FTA-TV Bosto chucks it over black characters

[Bostonian]

What does 'African appearance' even mean? I mean, by that classification you would be quite happy with someone who looked like Freddy Mercury playing a slave. And they could too, as there were plenty of slaves who were the offspring of people of 'European appearance'.

Well maybe go read some history books then to find out what the slaves looked like.

Maybe then you'll learn that slaves were only taken from certain places in Africa and those people looked a certain way.

Which is nothing like Freddie Mercury.

 

[Bostonian]

that's cool man but we didn't end up with Western Europe under the thumb of Imperial African rule did we

Didn't have generations of colonisation and destruction, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, theft of land and resources ongoing to this day

Well there were parts of Europe under North African rule.

Never heard of the Moors?

Every part of the populated planet had groups of people fighting each other for land and resources.

What happened eventually though was that far superior armies emerged and they ended up on top in their regions.

Zero to do with colour and all to do with who had the better warrior classes.

 

[Father Jack]

passing, gatekeeping, lots of issues
not with you knowing Freddy was born in Zanzibar
but with the he doesn't look African view

It's like people that the only real First Nation's people here are the ones that live in remote communities up North

That tell people you look to white to be black

Don't get me wrong, Hollywood casting is super racist, media is as well

they would absolutely say you don't look like the right kind of black person to Freddy and not let him be on Roots if he auditioned

Just more that the you look like xx has a lot of racist history attached to it

which also funnily enough leads into Boston's they don't look like vikings to me so its bad casting

Not only was Freddy born in Zanzibar but he was played in a movie by an actor who is the son of African immigrants. So my point was that the term 'African appearance' is too broad to be useful.

 

[Father Jack]

Well maybe go read some history books then to find out what the slaves looked like.

Maybe then you'll learn that slaves were only taken from certain places in Africa and those people looked a certain way.

Which is nothing like Freddie Mercury.

You're the one who said 'of African appearance', I was simply pointing out that this would include Freddy Mercury. You're arguing against yourself on this one.

 

[Gralin]

Not only was Freddy born in Zanzibar but he was played in a movie by an actor who is the son of African immigrants. So my point was that the term 'African appearance' is too broad to be useful.

Freddie was Indian though when you look at his family it was just that they most recently lived in Zanzibar

And he went to boarding schools in India, English boarding schools but yeah

 

[Gralin]

Well there were parts of Europe under North African rule.

Never heard of the Moors?

Every part of the populated planet had groups of people fighting each other for land and resources.

What happened eventually though was that far superior armies emerged and they ended up on top in their regions.

Zero to do with colour and all to do with who had the better warrior classes.

Moors the catch all name used in Europe for multiple different groups of people?

It's cool that your racism is just out in the open though with this whole post

 

[Bostonian]

Moors the catch all name used in Europe for multiple different groups of people?

It's cool that your racism is just out in the open though with this whole post

You mean like the catch all name "Romans".

So now according to Gralin the historical genius Moors and Romans are now racist terms.

A term still used today to describe a group of living people but Gralin tells everyone its racist even though it's still a term people associate themselves with

It's not cool you're so historically clueless.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Not my question. You said the only reason to change our view of history is if new information from back then is discovered like artifacts or texts.

By that theory you should be pro slavery as you wouldn't view the act through a modern lens, meaning you'd still be cool with people owning slaves now if your ancestors did, but you'd be against it if your ancestors were slaves

Extending from that you'd be annoyed about historical shows that cast slavery in a bad light if you were from group a but be cool with that if you were in group b and would be pissed about a show where a slave master was a hero

the idea that you look at history through the lens of historical views....

Genuinely embarrassing post. How are you a super mod?

 

[Chief]

Genuinely embarrassing post. How are you a super mod?

Lol!

 

[Richard Cranium]

Lol!

Chief your little buddy is maybe the worst poster on this site. Just because you share a similar point of view doesn't change that fact.

If this sort of thread was made targeting a left wing poster, the creator would be banned.

Do better.

 

[Richard Cranium]

And just to clarify, I'm no fan of Bostonian either, so this isn't a left v right thing. It's just someone being gobsmacked by the stupidity of everyone involved.

 

[Chief]

Chief your little buddy is maybe the worst poster on this site.

Holy s**t!

Wow. Big call.

 

[Father Jack]

And just to clarify, I'm no fan of Bostonian either, so this isn't a left v right thing. It's just someone being gobsmacked by the stupidity of everyone involved.

Someone so gobsmacked they can't even post anything even remotely resembling a substantive point, even after three posts!

 

[Gralin]

You mean like the catch all name "Romans".

So now according to Gralin the historical genius Moors and Romans are now racist terms.

A term still used today to describe a group of living people but Gralin tells everyone its racist even though it's still a term people associate themselves with

It's not cool you're so historically clueless.

No Bosto that is not what I mean, it was your whole racism had nothing to do with anything, it was just superior warriors.....

Genuinely embarrassing post. How are you a super mod?

I just put on a cape and turned up at Chief's one day

Holy s**t!

Wow. Big call.

When someone like Richard talks about worst posters I definitely pay attention

 

[Bostonian]

No Bosto that is not what I mean, it was your whole racism had nothing to do with anything, it was just superior warriors.....

What?

Are you saying that in the field of battle no forces had superior warriors/soldiers?

Do you even history?

A statement that has nothing to do with race of course all of a sudden comes back to race.

Of course there is no such thing as race as you should know.

I just put on a cape and turned up at Chief's one day


When someone like Richard talks about worst posters I definitely pay attention.

Well you don't pay attention in history classes that's for sure.

 

[Bostonian]

Chief your little buddy is maybe the worst poster on this site. Just because you share a similar point of view doesn't change that fact.

If this sort of thread was made targeting a left wing poster, the creator would be banned.

Do better.

Reckon you're taking it a bit serious there!

Water off a ducks back to me.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Someone so gobsmacked they can't even post anything even remotely resembling a substantive point, even after three posts!

Suggesting that someone should be pro-slavery because they dislike 'diverse' casting in historical films and tv shows is incredibly stupid. Substantive enough for you?

Sorry for invading your SRP party in here guys. Keep up the good work. Echo chambers are a great.

 

[Gralin]

What?

So you say history should only be viewed through the context of history and not the modern lens, only the facts that we know of

that historical shows should be based purely in that knowledge and nothing else

you understand that there are different historical and modern lenses to view topics through based on your Quaker comment

but what it seems to boil down to is shows should know and agree on your personal lens and everything should be based on that

you carry the true view of history and everyone else is wrong

Are you saying that in the field of battle no forces had superior warriors/soldiers?

no I'm suggesting you make arguments used by racist historians and use language and views from those same racist historians to make up your view of the historical world

Do you even history?

Do you history or just western history? Where do you get your history from?

A statement that has nothing to do with race of course all of a sudden comes back to race.

we were discussing racism, this whole thread is about racism, specifically you getting shitty about black actors getting roles in what you think should be white only casts

ring any bells

Of course there is no such thing as race as you should know.

and yet you crack the shits when the people in shows don't look the way you want..

Well you don't pay attention in history classes that's for sure.

I'm not in school Bosto, I don't have history classes

Suggesting that someone should be pro-slavery because they dislike 'diverse' casting in historical films and tv shows is incredibly stupid. Substantive enough for you?

incredibly stupid like the suggestion that people don't look at history through the modern lens of their own views and understanding of things?
you know the point Bosto made that I was getting up to some *ery with

Sorry for invading your SRP party in here guys. Keep up the good work. Echo chambers are a great.

good to see you don't have the courage of your convictions on this lol

 

[Richard Cranium]

Yeah I'm not engaging. Consider that some sort of win if you want, I really don't care.

 

[Father Jack]

Yeah I'm not engaging. Consider that some sort of win if you want, I really don't care.

Cheers, thanks for dropping in. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Bostonian]

So you say history should only be viewed through the context of history and not the modern lens, only the facts that we know of

that historical shows should be based purely in that knowledge and nothing else

you understand that there are different historical and modern lenses to view topics through based on your Quaker comment

but what it seems to boil down to is shows should know and agree on your personal lens and everything should be based on that

you carry the true view of history and everyone else is wrong

I just care about the authenticity. Modern lens plays zero part in that. See what you couldn't comprehend is that archaeology and rediscovered texts aren't a modern lens, they are just that period of time lens being unearthed again.

no I'm suggesting you make arguments used by racist historians and use language and views from those same racist historians to make up your view of the historical world

Well you're full of crap then. It's easy to debunk your whacko views as soon as you bring race into the scenario.

See you read superior warriors and go full white knight and insert your garbage race lines into it. When it could be a battle between a Germanic Tribe and some Gauls and if one wins and you call them superior warriors Gralin will be there to spew out their racist nonsense.

Do you history or just western history? Where do you get your history from?

I do plenty of history.

It's how I know the Mongols had superior warriors to a vast swathes of different people and places. Is that racist too?

we were discussing racism, this whole thread is about racism, specifically you getting shitty about black actors getting roles in what you think should be white only casts

ring any bells

Except pointing out there were no Black Women leading Viking clans has nothing to do with racism. It's pointing out a fact.

So you're arguing against facts.

and yet you crack the shits when the people in shows don't look the way you want..


I'm not in school Bosto, I don't have history classes

You're confused, I laugh at how predictable and clownish these w***ers that make these shows are.

I can see you were never in a history class.

incredibly stupid like the suggestion that people don't look at history through the modern lens of their own views and understanding of things?
you know the point Bosto made that I was getting up to some f***ery with


good to see you don't have the courage of your convictions on this lol

If people's understanding of viking culture is that it had black women leading clans then yes, that's a really moronic modern lens of history and understanding of it.

Remember when people thought Wakanda was a real place? Like Kokomo.

This is the level of stupidity out there.

 

[Chief]

I just care about the authenticity.

But if the aim of the movie is to be entertaining and make money, then it can't be 100% authentic. It can't be totally authentic anyway, given the limitations of film.

 

[Gralin]

But if the aim of the movie is to be entertaining and make money, then it can't be 100% authentic. It can't be totally authentic anyway, given the limitations of film.

Inspired by true events....
Or in many cases
Inspired by a desire to make money off something that currently appears popular

 

[Bostonian]

But if the aim of the movie is to be entertaining and make money, then it can't be 100% authentic. It can't be totally authentic anyway, given the limitations of film.

Of course nothing can be 100% authentic but you can limit the unauthentic stuff so it doesn't stand out like dogs balls.

Imagine if you just threw in a heap of Chinese cast members into 12 Years A Slave just to appeal to the Chinese market (which is a problematic thing).

Would have made zero sense, looked ridiculous and offered zero to the story being told.

 

[Father Jack]

Of course nothing can be 100% authentic but you can limit the unauthentic stuff so it doesn't stand out like dogs balls.

Imagine if you just threw in a heap of Chinese cast members into 12 Years A Slave just to appeal to the Chinese market (which is a problematic thing).

Would have made zero sense, looked ridiculous and offered zero to the story being told.

Do you think that's even remotely comparable? I mean, if you wanted to make the movie you're talking about you could quite easily change it a little bit and have it be about building a railway.