White guy acting as Martin Luther King Jr in a movie

[Trifle]

If he can pull it off, then good for him. Robert Downey Jr. pulled off a convincing black guy, and Rob Schneider made a hilarious Hawaiian.

Err.. Robert Downer Jr didn't pull off a black guy, he specifically pulled off a white guy acting as a black guy. He still got a bunch of flack for that role, but I don't think that was deserved as the character existed specifically to highlight how racist it was.

[Vanyali]

That is why I date things around Y Gododdin, which is I think one of the oldest clear references to a plausible person (Again we are talking about a dude whom may or may not have been anything other than a tribal warlord of the Hen Ogledd or Damnonia.

I will counter your points further that at a certain point how many IF's are needed? I mean you are trying to argue that IF 10 or more implausible things happened to land a dude who looks like he is fresh from Ghambia into the theoretical court of a man who if he existed was never a King of anything except a Hillfort. Once more if we are talking about a legend going further back, the texts wouldn't specify his participation in a Battle against Angles and Saxons, which we know the exact timeline of. And you qualify things with probably, maybe, and IF THIS HAPPENED!.... which is again a shit ton of IF's which begs the question say why we need to depict things that almost certainly never happened. That person you describe was after all called an Ethiopian, not a Pict, or a Caledonian, or a Briton for that matter. So when discussing the Picts for example by the BBC, is it right to depict half of them as Black-Sub-Saharan African when that is literally not the case?

I never argued for the last sentence. I agree that that is going far too overboard, and should not be the case. My case was simply that the Arthur(s) of history would not be unfamiliar with black people, and given their prowess in battle (Nubian cavalry / archers were a bit of a big deal) would have come into contact with them, if not fought with them, as well as a presence existing (for however short a time) in Britain. It's also not an "if this happened" - it happened. if nothing else, the woman's skeleton proves it given that you generally don't find women moving that far unless they've a) been slaved and sold far or b) moved with / followed a husband / army on the march.

Gildas' De Excidio / Nennius would date him to starting roughly 450, which means it was right after Rome was pulling out of Britain... assuming that's the "right" Arthur. Which is hard, because anytime someone of note farted it was attributed to Arthur saving the day during that time period. And doubly hard because Gildas is an asshole when it comes to names and dates and Nennius writes from the idea that "everyone knows so why bother with identifying things". That's well within time range to see African soldiers again, who likely would have been fighting for the highest bidder and settled wherever they were when they decided to stop fighting.

[Kanegasi]

Diversity is important everywhere. However, MLK Jr was a black man so you get a black man to act as him. There’s no room for discussion on this, really. It’s like wanting to make a live action movie about a cartoon family of mice but getting a horse to portray the baby. You want to portray someone that existed, someone with well documented looks and a clearly defined reason on why you’re going to portray them, so you get someone like them. Anything else is just stupid.

[belfpala]

Would it be okay and should a white guy act as a Martin Luther King Jr. in a potential tv show, movie or a videogame in the future? Would you be okay with that? Is there a limit what should or should not be done? Or is it just a movie and everything is okay?

Let's propose an alternate universe, in which white people were slaves and subject to Jim Crow and segregation and institutional and social racism. If that is the premise of the movie, absolutely ok.

Otherwise no, it's not okay.

[Theodarzna]

I never argued for the last sentence. I agree that that is going far too overboard, and should not be the case. My case was simply that the Arthur(s) of history would not be unfamiliar with black people, and given their prowess in battle (Nubian cavalry / archers were a bit of a big deal) would have come into contact with them, if not fought with them, as well as a presence existing (for however short a time) in Britain. It's also not an "if this happened" - it happened. if nothing else, the woman's skeleton proves it given that you generally don't find women moving that far unless they've a) been slaved and sold far or b) moved with / followed a husband / army on the march.

Gildas' De Excidio / Nennius would date him to starting roughly 450, which means it was right after Rome was pulling out of Britain... assuming that's the "right" Arthur. Which is hard, because anytime someone of note farted it was attributed to Arthur saving the day during that time period. And doubly hard because Gildas is an asshole when it comes to names and dates and Nennius writes from the idea that "everyone knows so why bother with identifying things". That's well within time range to see African soldiers again, who likely would have been fighting for the highest bidder and settled wherever they were when they decided to stop fighting.

Honestly he would have likely been unfamiliar with them as he lived well after Rome left the Island, if he lived at all. Gildas never mentions King Arthur. You might be thinking of The second "Life" of St. Gildas which was written by Caradoc of Llancarfan, and comes from the 12th century, so paid for by Normans. Gildas is only said to be born at the same time as a Battle of Badon Hill, which other sources attribute to Arthur being victorious over the Saxons there. Which firmly puts Arthur as during the Invasion. The second "Life" story is mostly Norman propoganda meant to establish William the Conquorers descendents as 'totes for realsies King of the Island and totally also descended of the Britons too. Gildas' never mentions who leads the battle against the Saxons, so he never mentions him at all. This battle, which probably happened, was circa 500-550ish. Which again puts it well after the end of Roman rule and their end. If this theoretical Arthur was around for Roman rule. 400-425 is the era of post roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon problems Britain so if he was from then and led a war party at this Battle that probably happened he would have to both (For sure exist) but be well over a hundred years old. So for him to have seen this Nubian Cavalry in action or faught along side them, or against them he would have had to be 13-16(?) before 400 AD, and then be ready to go to smite some Saxons 113-116... maybe add another 50 to that years later at a Battle on a Hill. Amazing feat, you'd thing the legends would say "Crusty ass old Warrior kills a fuck ton of Germanic's on that hill...."

Assuming your last bit is true, those fighters would have been 16-30 when Rome left Britain before 400 AD. They would have been either 116 or a 130 by the time of Arthur's theoretical life. That is one old as fuck advisor/general/sargent.

[Vanyali]

Honestly he would have likely been unfamiliar with them as he lived well after Rome left the Island, if he lived at all. Gildas never mentions King Arthur. You might be thinking of The second "Life" of St. Gildas which was written by Caradoc of Llancarfan, and comes from the 12th century, so paid for by Normans. Gildas is only said to be born at the same time as a Battle of Badon Hill, which other sources attribute to Arthur being victorious over the Saxons there. Which firmly puts Arthur as during the Invasion. The second "Life" story is mostly Norman propoganda meant to establish William the Conquorers descendents as 'totes for realsies King of the Island and totally also descended of the Britons too. Gildas' never mentions who leads the battle against the Saxons, so he never mentions him at all. This battle, which probably happened, was circa 500-550ish. Which again puts it well after the end of Roman rule and their end. If this theoretical Arthur was around for Roman rule. 400-425 is the era of post roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon problems Britain so if he was from then and led a war party at this Battle that probably happened he would have to both (For sure exist) but be well over a hundred years old. So for him to have seen this Nubian Cavalry in action or faught along side them, or against them he would have had to be 13-16(?) before 400 AD, and then be ready to go to smite some Saxons 113-116... maybe add another 50 to that years later at a Battle on a Hill. Amazing feat, you'd thing the legends would say "Crusty ass old Warrior kills a fuck ton of Germanic's on that hill...."

Assuming your last bit is true, those fighters would have been 16-30 when Rome left Britain before 400 AD. They would have been either 116 or a 130 by the time of Arthur's theoretical life. That is one old as fuck advisor/general/sargent.

Correct, Gildas never mentions him. He does, however, mention the Battle of Badon Hill... while never directly naming Arthur because again, Gadon is an *asshole*. He also never directly dates the Battle of Badon, and other dates for it aren't as accurate as we'd like because Easter cycles and myth conflation. The end of Roman rule also wasn't an off-on switch; they still thought of themselves as Romans for a good amount of time, still used Roman traditions, and likely still had Roman armies present despite the fact that central Rome more or less (mostly the less... if only through emperor incompetence and general lack of knowledge of things in their empire) wrote them off.

That's also why I said Arthur(s) though - a solo Arthur is highly unlikely, and there are a number of candidates from various time points that appear to have been jammed together for most of the Arthur myth, even if their name isn't exactly Arthur.

[The One Percent]

Diversity for me, but not for thee.

[Skytotem]

and a black guy wouldent have been best mates with king Arthur, i mean if your changing races and genders of historical people then liberal artistic licenses is a given all ready.

Right he was buds with Lancelot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriaen

The romance begins with the story of Morien's conception. While searching for Lancelot thirteen years prior, Aglovale had traveled through the Moorish lands and fallen in love with a beautiful princess. They pledged their betrothal, but refusing to abandon his quest before Lancelot was located, Aglovale left the country before they could marry. He left her pregnant with his son Morien, who would grow into a tall, handsome youth "black of face and limb."[3] Of his prowess, the romance says that Sir Morien's "blows were so mighty; did a spear fly towards him, to harm him, it troubled him no whit, but he smote it in twain as if it were a reed; naught might endure before him." Of his dress, it says that "[h]is shield and his armour were even those of a Moor, and black as a raven."[3]

The narrative proper begins years later, as Morien seeks his father, he and his mother having been disinherited from their lands. The action takes place just prior to the quest for the Holy Grail, and the knights Lancelot and Gawain are out searching for Percival, a new knight and the brother of Aglovale. After Morien tells his story to Lancelot and Gawain, who promise to help him find his father, the knights go on a series of adventures showcasing their talents. In the end father and son are reunited, and Aglovale travels to the land of the Moors to marry his lover and win back her rightful lands.

(Get Dunked)

[Theodarzna]

Correct, Gildas never mentions him. He does, however, mention the Battle of Badon Hill... while never directly naming Arthur because again, Gadon is an *asshole*. He also never directly dates the Battle of Badon, and other dates for it aren't as accurate as we'd like because Easter cycles and myth conflation. The end of Roman rule also wasn't an off-on switch; they still thought of themselves as Romans for a good amount of time, still used Roman traditions, and likely still had Roman armies present despite the fact that central Rome more or less (mostly the less... if only through emperor incompetence and general lack of knowledge of things in their empire) wrote them off.

That's also why I said Arthur(s) though - a solo Arthur is highly unlikely, and there are a number of candidates from various time points that appear to have been jammed together for most of the Arthur myth, even if their name isn't exactly Arthur.

Well we can date it to the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Even without a date we can put in the mid-6th century because it was between Britons and Saxons. So lets be generous and say 501 CE, that is still 100 years after the Roman's pulled out or at least lets be generous as well and say 410, that is still 90 years. At which a theoretical person has to be of fighting age to be able to competiantly slay a fuck ton of Saxon's and win the day. By 476 Rome had its Odoacer problem and likely wasn't stationing anyone in Britain, a colony they had theoretical abandoned 60ish years or more ago. So doing some math again, lets say our theoretical Arthur is 30 at Badon, and Badon is in 500 CE (Which I super doubt, but whatever), That would make him 6 or so when Rome finally bit the dust. That is Western Rome anyway. I am unsure why they would have a contingent of Subsaharan africans (People not even in the Empire at its greatest point) stationed over in Britain just in the 470's it is struggling to hold its capitol city. Even if you want to say Mercinaries, okay, who in Britain has the wealth to hire a contingent of Subsaharan fighters in the 500's? Hell where did they get them? They'd have other richer patrons, namely Eastern Rome to fight for during its wars with the Sassanids.

As for Arthur as a person, oh, I don't doubt he is just a configuration of figures if he was real person originally he was likely never even a King.

[metzger84]

That's fucking ludicrous!

[Wyrt]

They shouldn't. And they shouldn't have people of other races playing English or French people. For the love of all that is holy stop casting English actors as French people.

Achilles though, he was the son of a sea nymph and who the fuck knows what those look like.

[Theodarzna]

Right he was buds with Lancelot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriaen

Arthur, if he existed at all was a Brythonic speaking warlord in the 550's whose only recorded as leading a successful military venture at the Battle of Mount Badon/Badon Hill. He didn't exist at the time of Moorish Spain, if he existed at all since accounts of his existence vary with Gildas never mentioning him but Y Gododdin and other Brythonic accounts mentioning him.

All that Lancelot stuff is just fairytales after the Norman invasion.

Though if they are doing the High Medieval Romance stories, sure, who cares. Those stories are pretty much whatever you want them to be.

[Skytotem]

Diversity for me, but not for thee.

Maybe take a look at this.

“These debates are healthy,” he said. “I think it represents a society that is attempting to come to grips and move forward into uncharted territory.”

Each play or musical must be considered on a case-by-case basis, said Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Quiara Alegría Hudes, who wrote the book for Miranda’s “In the Heights.”

“The danger of creating one hard-and-fast rule is that it diminishes the conversation,” she says. “And, yes, it’s absolutely OK to say this role calls for a specific actor, and if you’re telling me you can’t find that actor, you’re not equipped to do the play.”


------

The shift from “colorblind” to “color-conscious” may be attributed partly to the growing diversity of stories being produced. In eras past, when the vast majority of tales unfolding onstage were written by white playwrights about white characters, it took colorblind casting for an actor of color to be seen.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...htmlstory.html

[Vanyali]

Well we can date it to the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Even without a date we can put in the mid-6th century because it was between Britons and Saxons. So lets be generous and say 501 CE, that is still 100 years after the Roman's pulled out or at least lets be generous as well and say 410, that is still 90 years. At which a theoretical person has to be of fighting age to be able to competiantly slay a fuck ton of Saxon's and win the day. By 476 Rome had its Odoacer problem and likely wasn't stationing anyone in Britain, a colony they had theoretical abandoned 60ish years or more ago. So doing some math again, lets say our theoretical Arthur is 30 at Badon, and Badon is in 500 CE (Which I super doubt, but whatever), That would make him 6 or so when Rome finally bit the dust. That is Western Rome anyway. I am unsure why they would have a contingent of Subsaharan africans (People not even in the Empire at its greatest point) stationed over in Britain just in the 470's it is struggling to hold its capitol city. Even if you want to say Mercinaries, okay, who in Britain has the wealth to hire a contingent of Subsaharan fighters in the 500's? Hell where did they get them? They'd have other richer patrons, namely Eastern Rome to fight for during its wars with the Sassanids.

As for Arthur as a person, oh, I don't doubt he is just a configuration of figures if he was real person originally he was likely never even a King.

I'm not going to argue with the math - if Arthur of Badon is Arthur of immediately post-Rome, it really doesn't work. In any timeline.

However, if a proto-Arthur was there earlier... like, say Aurelias Ambrosia's (I'm pretty sure I slaughtered that) father, who was noted as a man of worth by Gildas, the Nubian/ Numberian soldiers may still have been in the area, if only as settled people that picked up arms again later in life to protect their new home. Or hell, even their sons. Beyond that, it's not super unlikely that a powerful (which doesn't necessarily mean rich) Briton picked up former soldiers turned raiders, as raiding into Rome got fairly popular when they stopped being able to defend their borders. Not all Roman soldiers stayed loyal when pay started getting hard to find... a point which seemed lost on quite a few emperors as well :P

[Felixon]

This topic is not a debate about race or skin color. This is about the socially accepted limits for movies, tv shows and videogames.

Recently we are seeing lots of diversity in tv series, movies and videogames like for example: Troy series with black guy acting as Achilles, an African-Polish mix race woman acting as ethnically French national hero Joan of arc and Margaret queen of England, which is being acted by a mix-raced woman.

Would it be okay and should a white guy act as a Martin Luther King Jr. in a potential tv show, movie or a videogame in the future? Would you be okay with that? Is there a limit what should or should not be done? Or is it just a movie and everything is okay?

I think,that there must be equality. You want to see Queen Victoria portrayed by afro-american actress?Fine,but then don't be mad about a white guy portraying Marting Luther King Jr. Unfortunately,in real life most likely it would be - "An afro-american gets a refusal on her apply for the Queen Victoria - THATS RACISM!; a white guy gets a refusal for the role of Martin Luther King - dude,wtf were you thinking,you're WHITE!".

[Skytotem]

Arthur, if he existed at all was a Brythonic speaking warlord in the 550's whose only recorded as leading a successful military venture at the Battle of Mount Badon/Badon Hill. He didn't exist at the time of Moorish Spain, if he existed at all since accounts of his existence vary with Gildas never mentioning him but Y Gododdin and other Brythonic accounts mentioning him.

All that Lancelot stuff is just fairytales after the Norman invasion.

Though if they are doing the High Medieval Romance stories, sure, who cares. Those stories are pretty much whatever you want them to be.

I mean, I'm thinking anything dealing with King Arthur is going to be dealing with the myth and legend, as you've said most people aren't even sure if he actually existed or not, so this response feels a tad pedantic.

It's possible you're coming from an earnest place here, but the point with the OP remains, having MLK played by a white man would be disrespectful because race is key to his identity because he was literally an activist for black rights, having him played by a white actor would not only be bizarre in any kind of narrative they attempt to tell, but it would be kind of disrespectful in a 'white savior' kind of way.


It's not remotely comparable to the political connotations to having black people play long dead nobility in Europe, characters that were previously white but are fictional, or people in medieval fantasy settings.


I have concerns whether the OP was doing this in good faith, and whether they were more just trying to get people to feel wronged because there might be more opportunities in this case for non-white actors than for white actors because of recent cultural backlash addressing years and years and years of discrimination in the entertainment industry.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not going to argue with the math - if Arthur of Badon is Arthur of immediately post-Rome, it really doesn't work. In any timeline.

However, if a proto-Arthur was there earlier... like, say Aurelias Ambrosia's (I'm pretty sure I slaughtered that) father, who was noted as a man of worth by Gildas, the Nubian/ Numberian soldiers may still have been in the area, if only as settled people that picked up arms again later in life to protect their new home. Or hell, even their sons. Beyond that, it's not super unlikely that a powerful (which doesn't necessarily mean rich) Briton picked up former soldiers turned raiders, as raiding into Rome got fairly popular when they stopped being able to defend their borders. Not all Roman soldiers stayed loyal when pay started getting hard to find... a point which seemed lost on quite a few emperors as well :P

Arthur before the Anglo-Saxon invasion isn't the Arthur in the early texts. Now you are deviating entirely from the initial post. Gildas himself was a man of the Anglo-Saxon invasion period, namely c. 500 – c. 570. So even he would have not seen many if any Nubian soldiers. Again you're reasoning involves a ton of IF's, MAYBE's and a ton of assumptions. Occums Razor might be your friends. If the troops staid to become farmers in a damp island of little money and petty warlords at the time, than I can't imagine it was any great number rather than those who simply went to Gaul instead. Sorry dude, but your version has bad math, bad dating and is WAY too dependent on IF's.

The point being the number of Sub-Saharan African peoples in Britain at or around the time of the Battle of Badon Hill would have been zero, I can confidently say it approximated that, though there could have been descendents of troops but would they have looked like someone from Ghambia? Probably not. Would there have been Ghambian looking Picts? Gaelic speaking raiders? No.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, I'm thinking anything dealing with King Arthur is going to be dealing with the myth and legend, as you've said most people aren't even sure if he actually existed or not, so this response feels a tad pedantic.

It's possible you're coming from an earnest place here, but the point with the OP remains, having MLK played by a white man would be disrespectful because race is key to his identity because he was literally an activist for black rights, having him played by a white actor would not only be bizarre in any kind of narrative they attempt to tell, but it would be kind of disrespectful in a 'white savior' kind of way.

It's not remotely comparable to the political connotations to having black people play long dead nobility in Europe, characters that were previously white but are fictional, or people in medieval fantasy settings.

I have concerns whether the OP was doing this in good faith, and whether they were more just trying to get people to feel wronged because there might be more opportunities in this case for non-white actors than for white actors because of recent cultural backlash addressing years and years and years of discrimination in the entertainment industry.

I don't think MLK should be played by a White person because we know what MLK looked like. But we also can be sure what Joan of Arc looked like, what Picts looked like, and what a Gael looked like. Likewise talking about quasi-mythic history still remains a kind of history. Could Papa Legba of Afro-Caribbean folklore be played by Nigel Farage? I'd hope not. Could a depiction of Brian Boru be anything other than someone who is Irish if you are aiming to represent History? Why depict say Black Picts for a literal educational BBC documentary?

[Vanyali]

Arthur before the Anglo-Saxon invasion isn't the Arthur in the early texts. Now you are deviating entirely from the initial post. Gildas himself was a man of the Anglo-Saxon invasion period, namely c. 500 – c. 570. So even he would have not seen many if any Nubian soldiers. Again you're reasoning involves a ton of IF's, MAYBE's and a ton of assumptions. Occums Razor might be your friends. If the troops staid to become farmers in a damp island of little money and petty warlords at the time, than I can't imagine it was any great number rather than those who simply went to Gaul instead. Sorry dude, but your version has bad math, bad dating and is WAY too dependent on IF's.

The point being the number of Sub-Saharan African peoples in Britain at or around the time of the Battle of Badon Hill would have been zero, I can confidently say it approximated that, though there could have been descendents of troops but would they have looked like someone from Ghambia? Probably not. Would there have been Ghambian looking Picts? Gaelic speaking raiders? No.

I think that you're arguing against a point I never made. The only point where I said they may have looked Sub-Saharan would be a very rare case of genetic fuckery, which would have been a literal one in a million, and that any myth memory of Sub-Saharan fighters would be from a post-Badon insert into later stories.

Arthur in the early texts is also not the Arthur of the later texts, which was my entire point about the myth conflation. An Arthur figure at the time Rome was falling (for the west) is pretty damn likely given part of his mythos is going to and conquering Rome because they demanded he pay them tribute.

[Theodarzna]

I think that you're arguing against a point I never made. The only point where I said they may have looked Sub-Saharan would be a very rare case of genetic fuckery, which would have been a literal one in a million, and that any myth memory of Sub-Saharan fighters would be from a post-Badon insert into later stories.

Arthur in the early texts is also not the Arthur of the later texts, which was my entire point about the myth conflation. An Arthur figure at the time Rome was falling (for the west) is pretty damn likely given part of his mythos is going to and conquering Rome because they demanded he pay them tribute.

Yeah, but we have sources that don't have those mythic elements and simply have a great Warrior. Later iterations of the story of a plausible person don't make the plausible person now have to fit a different story (Unless we are being fantastical). If Arthur existed it would have been in Gildas' lifetime. He certainly was no King as Gildas would have made mention of him. He was a warrior most likely, if real, and a damn good one because he was recorded as such. Everything else is speculative, or after the fact storytelling as the legend of the great warrior spread.

Now, if you want to tell a story, and say "Oh and he has gained the allegiance of a former Nubian fighter band that decided to stay" that really doesn't bother me because its a fun story and at the end of the day a story is a story. I think I have a problem when you give them blue face paint and just call them Picts when obviously they aren't. My gripe is that such stories fail to perhaps do what you've done and say "Oh, well he has this unit of soldiers, or descendents of soldiers who staid from parts for flung from here." Sure it is historically incredibly unlikely to have happened but you could at least try and make a case.

[Skytotem]

I don't think MLK should be played by a White person because we know what MLK looked like. But we also can be sure what Joan of Arc looked like, what Picts looked like, and what a Gael looked like. Likewise talking about quasi-mythic history still remains a kind of history. Could Papa Legba of Afro-Caribbean folklore be played by Nigel Farage? I'd hope not. Could a depiction of Brian Boru be anything other than someone who is Irish if you are aiming to represent History? Why depict say Black Picts for a literal educational BBC documentary?

I don't feel you're arguing in good faith, none of this has been in historical documentaries.