Problem is that the Onion may be satire, but its comedic absurdity pieces are of roughly the level of seriousness that (unwittingly) the average westerner has.
BBC changing history
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
Problem is that the Onion may be satire, but its comedic absurdity pieces are of roughly the level of seriousness that (unwittingly) the average westerner has.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,634
Can I use this next time there's one of those "you're just an MRA neck-breathing, mouth-basement who can't get laid in his mother's beard" comments, which get trotted out with extreme regularity whenever anyone slightly questions "the greater good"?
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
Warned for ethnic slur.
I watched the cartoon. I assumed the black guy was Pakistani, a sort of <snip>. BBC is too subtle for me, I suppose.
Moderator Action: Please don't use ethnic slurs on CFC. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Please don't use ethnic slurs on CFC. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,634
Is <snip> acceptable on CFC?
Last edited by a moderator:
Akka
Moody old mage.
No, <snip> is definitely unacceptable.
Except for the descendants of <snip>, who may take pride in the accomplishment of their <snip> ancestor fighting tirelessly to protect us from bad words.
Except for the descendants of <snip>, who may take pride in the accomplishment of their <snip> ancestor fighting tirelessly to protect us from bad words.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Don't get snippy with me
The modern usage of that phrase dates back to the 1970s. The historical usage dates back to the late 1700s.
They were? I'm sure that came as a surprise to the non-white people of my generation who discovered that their parents were all white.
Then explain why some people actually have pythons as pets. My own reaction to seeing one is to want it DEAD, preferably immediately, if not sooner. But I've seen people cuddling those awful things.
I guess their brains don't work right, or something...
Akka
Moody old mage.
I did say "virtually". If we consider Europe as a whole, prior to WW2 probably well over 99% of the population was white. And likely quite some time after that as well. Even in colonial powers such as France and the UK, non-white minorities were extremely tiny. I don't see why we need to shelter black people in Europe today from this fact. Medieval knights were white. Victorian detectives were white. People in Roman Britain were white too. So what? Saying that we need to pretend there were plenty of black people in our portrayals of medieval or Roman Europe to make black people today feel included is patronizing and downright offensive. Black people are not morons (at least not in a higher percentage than other groups). They know black immigration to Europe is pretty recent phenomenon.
(and yeah I don't understand how Valka could possibly miss that I meant Europe and not Canada).
(and yeah I don't understand how Valka could possibly miss that I meant Europe and not Canada).
Last edited:
The issue is that the "exaggeration" covers up an interesting truth. Black people did exist in Europe. They were a small minority - they still are! - but they were there.
Taking Britain as an example, it's true that the black population grew to its current level following migration from the British Commonwealth starting with the Windrush in 1948. The population of London of West Indian descent grew tenfold to 172,000 between 1951 and 1961. That's a good decade before the "some 50 years" of your quoted post. Pedantic, perhaps, but relevant considering the people claiming to strive for historical accuracy in this whole debacle.
The situation before that was obviously different from that in the Caribbean and the Americas, because British (and European) slavery mostly occurred in the overseas colonies. The rural majority population of Britain would have been almost entirely white. Nevertheless, the major cities of London, Bristol and Liverpool had populations of enslaved and free black people in the thousands. There were up to 10,000 in London by the end of the 18th century, around 1%. That's comparable to the proportion of the population of modern London who is Chinese. I don't think it would be controversial to suggest that there is an established Chinese community in London. You could use the small number to argue there are "virtually no" Chinese people in London, but that would fly rather ludicrously in the face of the experience of any current Londoner.
So while it would be absurd to claim that black people would ever have been "typical" or ever constituted a large proportion of the population, the point that people have been trying to argue is that they have been there, albeit in small numbers, since Roman times.
I would say the reason this cartoon has exploded to such an absurd degree online is that there seem to be a lot of people who think that migration and multi-ethnic societies are a purely modern phenomenon, and are so preoccupied with immigration that they are offended when they see non-white people represented in a historical context. The BBC cartoon may have stretched credibility by the implication of a black general's family as being "typical". They certainly have with their depiction of a black ancient Briton and baron. But I think this feigned concern about supposed accuracy is undermined by the sheer vitriol of people eager to shout down any historian who suggests that, in fact, there were Africans in Roman Britain.
You are not addressing the point I made, but rather framing it in a different way to make me seem wrong. Of course, major cities like London or Paris have had non-European minorities for a long time (since the beginning of the colonial age, but not really before). But these were very, very small compared to the overall population of the country, all the way until the mid 20th century (and much later than that for the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and the Nordics).
The degree to which we see non-European populations today in European countries is indeed an entirely recent phenomenon, with no parallel in roman, medieval or colonial times. Why deny this?
So yeah, portraying British romans, or medieval knights and nobles etc etc as black is more likely than not a patronizing attempt at "inclusiveness", which personally I find borderline offensive as it insults the intelligence of the very people they are trying to "include"
The degree to which we see non-European populations today in European countries is indeed an entirely recent phenomenon, with no parallel in roman, medieval or colonial times. Why deny this?
So yeah, portraying British romans, or medieval knights and nobles etc etc as black is more likely than not a patronizing attempt at "inclusiveness", which personally I find borderline offensive as it insults the intelligence of the very people they are trying to "include"
If you're going misunderstand my post, how about addressing me while you're doing it?
Show me where, in my post, that I said one syllable about Canada.
There are people of my generation all over the planet.
Akka
Moody old mage.
No it's not. That's the point. That non-white were 0.1 % or 1 % is irrelevant, it was still a minuscule minority.
For what it's worth, I agree in so far as I find these cartoons slightly patronising. But then again I'm not the target audience, so my opinion isn't worth very much.
But I still feel there's a misconception here and in this post:
Averaging over the entire population is not hugely meaningful. Sure, if you gathered a representative sample of the entire population of Roman or Georgian Britain, ethnic minorities would barely feature. But if you were a citizen actually living in Roman Eboracum, or 1800s London you would be familiar with them. 1% is a notable minority. If we disregard any ethnic population below 1%, we lose part of the picture of that society. It's not helpful to say there are, for instance, "virtually no" Jewish, Bangladeshi or Chinese people in the UK, even though these groups fall well under your "minuscule minority".
You might argue that they are a detail of history, but personally I find history much more interesting with the details left in.
Well, I am not offended, so you don't feel offended on my behalf, thanks. I wonder what Mise would think, so it's a shame he's not around these parts these days.
So only British people have the right to find stuff the BBC does patronizing?
Not sure I see your point, if you have one.
You're trying to claim that "virtually" no black people lived in the UK 50+ years ago.
"Virtually" is a wishy-washy term that can mean whatever you claim it means, and from the tone of your posts, I interpret your claim to mean "maybe one or two".
Obviously that's ridiculous. The parents of the black people I saw in 1970s UK TV shows must have been there... or would you have me believe that these people all had white parents, or that the lot of them had stepped off the boat/plane from Africa 10 years earlier? Judging by their accents, I highly doubt that was the case.
I have no idea why you're dragging Canada into this. But if you must, we've had black people living here since at least the 1800s, and nothing "virtual" about them.
Similar threads
