this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1321 points (89.2% liked)
memes
10322 readers
2003 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I only care when it's stupid, like Medieval Poland being full of black people, not even modern day Poland has that many black people.
You can call me racist if you want but casting a black guy to play the president of the USA in like 1910 would be as stupid as casting a white guy to play Nebuchadnezzar.
Representation matters. Giving the few traditionally non-white roles that get written in Hollywood to white actors is an actual problem.
Getting mad about the existence of black characters in fiction fucking stupid. Really fucking stupid. Unjustifiably fucking stupid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
100% agree, but what should be done would be to green light projects by writers of other races based on different cultures and folklores diversifying the pop culture space (for lack of a better term).
What is done instead is treating minorities as a checklist that needs to be checked in every piece of art even when it doesn't make sense for them to be in that story.
Exactly. If the roles are the problem, write better roles! I'm surprised it's not seen as an insult if a role is just token-swapped and "pity given" as some kinda EDI-initiative for culture points.
I would love to be exposed to more genuine characters that reflect their backgrounds. But I get a bit annoyed at this bizarre box-ticking tokenism that's clearly pervading Hollywood, as if they ever gave a crap about anybody in the first place.
Stoking identity conflict makes them money. Lots of it. It keeps them relevant at the forefront of "the discussion" in a world where cultural relevance is literal currency.
The same corporations that'll "champion diversity" with a "palette swap" on screen, will outsource their VFX from places with horrible working conditions, for instance. It's all a big show and apparently lots of us are still falling for it.
Getting mad sure, but it is definitely a dumb creative decision to have characters be random races that don't make sense in the historical context and it's fine to criticize it. If it's a purely fictional world with no basis in reality then no one should care.
No. Fuckin stop it. Its unbearably stupid.
Historical fiction has existed for a long time.
Y'all ain't out here throwing a pouty parade when someone adds technology or magic or monsters into historical fiction.
But black people? Existing? If that's where you draw the line, it's really clear why. Make all the excuses you want.
Historical or alternate history fiction falls under pure fiction imo. That's fine as long as it makes sense. If it's meant to be some super grounded realistic historical slice-of-life then it would just make me think "when are they going to bring up the fact that there's X type of person walking around here" for the whole story.
Not exclusive to black people. If there were a story that took place in 12th century Mongolia and there was some Nordic guy walking around I would be like "huh, what's his story" and then be confused when it was never mentioned. That's how I feel about a lot of these creative choices.
Except there actually were people of different cultures/ethnicities/nationalities in other places in the past, often without anyone caring that much. Sure, it was often notable but it wasn't always exclusionary. Implying this shouldn't be done is the real historical fiction.
"It happened" and "it is good writing" are different imo. I just want diverse characters in typically mono-ethnic settings to have a story as to how they got there. I feel like that's just good writing.
It could be part of good writing. It absolutely isn't required. We don't get the background on most characters. Why should they have to give detail they wouldn't provide for other characters just to satisfy you?
I feel like this is deliberately obtuse lol
That's literally just a longer way of saying that it's okay if it's magic but it's not okay if it's black people.
& yeah, I'll hold my breath for people getting equally upset about white people in fiction. Any day now. I'm sure.
I can't disapprove a hypothetical, I guess, but a hypothetical isn't proof of anything either.
But magic doesn't have any grounding or association with the world as we know it. Neither does aliens. We can only use the world as we know it as a frame of reference for a story.
I'd argue in lbaudia's example that it is confusing if in 12th century Mongolia, there was some Nordic guy walking around, I'd imagine there to be a backstory of some kind. If there wasn't, then that would definitely be an example where I'd be annoyed at white people in fiction.
I thought a great example of casting was the TV show "The Expanse". To be able to cast someone as specific as Bobbie Draper so well - these studios have no excuse to whitewash as they do except laziness.
I'd argue that magic does have grounding in our world. Sure, we understand today (at leady most of us) that it isn't real. For most of our history people have believed magic was real though, and attributed real events to magic. We have the word because it has a long history of people thinking it exists. If a story wanted to use "magic" to explain events, that'd be pretty realistic to the times it's taking place in.
People made these exact same arguments about the inclusion of a black samurai in an Assassin's Creed game.
A black samurai who was based on a real person who actually existed in history.
The game they're playing is very obvious to anyone who's actually paying an ounce of attention, and it has nothing to do with caring about historical accuracy.
It's bullshit. It's an excuse. It's foolish. I do not suffer it gladly.
Yes, and I loved that they wrote the black samurai character into that game to tell that story! I don't get your point?
That you are, whether intentionally or unintentionally, toying around with white supremacist propaganda narratives.
That's my point.
Narratives created to influence your mind and radicalize you.
No one is immune to these influences. Beware.
No, nuance exists and this is ridiculous absolutism lmao.
Assassin's creed is purely fictional and has very little basis in reality, so no, people do not make the exact same argument about Assassin's creed, because my argument necessarily excludes it as I have said already lol. Besides, Yaskue was a real person. It's not even historically inaccurate and his origin is explained.
Good example, in Castlevania Nocturne they introduce a bunch of multi-ethnic characters and give them all backstories as to how they ended up in 19th century France. I think that's awesome, and I love to see the thought and effort being put in there. I don't want these characters to be white, I want them to have a story.
Oh the sweet voice of a reason, they don't take well to that around here. Good on you.