as Netflix. I don't agree with historical inaccuracy. What I'm saying (not very well) is that we need to invest in stories from black and brown people. We need more Michaela Coels writing and directing their stories. I don't think the OPs MIL is racist with what she said. People can have opinions on things I hope and she has a good point. We need black and brown people writing and directing, we need more diversity in that respect. (And more women's stories too but I don't want to digress).[/quote]
There is absolutely more room for writers and directors from a variety of backgrounds. Though I'm not sure that's about the entertainment industry so much as other demographic forces in the workforce, so it may change over time as that changes.

It's also pretty normal though when you watch any nations film and television output, that they typically have content that reflects their cultural and national history. I don't see that as in itself problematic.

There was an interesting series on BBC about her father, Thomas Boleyn, being so determindly pushy to get position and influence at Henry's court and how he used his children to further that ambition.

He wasn't unusual I'm this by any stretch. The Seymour's and the Howard's both did the same.

I think that the reason people keep going back to Anne is that she was a charismatic and complicated enough character, she was the first queen executed (ever I. England, although this action had consequences well down the Tudor line and beyond) and her marriage destabilised British religion and class so much we saw many reforms until it resettled.

Yes Anne was clever. So was Catherine of Aragon. Yes she was an outsider at court from living in a foreign court. So was Anne of Cleves. Yes she was learned. So was Catherine Parr. Yes she was betrayed. So was Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr.

She had a very interesting life. But it was her death and her role as the mother of Elizabeth that keeps her in the national consciousness.

Having an actress who physically stood out from the majority surrounding her could have been a more deliberate directorial tactic (sorry not correct word, can't think of it) than just colour blind casting?

I'm sure that was the rationale they used, but it doesn't work because it adds in an important dynamic that was wasn't there. Ditto adding in lesbian overtones.

Point out the inevitable northern European looking white baby jesus on a xmas card

@brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Point out the inevitable northern European looking white baby jesus on a xmas card

Least popular Christmas card design. Mil likes th though, although this year's was more middle eastern looking but that might have just been because it used 'nighttime setting'. Can't get worked up about multiracial father Christmas although he should look like a native inhabitant of the north pole.

Like a polar bear lol.

Wasn't Father Christmas central European though.

All this shouldn't matter as these are entertainment, however for a lot of people its how they learn their history. People watch docu-dramas on the TV and consider that history.

Well, if we're going to be historical about it he's from Turkey.

But we tell children he's from Lapland so a white father Christmas isn't out of place. Not that he can't be anything else. He can, I'm sure he reflects the cultures he appears in.

No one else bothered by the term casual racism? There’s nothing causal about racism.

Does causal murder exist?
Causal domestic violence?
Causal rape?

All the examples you gave are of physical actions and thinking about it they can be casual in the sense of not planned or intentional as in expecting a consequence or result. So I suppose the term 'casual' in social language terms is meant to give the sense of it being a part of everyday interactions with no forethought as in the OP. and that like sexism it is something so embedded in us we are not usually conscious of it. Feel obliged to add when I say 'we' I do mean eveybody whatever sex, race, nationality, class, political backgound etc.

@OnceuponaRainbow18

No one else bothered by the term casual racism? There’s nothing causal about racism.

Does causal murder exist?
Causal domestic violence?
Causal rape?

Yup. Its not a good phrase really is it. It doesn't make sense.

Show like brigerton where it’s a (very entertaining) piss take of the whole concept or regency England - works great.

Show like Bond where the setting is being continuously moved to the present time - also ok. A black bond wouldn’t have worked in 1960 but the new bonds are not set in 1960 there set in current-ish day and so would work well imo.

Historical drama on stage - where you are using your imagination to fill in the gaps between what you see on stage and a real castle/forest etc fine as theatre is about creating the experience of the setting not a photo perfect reconstruction.

Factual Historical drama or documentary where the purpose is to educate and they have gone down to the last stitch to make it correct and recreated the scenery to crazy detail - it’s a bit jarring if it’s the only non historical visual - good if that’s the point and the author/director has cast it that way for a reason, colour blind casting maybe not so because visually it will be a point of difference for those who know it to be not historically accurate. Also may have the effect of making those who do not know the history think that the actor was of a race they were not as so paper over the real historical discrimination people faced.

White actors playing other races in historically accurate films/documentaries is awful as there cannot be any artistic point being made rather the want to use a “big name” or lazyness in not finding the right ethnicity to cast (only exceptions i can think of is if a certain race is extinct)

I have always thought that “casual” in this sense referred to the actions of the perpetrator not the feelings of the victim. So the perpetrator commits the offence in an off hand non planned manner not that it’s a lesser offence.

So “casual murder”would be someone that just strolled into a bar and shot someone they don’t know with a gun they keep in their bag and then strolled off opposed to a “non casual murder” where the murderer plans in advance to to kill And makes preparations. Ditto with rape.

So casual racism is an off hand unplanned comment or action - E.G sayings like “play the white man, or the inney meeney miney mo rhyme” while non casual racism is deliberately discriminating against someone because of there race - so deciding not to invite Susan to your party because she is black.

Casual racism is imo worse as it’s so inbuilt into someone they don’t have to plan it or be planning to be horrid to a particular person, they are just racist in their everyday speech and actions.

Also may have the effect of making those who do not know the history think that the actor was of a race they were not as so paper over the real historical discrimination people faced.
According to Google was Anne Boleyn black has been searched a lot, so I think this casting alone has confused some. I also found one 'academic' article where someone was arguing that she was actually black.

I don't want any racism on film or in real life but some shows have gone over the top in almost preaching at viewers this last Autumn season in a way that can make the show less believeable.

I have at times turned to older series or Australian or the Spanish Money Heist just to avoid the woke preaching that can spoil some recent programmes. Australia and Spain in those examples have not had the UK/US shift to rather contrived new BAME casting for political reasons we have seen in the last 12 months.