A Woke Society? **Mod Warning In Post #435**

It’s far more reasonable to assume that the reason for their being upset and making a song and dance about it is because of the fact that they are invested in these stories, given they maintain a Eurocentric worldview, which is being co-opted in a cash-grab by a corporate entity in order to appeal to an entirely different audience by merely doing a palette swap of characters rather than giving those people the opportunities to tell their own stories from their own points of view.

It’s not as though there’s any shortage of the mermaid folklore, or any other kind of folklore in other cultures that if Disney or Amazon weren’t so lazy they could have drawn on for inspiration, rather than engaging in tokenism to demonstrate their progressive credentials to a predominantly white audience:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid

Similarly, the same applies to the palette swapped elves. ‘Shoehorned’ is definitely the most appropriate term for what they’ve chosen to do, and why their actions are so vociferously defended by people who are determined to characterise anyone who objects to such tokenism as being motivated by racism, as opposed to the idea that they’re objected to on the basis that those characters simply don’t belong in the story.

It is far more reasonable to assume their opposition to a black Ariel and a black elf that never existed in media before is based on prejudice let's be honest here one eyed jack.

A telegraph link to demonstrate something is not based on prejudice.

A paper that has openly supported the tories since the 1940s and is a part of their current fight against woke.

👆😂😂😂

You got any supporting daily mail links to back up your point.

🤣

The point was I expect them to be played by black people.

What a ridiculous poster.

Almost every item has some direct relation to European, British or American history.

The trans-Saharan slave trade which existed for roughly a thousand years from the 7th to 17th century get no mention at all but the first English slave expedition to Africa in 1562 does. Why?

Some items are not even anything to do with black history. For instance Septimius Severus visiting Hadrian's Wall. Septimius Severus was not black, he was of Italic and Punic descent. So why is he even mentioned? Did someone at the Guardian just see the word "African" and think African=black?

You don’t mention what you learnt, but I would have been in first year around 10 years later than you. I wasn’t taught the controversy about the ethnicity of Ancient civilisations, just that the Egyptians built the pyramids.

It does appear that the people who compiled the list, claiming that the people who built the pyramids were black, are engaging in a form of Afrocentrism (similar to Eurocentrism):

• The 4,500-year-old monuments were built for the Egyptian pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, none of whom are believed by scholars to have been black.
• The timeline, created by author Gaverne Bennett and included in a series of pull-out posters in The Guardian newspaper, also includes in its overview of black history the ancient queen Hatshepsut and the temple of Abu Simbel, another ancient Egyptian monument.
• This was built during the reign of Ramesses II and boasts a monumental image of the pharaoh and his wife Nefertari who, along with Hatshepsut, are not believed to have been black.
• A reading list devised by the council includes Brilliant Black British History, a children’s book which makes various erroneous claims, including that black people built Stonehenge.
• Roman Emperor Septimius Severus was included on the front cover of a 2022 Puffin children’s book by This Morning presenter Alison Hammond, called Black In Time, which was billed as a history of “the most awesome black Britons”. Severus was not black but simply born in North Africa.

The notorious white supremacist group, the people of Egypt, weren't too thrilled with Netflix when they race swapped Cleopatra in their recent 'documentary.'

I’m conservative anyways so from my point of view our current education system works quite well; I’d leave that sort of political philosophy to third level education where students exposed to it could Google and find out that there is no evidence to back up what they feel is right for them, and perhaps it’s best keep their alternative theories to themselves lest they wish to open their mouths and remove all doubt that the only evidence they have provided is that the education system has failed them.

It’d be unfair to characterise that as woke, because it’s not really being awoken to social injustice, it’s just making something up, imparting it to the class, and hoping it gains traction. It may well do among the more gullible students who aren’t particularly interested in anything beyond the curriculum, though I would always encourage students to go beyond the curriculum.

I don’t think anyones ever argued that students only be taught white history, it’s more concerned with pointing out how ridiculous it is to attempt to instill in students a false sense of achievement.

Well, when I say 'white' history, I.mean traditional.

For me, sticking to conservative/traditional is as ignorant as going full liberal/woke with it.

Ultimately, though it cones down to one question: what do you think a good education system should aim for?

Ah, hang on a second - how did you get from "the idea that alternative viewpoints and theories exist and how to exptress them" to "peddling pseudohistoric nonsense like that where Martin Luther King for example freed the Irish from Chinese occupation, and great Chinese historical figures like Mao Zedong invaded the United States of Korea to free the people there from oppression while Thomas Sankara was giving Hitler the old one, two in the Australian territories"....?? Kinda feels like you got a bit carried away with the creative writing here.

As for "nobody gains from approriating history" well - what if it's someone else's history? We're talking Luton here, so it's a fair bet there's a decent amount of black kids in most classes - why should they be denied the chance to learn about their own history?

As for "An education system should aim to educate people" can you be a little less vague here?

I dont think it's fair to say that some people dont want to see diversity on screen. In my case I can say I have no problem with it. What does give me eye-rolls however is the contrived over-representation that we are currently seeing.

The other day I saw an ad - cant even remember what it was for, some unremarkable car or other - where the first 4 shots were like amputee, fatty, black fatty, queer. Thats not even diverse and I dont believe for one second it is genuine either. Genuine as in aimed at selling cars to black fatty queer amputees. Or even at making them feel included. The cynic in me says it is aimed at (mostly white) young educated conformists who like to see themselves as 'inclusive'. Basically cringe corporate box-ticking.

Now thats not the end of civilisation for me, outside of threads like these I dont really lose sleep over it. I'm like, whatever...roll-eyes, move on. 😁 But it is cringe.

Do you think there is an overrepresentation in say advertisement at the moment going on? Or do you think mixed race couples, people with disabilities, non-binary, all the rest of it (quite offensive really IMO, lumping them all together, doesn't matter as long as its 'non-standard' or something) are represented naturally and 'normally' and not in any way 'forced' or contrived?

Regardless of the answer I think we can agree there's been a shift. Would you think this shift in advertisement is happening to actually address people in those 'non-standard' groups? (Admittedly a questionable honour) Or do you suspect they are actually addressing the young (mostly white) educated conformists who see themselves as inclusive?

It's obvious now where I'm going with this. I have no problem with diversity in advertisement and to some degree in entertainment and classic culture as long as it's not contrived. In advertisement in particular I'd accuse them of hypocrisy however. They dont do this to include. They do it to sell to people who feel inclusive. Still no problem with that btw. Society we live in is a cynical one. But lets not mistake it for anything else (IMO).

I do have a television and trust me on that one.

***

I dont see it either. Except for obvious and contrived re-appropriation. Like Henry VIII is all of sudden black and/or gay. Or James Bond for that matter.

But ye agreed I dont get it either. I like watching the Equalizer as much as I like watching Bond. And I think Victor in Umbrella Academy is a cool and likeable fictional character. And so on

But contrived over-representation makes me roll-eyes, is all. And thats not even some anti-woke in me, just the cynic.

Advertising, to be fair, is designed to sell, not to tell a story. So it's in their best interests to appeal to as diverse an audience as possible. Diversity = wider market = more sales.

If you knew someone who was half-white and half-Lebanese would you say to them, "Hey so I guess you'll be celebrating your heritage on Black History Month?"

I don't have any grasp of Roman racial politics but the whole 'Person of Colour' thing is modern, surely?

Elizabeth Taylor has much more of a 'Greek' look than most English-American actresses whether by coincidence or some unknown ancestor. That may even have been part of why she was cast as Cleopatra (Macedonian Greek lineage). She also played a Venetian in The Taming of the Shrew.

If it were Veronica Lake or Kim Novak, or someone very all-American looking, I think you would have a stronger point.

I think we're at the point where this just another 'wokeism of the day' thread.

And if that appropriation of history doesn't bother us, while this one does, what does that say?

It suggests we all have our own biases, prejudices, preferences and so on. Your example of the Passion film is a good example, but concerns about the ethnicity of Jesus were overshadowed by the film’s far more controversial aspects. Jim’s always been bitter about the perception that he was ostracised by Hollywood after the fact 😬

https://screenrant.com/passion-of-the-christ-movie-controversies-explained/

I can think of a better example of why representation matters, and why it matters that the representation isn’t just perpetuating negative stereotypes of people from different ethnicities and cultures and so on. Hattie McDaniel who played Mammy in Gone With The Wind faced criticism from other black people at the time for what they perceived was perpetuating white society’s attitudes toward black people. When I ask myself did they have a legitimate argument, I have to conclude that they do. Following on from that, does Hattie McDaniel deserve the criticism? I have to conclude that she doesn’t. Black people at the time don’t appear to have agreed with my modern day assessment:

Some critics felt that McDaniel not only accepted the roles but also in her statements to the press acquiesced to Hollywood's stereotypes, providing fuel for critics of those who were fighting for Black civil rights. Later, when McDaniel tried to take her "Mammy" character on a road show, Black audiences did not prove receptive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_McDaniel

In keeping with the religious theme I suppose by way of demonstrating the power, importance and influence of representation, and indeed misrepresentation, the most immediate example that always springs to mind is Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” - the video contains powerful imagery and symbolism, roundly criticised as blasphemy by the Vatican, but for ordinary Catholics the world over, it proved to resonate with many people.

Comparing that to Sinead O’ Connor ripping up the photo of the Pope, my reaction to Sinead’s efforts were a bit “meh”, but that was likely because I’d already grown tired of seeing her being placated by Gay Byrne on the Late Late Show. It was quite refreshing then to see Kenny Everett’s response to Sinead when she attempted to humiliate him on live television over his apparent support for Clause 28. Sadly it’s been removed from YouTube now, but his response, in typical Everett fashion, was that he’d turn up anywhere there was a good party! 😂

For what it’s worth, the Catholic Church has never had an issue with how Jesus’ appearance is depicted in art, it stands to reason they wouldn’t in circumstances where it serves their purposes:

https://catholicexchange.com/why-its-okay-to-portray-jesus-as-europeanor-any-other-race/

Didn't realise it was, curious as to why.

What's wrong with it is that there's no Real on-topux discussion. It's just 'hey look! I found a woke!'. No comment on how/if its a threat to society, just an ego-trip.

What's the point?

What’s wrong with it is that the more it goes on, the more it just comes off as nothing more than petty bitterness and resentment, as opposed to making a legitimate argument. Like the claims of minorities being “over-represented” in advertising and media, ignoring the reality that 99.9% of advertising and media is still representative of the predominant majority demographic, so any complaints of over-representation in advertising and media are particularly without foundation.

where the first 4 shots were like amputee, fatty, black fatty, queer.

Well holy God this post is surely an attempt to have a fair and balanced discussion. I mean you waited until the second paragraph before your started dropping slurs.

🤔

Are fat people woke too now?