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

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565069#Comment_121565069

Thing is, the line you've set would make plenty of movies and TV shows unacceptable. Dev Patel as David Copperfield was similarly labeled as woke. It seems to be as much to do with obliviousness to how the creative arts have often subverted and played with source material for centuries. Now we've got a cohort that are suddenly passionate about purist takes on every adaptation and that seems to have more to do with the kind of politics that GBN and Co promote.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565119#Comment_121565119

There actually was annoyance, from the other side iirc on Ghost in the Shell. It probably would have been less of a big deal if it wasn't awful.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121564185#Comment_121564185

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.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565139#Comment_121565139

Oh, I know. I meant that the people shrieking about Ariel not being white were silent about Johansson playing an Asian character. I haven't watched it and don't see myself ever doing so.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565087#Comment_121565087

If it was just chosen because they were the best actor for the role that is non-political.

When the creator of the adaptation explicitly states that they chose to change the race of the character in order to pay tribute to her grandparents and the windrush generation then I would argue it becomes political. Windrush and it's legacy is a political issue that is still being talked about today.

As the writer herself says: "We decided to put it in the ‘50s, and my grandfather came over in the ‘30s, and my father came over in the early ‘60s and I really wanted to talk about their experience as Black immigrants in the year where we’re celebrating Windrush, which is a narrative we know very well.

"But to talk about the other Black entries into this country and how that happened. So that is one very obvious change."

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/murder-is-easy-screenwriter-agatha-christie-changes-newsupdate/

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565119#Comment_121565119

Excuse me, I was outraged by how bad an adaptation that was. Ghost in the Shell is one of my favourite films!

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565223#Comment_121565223

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.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565320#Comment_121565320

I wouldn't say prejudice, I'd say it's more seeing the parallels between that and stuff like this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/01/luton-council-pyramids-giza-black-history-timeline-schools/

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565415#Comment_121565415

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.

🤣

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565320#Comment_121565320

Well of course it’s based on prejudice, no different than the individual who laid claim to the idea of bourbon whiskey and the imagery associated with it making it the drink of choice for men like him, similarly the whole world of European folklore belonging to Europeans (because if we’re being honest, most of the white population of the US are of European descent) is based on the idea that European folklore belongs to White people.

That’s why the whole character swapping just doesn’t work, because it ignores so much context in order to portray a progressive narrative that is still founded on the predominant culture being the standard by which all other cultures must be represented, as opposed to doing something which would actually be progressive and giving minorities the opportunities to tell their own stories. To give some context:

https://www.demandsage.com/disney-users/

The prejudice exists in both directions, and is exploited in both directions. In the Eurocentric view, minorities simply don’t exist, and in the progressive view, minorities only exist to shore up the numbers who will add to their own, as long as they don’t get uppity about being designated an acronym which completely strips them of their own identity.

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562990#Comment_121562990

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

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565479#Comment_121565479

There's a link to the first pdf, if you want it...

https://www.100greatblackbritons.co.uk/docs/blackhistoryobamapt12_v118_web.pdf

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566070#Comment_121566070

What is the point of this?

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566162#Comment_121566162

I wouldn't say prejudice, I'd say it's more seeing the parallels between that and stuff like this:

The Pyramids of Giza have been included in a timeline of black history intended for schoolchildren.

Labour-run Luton council has compiled a range of educational resources to help local schools deliver a “diverse curriculum”, including a timeline citing the Pyramids of Giza in an overview of black history.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566321#Comment_121566321

And?

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566321#Comment_121566321

Is your contention that they shouldn’t have been because Egyptians weren’t black?

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566070#Comment_121566070

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?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566321#Comment_121566321

You still haven't made a point - just stated a discription of the link, meaning this is just another link dump.

Is your point that this is woke? That it's woke society? Because I learnt about Egyptian (and Greek) first year history when I was 13 back in the 80s, and this included the above topic, and that certainly wasn't woke.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567026#Comment_121567026

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567177#Comment_121567177

I have no idea what I leanrt - my memory is not THAT good! - but Irish education at the time tended to by conservative and shy away from controversy, so most likely not.

I'd have no problem with the above being taught. The one thing education lacks at the moment is the idea that alternative viewpoints and theories exist and how to exptress what the student feels they believe is right for them and how to back it up. Dunno if anyone's going to call that "woke" or not.

But if we decide we're ONLY gonna to teach "white" history or white accounts of history, then what's the point..? Is it still education if it's that selective? And are we just exacerbating an already devisive environment?

thegame983

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65322821

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567325#Comment_121567325

...the idea that alternative viewpoints and theories exist and how to express what the student feels they believe is right for them and how to back it up.

There was a whole thing earlier this year that I didn't read up on in detail, but the jist was someone wrote a paper in a respected peer reviewed journal accusing a British industrialist of stealing an iron refining process from black Carribbean slaves.

Turned out the evidence for the claims was based on a flawed reading of the primary sources, or outright made up. The journal defended their publication of the paper and wouldn't retract.

Dunno if anyone's going to call that "woke" or not.

https://twitter.com/lastpositivist/status/1725449037841633318

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567325#Comment_121567325

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567587#Comment_121567587

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and I'm STILL waiting for yo uto tell me what the point of you linkdumping the Giza pyramids article was.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567778#Comment_121567778

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?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121568277#Comment_121568277

What’s ignorant about it? It doesn’t encourage appropriation of history for political gain, unlike what’s actually being proposed by encouraging people to appropriate history for political gain.

An education system should aim to educate people. Nobody gains from appropriating history for their own political gain. You’ll soon run into issues when you’re 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.

If the idea is to educate people about the achievements of black people in history, then there’s plenty of sources and examples to draw from, as opposed to simply appropriating other people’s history, heritage and culture to give people the impression that black people are responsible for significant achievements in human civilisation and development which they weren’t actually responsible for. There’s plenty of evidence throughout history of events, inventions and achievements that changed the course of history which they are responsible for.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121568914#Comment_121568914

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?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121568914#Comment_121568914

Nobody gains from appropriating history, but we have to recognise how much history has been wholesale appropriated by the dominant modern (white, western) culture. We're all used to seeing Jesus of Nazareth portrayed as, basically, Swedish; we rarely think how incongruous this is. (He was portrayed in The Passion of the Christ by (Swedish, Slovak, Irish) Jim Cazaviel; where was the fuss?) There's a big row when Cleopatra is portrayed by an actress of black African descent; I don't recall a similar row about Cleopatra being portrayed by Elizabeth Taylor who, in ethnic terms, is just as distant from Cleopatra as Adele James is. And you say yourself that Septimus Severus was not black African (true) but "simply born in North Africa". The last bit is not the whole truth; he wasn't just born in north Africa — he was from north Africa. He was Punic (on his father's side, which is the side that counted so far as the Romans were concerned). So his closest modern-day representatives, ethnically speaking, would be Palestinian and North African Arabs.

So the question here is not so much "why do we get exercised when a historical figure is portrayed by an (inappropriately) African-American actor?" but "why do we not get exercised when a historical figure is portrayed by an (inappropriately) Anglo-Saxon actor?" The latter happens far, far more frequently; if history is being appropriated by the choice of actors of a particular ethnicity, this is mostly how it's done. And if that appropriation of history doesn't bother us, while this one does, what does that say?

CalamariFritti

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121562593#Comment_121562593

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.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121569130#Comment_121569130

I think it's perfectly fair. It's the only consistent thing about the anti-woke in this thread. The language you've used here perfectly makes the point as well.

CalamariFritti

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121569215#Comment_121569215

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).