Nowadays, when a movie is set in a historical period in the UK they tend cast some black people (maybe some South East Asians if they realise that there are ethnic minorities other than "Black" and Far East Asians if they're really pushing the boat out) to prove they're not being racist, no matter how unlikely it is that you would have seen a minority ethnic then. "Mulan", on the other hand, has (properly IMHO) cast Far East Asians exclusively - apart from the Arabic(?) trader at the beginning.
So why is there this disparity?
¿No encuentras una película o serie? Inicia sesión para crearla:
¿Quieres puntuar o añadir este elemento a una lista?
¿No eres miembro?
Contestado por OddRob
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 01:02
I think the treatment of the subjugated locals would be the deciding factor when it came to that question. Im not sure how the Empire ruled its territories, iron fist or lose with the rules to get along better with the locals. Im sure it all came down to the guy in charge and not necessarily the 'official' rules.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 01:13
Hence why black knights weren't unheard of. As for the rest of the black populous in the Roman Empire. They pretty much got assimilated into where they were already when the Empire fell (instead of going back). Remember the Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years and spanned most of Europe and parts of Asia. The chance of people going back to somewhere they've never been is pretty much slim to none. Thus why some also remained in England when the Romans left there too. Blacks in Medieval England likely weren't common (genetics of Europeans showed they didn't always breed with just other blacks), but they weren't rare either.
Contestado por OddRob
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 01:40
I agree. But I dont think they were as prolific as some people seem to think. But I also dont think POC didnt exist in that area during that time. As some people seem to think. I really would like to see a series or film that centers on a black Knight or Roman soldier. I think it would be interesting and best of all not forced tokenism.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 01:48
They did. THE HISTORY OF BLACK BRITAIN: ROMAN AFRICANS
Contestado por OddRob
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 02:02
That was a interesting read, thanks for that.
Contestado por Philippe LeMarchand
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 11:38
Sorry, not got time to attribute quotes, but (though there have been some interesting points made) the point still remains that in the "historic past" in the UK (I can't speak as to Greece or Portugal) there were next to none of what we see today as the "minority ethnic" in movies and shows: Black, Asian and Oriental. (These are probably not the acceptable phrases for today). I make the distinction between the latter two as I don't know anyone from either group who thinks they're the same as the other apart from having suffered racism. Also, when most people in the UK refer to "Asians" it seems to mean people from the Indian sub-continent. Take a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_asian_network; AFAIK K-Pop is still huge with the youngsters, but apparently isn't "Asian".
Yes, there have been Black people in the past (AFAIK basically everyone comes from Black stock, though I thought I'd read something recently suggesting that Oriental people may have had a different background). There have been a few Black people in the UK in the time since recorded history, but as there won't have been enough to have a "Black" community they will have intermingled with the existing population and their offspring increasingly unlikely to stand out. They certainly won't have been integrated/as everyday as (say) the lady in the Plague Village in Ghosts. If they were that integrated, why are there films like https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/205601-belle ? (Great film, btw). How come as recently as the 1970s the infamous "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs" sign wasn't uncommon?
As recently as the end of the last millennium, outside of major cities, a walk through a small town or city might have you see a few Asians (though far less than the amount of Asian-owned businesses would suggest there should be) a handful of Orientals (similar principle) and probably no Black people. It would be pretty rare to see any non-white face in a village. At the turn of the century onwards you could say that you would see more Polish than Blacks outside of major cities (and that's only the ones who were dressing "Eastern European" so that you knew they weren't locals). It's only been in the last few years that refugees have managed to make Black people a fairly common sight in small towns, despite our government trying to get rid of many Black people who have every right to be here. This is why it always ticks me off that the "We've cast some ethnics" pecking order always favours Black people; if it was really trying to reflect the current population spread it should be: Asian, Oriental, Black. Even using the last (2011) census figures I can find, it should be Asian first, then Black, Oriental. If they're trying to be "historically accurate" there shouldn't be anything like the amount that is used these days, and they should probably be "outsiders".
If anything this making the UK look like it was always well integrated racially between Black and White denigrates the :censored: that Black people have had to suffer. I can imagine a kid in ten years time asking why the fuss about Black History Month when it's obvious from the telly that Black people have been well-integrated throughout history.
I also tend to find "colour blind casting" annoying in fantasy. Remember "HobbitGate"? How come no-one was appalled that all the Black Panther extras were Black? I did find "token white" (Martin Freeman) cast member an amusing counterpoint though. Occasionally it works, such as in "The New Legends of Monkey" with a multi-ethnic cast - though mainly because that one is pretty silly (one of the Demons appears to be French!). Otherwise there is no reason for a couple of cast members to look a different ethnicity when there is no mention of their homeland or why.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 12:26
I haven't seen Ghosts so I don't know what time frame it would have been in (or which plague it was referring to). If it's the plague that struck the UK in 1348, then yes it may have been possible for a single black lady to be in a village in the UK. If it's about the 1666 plague in London, then it would have been probable as the number of people of color living in the UK increased dramatically starting in 1600. Britain's first black community in Elizabethan London
Dido Elizabeth Belle lived 1793–1804, and was born during the slave trade. By then there were over 20,000 black slaves living in London alone. The negative outlook against blacks in the UK didn't really happen until Queen Elizabeth I's time (due to the sudden large influx into London by freed slaves from captured Spanish ships), and got worse when UK themselves got into the slave trade.
History would disagree with you.
Contestado por Philippe LeMarchand
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 13:20
1st plague, so not absolutely impossible to be there, not possible to be "just a villager".
20,000 Black slaves. Again, not members of the "public". Belle herself was barely accepted in society.
Here's a Frost Fair in Victorian London in "Doctor Who": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VOr-2K9PN4. Lots of Black people, only a couple of blink-and-you'll miss 'em Asians and Orientals (I'd expect many more given the Indian connection and the fact that laundries and, of course, opium dens were "Chinese" trades). White British seem to be the ethnic minority. Especially as some of the Caucasian extras appear to be more European than British. I'd lay money that a Victorian gent or lady would wonder where it was supposed to be set. The extras are generally to well dressed to be servants/slaves.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 13:47
I said may have been possible. There's anthropological evidence of Roman blacks remaining in England. The mystery of Beachy Head Lady: A Roman African from Eastbourne
But that would mean you would see them around. Slaves didn't stay at home, they did errands and jobs.
No one knows how many blacks lived in England at that time as the census didn't divide people by race, though estimates put at 10,000 in London (5,000 more over the rest of England), many London blacks (4,000) were also shipped of to a colony in Sierra Leone. Slavery at that time was also less tolerated in England, and free blacks earned wages (though very low ones).
Contestado por Philippe LeMarchand
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 14:13
The Roman era ended at the start of the 5th Century, the Black Plague was mid-14th. Nine centuries is a lot of generations (especially in those days) for peoples genes to get diluted.
But you wouldn't see them at society events. The Bennet sisters wouldn't have Blacks, Asians and Orientals (especially not representatives of each) at their parties.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 14:34
I could only say they were definitely present by the 16th Century, and members of the royal courts. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history
However, it's still possible as they were present everywhere else in Europe at that time (I linked already to a 13th century statue of a Black Knight). Also blacks started getting adopted into religious iconography in Europe around 1346.
Contestado por Philippe LeMarchand
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 15:46
Interesting article, but 360 is a piddling amount - especially if this is reasonably accurate of the Black population over a period of 150 years. Even if it's way low, it's still a fraction of a percent. If they were widely accepted there should be more pictures of them. Neither of the pictures are from British artists. The top one does support your Portuguese theory, though.
As for religious iconography, I don't think that it should be trusted for historical accuracy. Pretty sure Jesus wasn't white.
P.S. Read the "Doctor Who" article linked off yours. I think Mark Gatiss' gut instinct was right (though his facts were wrong). Maybe it was mentioned in the show (I doubt it) but featuring the sole black soldier in the Victorian army would have been acceptable if there had been a line to that effect.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 15:52
Still shows that not all blacks were slaves who lived in England during the 17th-18th century (Victorian England). They didn't try to enslave people that were already living free in the UK.
I did find a reference to a thirteenth century African man whose skeleton was found at Ipswich in Suffolk, where he probably lived as a friar (due to strict regulations by the Pope at the time about the location he was buried). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1275339/He-African-strong-jaw-bad--So-doing-Ipswich-year-1190.html
Black people appearing in religious iconography in the 14th century means that the church was recognizing the growing number of Christian blacks in Europe and Christian black pilgrims that were travelling to Europe who many settled in Rome around the 15th century, enough for the Vatican to build a church for them (the Santo Stefano degli Abissini).
Contestado por Philippe LeMarchand
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 17:07
Also shows that it was not common and so films and shows that put random Black villagers etc in are not historically accurate. As I said above, this may even lead to later misunderstandings about the real difficulties suffered by many Black people.
Again, not the UK and the fact that a separate church was built suggests not accepted as part of society.
Anyway, it's time for bed here. So it's good night from me.
Contestado por Innovator
el 21 de octubre de 2020 a las 19:39
My whole point was to show that it was possible, not prove that it was accurate. If you're looking for accurate, you're not going to find that in any movie ever.