White guy acting as Martin Luther King Jr in a movie

[Theodarzna]

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

What I linked was intended as such, as have other examples.

[Vanyali]

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.

True, but most myths have a grain of truth somewhere. Sometimes it's a huge woodgrain and sometimes its a sugar grain, but generally they're not out of whole cloth when it comes to older, well known tales of "real" people because someone would have called them on their shit, or made their own songs / stories mocking how badly they changed events. I take the stance that "Arthur" was the winner of Badon, but also other battles that no one person could do because of the timelines. Hell, they might have even been thought of as the same "hero" that kept coming back, or someone decided they needed that and merged them.

Those that take the lazy routes and "lol their just picts lul" are just that: lazy. But I don't think its too far fetched to say that African populations (both Sub-Saharan and not) existed in Britain and were known / included in the later myths that came out of the time of the Roman empire.

[Skytotem]

What I linked was intended as such, as have other examples.

You haven't linked anything to me. Are you confusing me with another person?

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.

This. A lot of folks here are assuming there's a level playing field to start out with, as if the generations of casting discrimination just didn't happen in the past.

[Theodarzna]

True, but most myths have a grain of truth somewhere. Sometimes it's a huge woodgrain and sometimes its a sugar grain, but generally they're not out of whole cloth when it comes to older, well known tales of "real" people because someone would have called them on their shit, or made their own songs / stories mocking how badly they changed events. I take the stance that "Arthur" was the winner of Badon, but also other battles that no one person could do because of the timelines. Hell, they might have even been thought of as the same "hero" that kept coming back, or someone decided they needed that and merged them.

Those that take the lazy routes and "lol their just picts lul" are just that: lazy. But I don't think its too far fetched to say that African populations (both Sub-Saharan and not) existed in Britain and were known / included in the later myths that came out of the time of the Roman empire.

I think the latter sentence is a stretch too far. The inclusion of an African looking person doesn't happen until theoretically the 12th century onwards and by then its a Moor, which didn't exist in Arthurs day. See you are again arguing IF's and MAYBE's and trying to give a historical basis for what is plainly ahistorical. Even describing this as a population is stretchingthe very definition given if ANY were there almost all would have been male soldiers and perhaps a number of females that could be counted on one hand, possible two if you want to be generous here. We are talking troops brought in under the command of some Roman. Again you are stretching way to hard to give story telling some credence of historical legitimacy.

[Vanyali]

I think the latter sentence is a stretch too far. The inclusion of an African looking person doesn't happen until theoretically the 12th century onwards and by then its a Moor, which didn't exist in Arthurs day. See you are again arguing IF's and MAYBE's and trying to give a historical basis for what is plainly ahistorical. Even describing this as a population is stretchingthe very definition given if ANY were there almost all would have been male soldiers and perhaps a number of females that could be counted on one hand, possible two if you want to be generous here. We are talking troops brought in under the command of some Roman. Again you are stretching way to hard to give story telling some credence of historical legitimacy.

I mean, most of history is "IF" and "MAYBE" when there's no written records, so that's not really fair to level that on me alone here :P

I'm not saying it was common, either. Nor that it was a large population. Just that it was larger than one, but small enough that genetically it disappeared. We know there was at least one person brought from Sub-saharan and let's be frank here - Camp Follower is probably about the best title we could give her, unless you want to take "slave" as a better explanation. Which would be rather atypical in and of itself given the burial details, if I'm remembering right. Camp Followers tended to be large numbers, if only for logistical reasons, so it would stand to reason that where there is one there were most likely many. You can, of course, argue that they followed the army out again though.

The big thing though is the 20 (or 25) years - if they hit that, they tended to settle where they sat. No one was travelling back to their homes, and living in Rome itself was... complex for non-Romans. I've also tried to be as clear as I can be that this is highly dependent on not only a number of factors that amount to random luck but also just folk memory of important people in general. I'm not lending credibility to a show that made the legion of black Picts, just the idea that Arthur may have, in one iteration or another, been familiar with black fighters / had a black advisor.

[Delekii]

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?

Of course not.

Unlike all of the examples you gave, Matin Luther King Jr.'s story would essentially centrally be about race and racism. When race is an important part of a given story or character, it is important that that character be appropriately casted for that race. When race does not matter in a given storyline, race of the actor portraying the character doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

Your comparison falls apart simply because in the examples you give of white people being portrayed by black actors, their skin colour is irrelevant to the story. For MLK, his skin colour is the basis of the story, so he can't be white.

A better example would be if you wanted to have a black person portray the leader of KKK or something, that wouldn't work either.

[belfpala]

This. A lot of folks here are assuming there's a level playing field to start out with, as if the generations of casting discrimination just didn't happen in the past.

Pile on. It's completely different adding a random ethnicity or gender to a movie. See my comment.

Make the show make sense. Black Panther made sense. Duh. Last Jedi made sense; the only queue is the English accent, and even that isn't 100$%.

[Elim Garak]

Your comparison falls apart simply because in the examples you give of white people being portrayed by black actors, their skin colour is irrelevant to the story. For MLK, his skin colour is the basis of the story, so he can't be white.

Nope, it is certainly not. You just don't understand the point of the story. He could be orange, and it still would've been the same story.

[belfpala]

Your comparison falls apart simply because in the examples you give of white people being portrayed by black actors, their skin colour is irrelevant to the story. For MLK, his skin colour is the basis of the story, so he can't be white.

A better example would be if you wanted to have a black person portray the leader of KKK or something, that wouldn't work either.

I could write a story to make it work. Self hatred is a strong motivator.

[Baracuda]

It would be interesting to see people being hypocrites on both sides.

Because you know they will be.

It is quite interesting! As I see it there are three options:
1. Actor ethnicity has to be the same as the person being portrayed.
2. Same as #1, except it doesn't apply to X ethnicity.
3. Ethnicity doesn't matter.

I think it should be either 1 or 3 but a lot of people seem to want #2, usually with black instead of "X".

[Flarelaine]

Will he black face?

i still watch tropic thunder and laugh at robert downey jr.

That's different. Downey wasn't playing a black guy. He was playing a white guy playing a black guy.

[Deleted]

Nope, it is certainly not. You just don't understand the point of the story. He could be orange, and it still would've been the same story.

His skin colour in relation to the skin colour of others is most certainly a fundamental part of the story. Of course white people can fight against other white people's oppression, but for MLK being a part of the community he fights for is the basis of the story.

- - - Updated - - -

I could write a story to make it work. Self hatred is a strong motivator.

Could write, sure. But I meant more in a documentary type film that actually depicts our reality as is.

[Deleted]

Its funny how skin color doesn't seem to matter in portraying the queen of England, but somehow, it does matter for an activist. Sure, the activist was about skin color, but to think that the historical queen of England could be anything else but white is deluding them selves.
As for the "but blackface movies" that is a none argument, its like saying that every country in Europe should feel free to invade Italy or Germany because they did that once too so its fine.

Movies should be about portraying a story as best as possible, casting believable characters is a big part of it.

[belfpala]

Could write, sure. But I meant more in a documentary type film that actually depicts our reality as is.

We could write this as a fight, humanity against others. A survival story.

lf it's racial, I'm writing as I I mentioned, in an alternate universe.

If it's documentary, I'll keep it with an historical MLJ.

[Delekii]

I could write a story to make it work. Self hatred is a strong motivator.

You could.. but it wouldn't be the story of Martin Luther King Jr.

[Stelio Kontos]

This topic reminds me of the idiots who claim Beethoven, Cleopatra, Dido, Shakespeare, Caesar, and pretty much everyone else was African and black.

[belfpala]

You could.. but it wouldn't be the story of Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm in a parallel universe.

Let's see, just in a nothing throwaway:

There is smoke on the water. Deep Purple abandons the Stone's roving recording truck.


.... Make it work. Smoke on the Water is never written, along with many songs in the civil rights movement.

[Fojos]

What's funny is how the same peoplr who say they wouldn't watch this are fine with adding women/black men into other historical relativisations.

[pyro989898]

If a white guy is acting as Martin Luther King Jr in a movie , then it example of "white wash". At least don't display history in wrong way.