MovieChat Forums > Anne Boleyn (2021) Discussion > Contradictory double-standard at play (o...

Contradictory double-standard at play (once again)


Whilst we're constantly bombarded with hyperbole about the (quote) 'Black'-struggle/ Black Experience / BLM / Slavery etc...There's clearly a double-standard at play, when we''re then expected us to just 'overlook' skin-colour, when it conveniently suits them to re-write (or diversify) 'historical events' (odd, because most Blacks grievances are usually based in history)

So what is it to be....do we just see past skin colour?

Fine, but then surely the makers of this programme (by their own actions) must then admit that all lives matter?


Even worse, the supporters of programmes like this, will spend all day bemoaning about stuff like 'cultural misappropriation' or that only gay actors can play gay characters, or that only 'disabled actors can play disabled characters....Yet oddly turned a blind eye to this?


Oh, I forgot....I'm expecting 'logic' from the illogical?

reply

Anne Boleyn was a Nubian princess. Look it up.

reply

You're reading way to much into this and comparing modern cultural and racial riffs to a dramatization of a historical figure in English history. It's no different than complaining about casting Irish Catholic actors as Henry the IV or Anglo-Saxon king Alfred the Great. Let's also not forget that people are MOSTLY okay with the biblical stories (not just movies and TV shows) that depict Old Testament and New Testament figures with Northern European looking males and females. Many of the famous artists from the Renaissance to the 20th Century used European looking standards to depict Moses, King David and King Solomon and Jesus as blond or light haired men when in reality they would have been swarthy and dark haired. 2K+ years ago. I was just watching some news items out of Nigeria and they showed a family at home with a picture of a blue eyed and benevolent Jesus portrait on their living room wall. They seemed fine with that inaccuracy too.

Your beef with a few, and mostly anonymous, headlining loudmouths from Twitter complaining about cultural appropriation is for another argument.

reply

Nice rant, but...

You haven't addressed anything I wrote.

Is skin-colour now deemed unimportant (as the programme would have you believe) if so, great.....let's all just get on with people being people, but....

Somehow, I don't think it's going to play out that way (except only when blacks want to 'culturally misapropriate'?) So if it was always (by your own admission) deemed 'Historically Inaccurate' to have (for example) white Europeans portray Moses....why is it now deemed OK for black people to portray historically white people?

I'd side with black people (or their supporters) a whole lot more, if they'd only have oversight and perspective on reality. Their presence, purpose and existence in the western world is (by-and-large) seen to be a 'revenge' of sorts? Your own comparison to 'inaccurate casting' signifies such. (it's been done before, let others do it....even if it's aesthetically and/or morally wrong)
Akin qto when terrorists come to the western world and kill people, and are defended with stuff like "well, if whites weren't colonists?" or "well, if whites didn't bomb their countries?"

Black people invented slavery, bought and sold their own and *still* practice it to this very day. Yet their history books never want to go back too far, in case they be forced to look at their own dark (pen intended) past. For a race that never shuts up about history, they sure have a poor, one-sided grasp on it?

So now, we now have 'racial proportionality' quotas for 'inaccuracies' in casting?
By the same rationale (and in the name of equality) should white people start committing more crime, to even up said 'proportionality' for a more level-playing-field?

The NBA don't adhere to such proportionality?
Neither do the BET?

You'd be hard pressed nowadays to have a white actor go anywhere near a role, unless they had the physical characteristics to portray the role (look at the online-furor from Gal Gadot/Cleopatra situation) but apparently we can only have 'artistic license' when it's blacks playing whites?

It's easy to call people racist (or just say "it's only a movie" ) when you know damn well, we're not going to have any white actors playing black characters (fictional or historical) and God help the business owners (and the safety of their properties) should the shoe ever be on the other foot?

reply

Nice rant, but...

You haven't addressed anything I wrote.


Eh, NO, you don't get to reduce my response by dismissing it as a rant. You don't agree with it? Fine, but don't think that you're right because of that.

Black people invented slavery, bought and sold their own and *still* practice it to this very day. Yet their history books never want to go back too far, in case they be forced to look at their own dark (pen intended) past. For a race that never shuts up about history, they sure have a poor, one-sided grasp on it?


Okay so you absolutely no proof of this claim so why should I justify arguing about it? It's your opinion not fact.

The rest of your talking points make no sense and throwing in the NBA and BET channel is a red herring. BET is owned by ViacomCBS and its run by Shari Redstone and Robert Bakish, both White. The NBA is owned by private billionaires with a majority of them being White with only one non-white (Asian) who owns the Brooklyn Nets. I'm pretty sure they don't push an agenda of maintaining a majority black roster. It's about recruiting the best athletes in basketball. Btw, the NBA has heavily recruited players out of the Europe, Africa, Latin America , Asia and Australia to find the best talent regardless of ethnicity.

Your peeve about the criticism about inaccuracy in casting is just as small as the ones you claim are complaining about it. The diversity of casting is actually a byproduct of demographic marketing to pull in a wider audience outside of the current one which might be aging or flatlining in population globally. It's economics, not some racial revenge theory.

reply

Who do you think sold African slaves to the western white man?

They were not stolen or kidnapped, they were sold, the slave trade was a business.

Now who in Africa would sell Africans. Hmmmmm, what possible colour would they be.

As a white European and Britain when do I get my reperations for the centuries of slavery to the Romans?

reply

They weren't the ones who invented slavery as the poster claimed. All of the rest of your post speaks nothing to my rebuke of it either.

reply

So who invented slavery then?
Let's say (for example) you trace it back to Mesopotamia (now comonly known as Iraq) which even the staunchest liberal would admit, is hardly the place for the pasty faced?

Africa is certainly (as far as the slave trade that Blacks love to bleat on about) guilty.
Africa bought and sold their own (to their own) long before any whites came onto the scene. And by the time whites got onboard, only just under 400,000 (or 6-7%) of the 12.5m African slave trade were sent to (what would become) the United States (the rest were sent to places like Brazil and/or the caribbean) However, they were not the first Africans on American soil. Africans first arrived in America in the late 16th century not as slaves. but as explorers together with Spanish and Portuguese. The same Portuguese that also bought and sold slaves from Africa?

I'm sure you're aware of people like Anthony Johnson or William Ellison, both were black plantation owners in America (that bought and sold their own)

The general consensus (when it suits the black agenda) is that everything began in Africa (and that the first man was black) They've built Pyramids...They Wuz Kangz (an shiiit) but as soon as you ask them to hit the history books, numbers, figures and dates never quite add up......Because it's a lot easier to blame the white man, than look in the mirror.

Blacks continue to take zero responsibility not only for their present, but also their past (instead opting to lazily blame one for the other)
Why aren't Afro-Americans seeking reparations from Africa?
2 of the 6 he continents that still practice slavery to this very day are Asia & Africa.

Whites don't bleat on about the Viking, Greek, Roman or Ottoman Empires (nor demand 'compensation' from such) Christ, the UK stood alongside the Germans in the (dreaded) EC/EU project (the same Germans who, not even 30 years prior, tried wiping them out....and not for the first time either) ....Talk about not holding a grudge and getting on with things?

Anyway, getting back on track....Blacks sold their own, that lead to the very slavery that they STILL cry about today....and Anne Boleyn was white.

Oh, and regardless of who owns either the NBA or BET (the latter of which, shouldn't even be a 'thing' anyhow) you can't say that there's equality or proportionality on the front-line, in either institution

reply

"The diversity of casting is actually a byproduct of demographic marketing to pull in a wider audience outside of the current one which might be aging or flatlining in population globally. It's economics, not some racial revenge theory."

Except that's never what the people behind these movies and tv shows say, huh? They always link it to identity politics claiming there are too many white actors on our screens.

Also, casting black actors won't help attract a bigger audience since it's the latino community that keeps on growing. China would also be a bigger market.

reply

These programs are broadcast around the world not just the USA. Hollywood has been expanding globally since the 1980s with the expansion of VHS, then Cable, then Broadband streaming.

reply

Again

"China would also be a bigger market."

Asia in general is a growing market for Hollywood.

You're also not going to appeal to African markets by constantly showing an African-American perspective, like slavery and police violence. And why would they even be interested in Anne Boleyn??? If you want to have succes over there, you need to tell local stories like the African movie industry does (Nollywood).

No, it's clear they're not trying to appeal to overseas markets, but to Western investors.

reply

Agree to disagree. You've made up your mind on this so let's just leave it at that.

reply

Okay, so no argument against the fact that they're not casting actors from their biggest audience demographics?

"You've made up your mind on this"

Same to you...

reply

"It's no different than complaining about casting Irish Catholic actors as Henry the IV or Anglo-Saxon king Alfred the Great."

No different? How on earth could a black woman ever pass for a white English woman from the 16th century? Only if you turn off your one brain cell. It's insane.

Also, you confuse "complaining" with mocking...

reply

Liberal Progressives literally are insane.

Before I even came to this board I knew exactly what the problem was based on the poster alone.

reply

WHEN YOU SEE EVERYTHING AS BLACK & WHITE,HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING?

reply