Current Events > Greek Achilles to be played by a black person in new BBC/Netflix series.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It really sucks that Kineth has me on ignore. I miss arguing with him.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

What's more embarrassing is him thinking that the video posted is an accurate representation of British life during Roman times because there were a few Africans there.

Where did I say that?
---

s0nicfan posted...

ilfait posted...

I'm going to go watch the historical drama about an escaped African slave, played by Matt Damon, being pursued by Samuel L. Jackson, as his evil Virginian confederate captor now. Byebye.

Oh, did the Hamilton playwright create a sequel?

To be clear, I wasn't trying to relate what I said to the Achilles show in the topic--I don't have a really firm opinion on that. Though I think it's reasonable to assume that the impetus behind the casting is another disgusting SJW thing, there is always the slight (very slight) chance that it was an artistic/merit-based decision, and in that case there's no reason that a work of fiction can't have any historical or mythological characters played by any gender or race.

I was just making fun of the guy who pretended to be oblivious to ancient Africa not being full of white people because he didn't want to concede any ground.

Kineth posted...

SuperNamekGod posted...

Kineth posted...

And no one gives a shit about your feelings.

This guy is the prime example of why people should read books and actually study things and not listen to video game message boards.

Care to expand on your hypothesis? Maybe with something like evidence instead of a passive aggressive statement?

It's just common sense, I don't want to engage in discussion with you because you are dishonest drama queen. You called anybody who doesn't agree with your Greeks were black bullshit a white supremacist. That just provides me with more evidence because if someone has to resort to giving people extreme labels because of disagreements. That just shows they have no leg to stand on. And that is why listening to idiots (such as yourself), on the internet is not a good idea if you want to learn about actual FACTS and not feelings. Reading books or articles are.
---

SuperNamekGod posted...

It's just common sense, I don't want to engage in discussion with you because you are dishonest drama queen.

So I'm gonna show that you're actually projecting your shit onto me since you're the one that decided to be passive aggressive and pussyfooted around what you really want to say. Which is nothing.

You called anybody who doesn't agree with your Greeks were black bullshit a white supremacist.

No. That's not why I called anyone a white supremacist and in fact, I've only directly called 2 people in this topic that. It's not my shit. Why would you put something racial on me? Maybe it's because you're full of shit and projecting your bullshit onto me.

That just provides me with more evidence is that if someone has to resort to giving people extreme labels because of disagreements is that they have no leg to stand on. And that is why listening to idiots (such as yourself), on the internet is not a good idea if you want to learn about actual FACTS and not feelings.

lol, you act like an enlightened mind and yet you have no clue what bias is and apparently you're too timid to actually mix it up and debate. The only chance any drama queen has is to spread rumors and assassinate someone's character.

So keep doing you. This isn't a news site for me. It's a bunch of people talking about inconsequential news stories for me. It's actually comical that you dare even question my perspective on shit.

Also, eat my ass, I have a post grad degree.

Next time, maybe learn about a person instead of assuming a whole bunch of unsubstantiated shit that you just were willing to believe on a gaming website. The same website where I said I don't give a shit about someone's feelings. Holy fuck, your idiocy is infuriating.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

What's more embarrassing is him thinking that the video posted is an accurate representation of British life during Roman times because there were a few Africans there.

Where did I say that?

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

Like i said, if an educational video portrayed whites as a common sight in ancient Africa, it would technically be correct since they did exist there and they were a common sight for the people around them, but we all know that for 99% of the African population, they saw only other Africans.

Why can't you admit that vid is a propaganda piece for the sake of modern diversity?
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

First of all, I never defended that video. (Please show me where I did) All I did was call out your bullshit when you said that there was no Africans in Rome. And that was proven to be bullshit. But please, show me where I said that there were some Africans in Britain.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

First of all, I never defended that video. (Please show me where I did) All I did was call out your bullshit when you said that there was no Africans in Rome. And that was proven to be bullshit. But please, show me where I said that there were some Africans in Britain.

Ok fair enough if that's what your stance was.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

First of all, I never defended that video. (Please show me where I did) All I did was call out your bullshit when you said that there was no Africans in Rome. And that was proven to be bullshit. But please, show me where I said that there were some Africans in Britain.

Ok fair enough if that's what your stance was.

It was. Well I guess that "apology" was also bullshit.
---

Kineth posted...

White supremacists want to pretend like they're historical experts. So yeah, this topic is still going.

You're not getting extra posts in this topic and it's a fucking mockery that this topic is still around.

in this post: you calling people on the opposition white supremacist, and because they are discussing it its a mockery in your easily offended eyes.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

First of all, I never defended that video. (Please show me where I did) All I did was call out your bullshit when you said that there was no Africans in Rome. And that was proven to be bullshit. But please, show me where I said that there were some Africans in Britain.

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Africans weren't a common sight in ancient Rome or Britannia so to put them in an "educational" video as a common sight at that time is called revisionism.

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

ilfait posted...

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

Yes.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

Yes.

Um...

ilfait posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

Yes.

Um...

Um what?
---

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

Yes.

Um...

Um what?

Read the two bolded sections. You don't see any problem there? Also, you answered my "or" question with a "yes".

Is it an apple, or is it an orange?
Yes.

they're pointing out that saying uncommon isn't the same as saying none
---

prettyprincess posted...

they're pointing out that saying uncommon isn't the same as saying none

Thank you!

CrimsonRage posted...

No one's going to think blacks were common in Roman Britain because of a silly Youtube video for kids.

Maybe so, but NineX isn't arguing that it's effective propaganda; only that it's propaganda, which is almost certainly the case.

And whether it's harmful, helpful, or insignificant propaganda is a separate issue.

ilfait posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

ilfait posted...

Is that what you're referring to, Bishop? Or did he say that in another post?

Yes.

Um...

Um what?

Read the two bolded sections. You don't see any problem there? Also, you answered my "or" question with a "yes".

Is it an apple or an orange?
Yes.

Wow. Really? You really want to go that route? Fine.
He was still wrong. Africans were common in Rome seeing that North Africa was a province of them. Plus you had Africans who was part of Rome's military. So that statement of Africans were not common in Rome is bullshit.

Is that better?
---

CrimsonRage posted...

No one's going to think blacks were common in Roman Britain because of a silly Youtube video for kids.

It isn't silly if its meant to educate younger generations about history.

And there ARE people who genuinely believe its real and when there is a bunch of people calling the video out in the comments there are people calling them triggered snowflakes for pointing out historical inaccuracies.
---

Kineth posted...

The same website where I said I don't give a shit about someone's feelings.

Kineth posted...

Next time, maybe learn about a person instead of assuming a whole bunch of unsubstantiated shit

---

Bishop9800 posted...

He was still wrong. Africans were common in Rome seeing that North Africa was a province of them. Plus you had Africans who was part of Rome's military. So that statement of Africans were not common in Rome is bullshit.

well, it kind of depends on if you mean City of Rome, or Roman Empire
---

prettyprincess posted...

Kineth posted...

The same website where I said I don't give a shit about someone's feelings.

Kineth posted...

Next time, maybe learn about a person instead of assuming a whole bunch of unsubstantiated shit

Lol
---

I read the first page, went 'well this was a lot of arguing', went to click the next page, saw it was 10 pages.

lol guys really?
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

well, it kind of depends on if you mean City of Rome, or Roman Empire

Wouldn't it be both? We know they were part of the Empire, but I would also think that they were in Rome itself.
---

TC, I can understand how you feel about cultural appropriation and whatnot. A lot of people who maybe immediately respond with who cares probably feel that way as it isn't their culture, and they may or may not have the same bonds to their culture you do, but at the end of the day any kind of TV production is about money. Also, the Illiad while tied to your heritage is a mythology/fantasy, and if you think the British Broadcasting Service is that concerned about authentic Greek culture you're missing more of the larger picture than a key role being played by black guy. How many of the other actors are Greek? This series was always going to be as authentic to Greek heritage as the Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco is to Mexican culture. Oopa!
---

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You kept defending the video by saying that it was ok because there were some Africans there at that time. When you get into technicalities, you can make anything look legit.

First of all, I never defended that video. (Please show me where I did) All I did was call out your bullshit when you said that there was no Africans in Rome. And that was proven to be bullshit. But please, show me where I said that there were some Africans in Britain.

Ok fair enough if that's what your stance was.

It was. Well I guess that "apology" was also bullshit.

You never responded to my apology so i withdrew it
---

Bishop9800 posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

well, it kind of depends on if you mean City of Rome, or Roman Empire

Wouldn't it be both? We know they were part of the Empire, but I would also think that they were in Rome itself.

ethnic migration is not my area of expertise here, so the short answer boils down to "i don't know"

there were probably some, no doubt, like merchants going around, maybe some of the wealthy africans moved to the City of Rome, possibly a couple of the Senators originated from North Africa.

but on the large scale, going that distance and settling in Rome is a difficult task for the common man.
i suspect that the vast majority would be Italians.

some, yes, but to say it was "common" is to assume way too much, and it's basically a pointless discussion to begin with, since neither you or me, or anyone else here have any real research to say whether any point here is accurate.
now, if you found some sources that cleared it up in either direction, i would be happy to see it.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You never responded to my apology so i withdrew it

Because it was bullshit. And you know it.
---

MortimerBrewstr posted...

TC, I can understand how you feel about cultural appropriation and whatnot. A lot of people who maybe immediately respond with who cares probably feel that way as it isn't their culture, and they may or may not have the same bonds to their culture you do, but at the end of the day any kind of TV production is about money. Also, the Illiad while tied to your heritage is a mythology/fantasy, and if you think the British Broadcasting Service is that concerned about authentic Greek culture you're missing more of the larger picture than a key role being played by black guy. How many of the other actors are Greek? This series was always going to be as authentic to Greek heritage as the Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco is to Mexican culture. Oopa!

I think that the cultural appropriation argument should carry about the same weight as any other argument for not liking something. Any creator should be able to "appropriate" any culture they decide to appropriate, and change it around in any way that suits their creative vision, without any inherent ethical obligation to the inspiring culture. There should be no ethical obligation to cast people of certain ethnicities, or to respect the subject matter by portraying it realistically.

If your culture is sacred to you, that's fine, and maybe even noble. But it doesn't need to be sacred to everyone else.

Where the Achilles thing is interesting to me is when you look at it in the context of the current hyper-PC climate; at this point anyone with a working brain who's been paying any attention has to wonder if the casting wasn't an artistic choice, but a political choice. And when choices are political instead of artistic, then for me the work in question loses the protection that an argument for artistic integrity might have afforded it.

now i kind of just want to watch the topic go to 500
---

ilfait posted...

MortimerBrewstr posted...

TC, I can understand how you feel about cultural appropriation and whatnot. A lot of people who maybe immediately respond with who cares probably feel that way as it isn't their culture, and they may or may not have the same bonds to their culture you do, but at the end of the day any kind of TV production is about money. Also, the Illiad while tied to your heritage is a mythology/fantasy, and if you think the British Broadcasting Service is that concerned about authentic Greek culture you're missing more of the larger picture than a key role being played by black guy. How many of the other actors are Greek? This series was always going to be as authentic to Greek heritage as the Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco is to Mexican culture. Oopa!

I think that the cultural appropriation argument should carry about the same weight as any other argument for not liking something. Any creator should be able to "appropriate" any culture they decide to appropriate, and change it around in any way that suits their creative vision, without any inherent ethical obligation to the inspiring culture. There should be no ethical obligation to cast people of certain ethnicities, or to respect the subject matter by portraying it realistically.

If your culture is sacred to you, that's fine, and maybe even noble. But it doesn't need to be sacred to everyone else.

Where the Achilles thing is interesting to me is when you look at it in the context of the current hyper-PC climate; at this point anyone with a working brain who's been paying any attention has to wonder if the casting wasn't an artistic choice, but a political choice. And when choices are political instead of artistic, then for me the work in question loses the protection that an argument for artistic integrity might have afforded it.

It's for political purposes. 'There aren't enough roles for minorities, even though it's been proven that racial representation is in line with population,' is usually the reason.
---

darkjedilink posted...

ilfait posted...

MortimerBrewstr posted...

TC, I can understand how you feel about cultural appropriation and whatnot. A lot of people who maybe immediately respond with who cares probably feel that way as it isn't their culture, and they may or may not have the same bonds to their culture you do, but at the end of the day any kind of TV production is about money. Also, the Illiad while tied to your heritage is a mythology/fantasy, and if you think the British Broadcasting Service is that concerned about authentic Greek culture you're missing more of the larger picture than a key role being played by black guy. How many of the other actors are Greek? This series was always going to be as authentic to Greek heritage as the Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco is to Mexican culture. Oopa!

I think that the cultural appropriation argument should carry about the same weight as any other argument for not liking something. Any creator should be able to "appropriate" any culture they decide to appropriate, and change it around in any way that suits their creative vision, without any inherent ethical obligation to the inspiring culture. There should be no ethical obligation to cast people of certain ethnicities, or to respect the subject matter by portraying it realistically.

If your culture is sacred to you, that's fine, and maybe even noble. But it doesn't need to be sacred to everyone else.

Where the Achilles thing is interesting to me is when you look at it in the context of the current hyper-PC climate; at this point anyone with a working brain who's been paying any attention has to wonder if the casting wasn't an artistic choice, but a political choice. And when choices are political instead of artistic, then for me the work in question loses the protection that an argument for artistic integrity might have afforded it.

It's for political purposes. 'There aren't enough roles for minorities, even though it's been proven that racial representation is in line with population,' is usually the reason.

How do you know?

ilfait posted...

How do you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity
---

s0nicfan posted...

ilfait posted...

How do you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity

That's disgusting.

ilfait posted...

s0nicfan posted...

ilfait posted...

How do you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity

That's disgusting.

At least forced diversity makes Kineth happy.

Just a few of BBC's goals, from the article:

set challenging new on-air portrayal targets for disabled people, women, ethnic minorities, and LGBT people, which go wider and further than ever before, to ensure our content reflects the public we serve.

develop industry-leading diversity commissioning guidelines in consultation with the independent production sector and in-house production, using our position in the industry to ensure that anyone who makes programmes for us shares our values and commitments.

set new 2020 workforce targets to ensure our employees and leadership teams are at least as diverse, if not more so, than any other in the industry.

focus on social inclusion by gathering socio-economic information from all new employees and creating a sustainable and diverse talent pool for the future by expanding our successful apprentice programmes.

work collaboratively with all our production partners, asking them to put diversity at the heart of their work and to support us in the delivery of our diversity strategy.

This one actually seems good, and also at odds with almost every other goal they have:

set new standards in the media industry on new recruitment and selection practices which drive the attraction, selection and retention of the best creative talent whatever their background, including extending anonymised application for the recruitment of all our core roles.

What's the point of keeping applications anonymous when you're just going to ultimately discriminate based on race/gender etc. in order to achieve this:

To 500, down with the white male power!!!
---

CrimsonRage posted...

ilfait posted...

s0nicfan posted...

ilfait posted...

How do you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity

That's disgusting.

How so? It's a push to get more women and minorities in the industry when they've been overlooked so much before. Too far in the opposite direction? Maybe but at least they're getting their chance.

Everyone should have as equal a chance as realistically possible; nobody should be given prejudicial based on their race or gender, or whether they're in a wheelchair or can walk. The BBC's mission statement doesn't appear to make that its goal at all, except for that one point about the anonymous applications. It seems to be doing the exact opposite.

CrimsonRage posted...

ilfait posted...

s0nicfan posted...

ilfait posted...

How do you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity

That's disgusting.

How so? It's a push to get more women and minorities in the industry when they've been overlooked so much before. Too far in the opposite direction? Maybe but at least they're getting their chance.

They actually haven't been overlooked. Statistical analyses show that lead roles are pretty accurate as far as ethnic representation.
---

fuck white supremacists..
---