Tumgik
#she's the least interesting person of that era (you guys know me i'm an augustus girlie i think he's the most fascinating)
navree · 1 year
Note
Lowkey hate race swapping sometimes. Now hear me out!
I don't mind when people race swap chatacters I just hate it when changing their race would totally change the entire story or have a lot of implications to the story.
I don't mind when fictional charcater race are changed but I hate it when they change a characters race who are suppose to be a certain race for a reason. When they chnage those types of characters a lot of time it changes the narrative of the story and their actions.
Same with historical show or documentaries. If this real life figure was another than they were we would have completely different story on our hands. Like please open a history book.
Listen, when it comes to fictional characters "racebending" means nothing to me unless it's whitewashing (Titans casting a white actor to play Dick Grayson and the MCU casting a white actress to play Wanda Maximoff when they are both literally canonically Romani both ethnically and culturally is my villain origin story) because fiction is fiction, and honestly you can tweak a story to make a character's journey adapt to the new inclusion of them being a member of a minority class so long as you're talented enough. Most writers aren't, and that's why a lot of "oh we made X character a POC in this adaptation" moves tend to ring hollow, but it is possible.
But I have a genuine bone to pick when it's about history.
For one, it's just such a lazy move. "Oh we made Bess of Hardwick Chinese!" fantastic but you do know that Chinese people existed in the late 16th century right? Like, China was a country with a lot of people in it and a thriving culture and way of life and plenty of influential people living there. Why aren't we telling stories about a Chinese woman living in that time period, it's not like that period of Chinese history was dull or as if no one ever mattered or nothing ever happened there. Like, for God's sake, it's just a way of showing that you aren't actually interested in learning about other parts of the world, or decentering Western history, specifically European history, as the only history worth learning about, you just want brownie points for being diverse without actually putting in the work to learn about the vibrant world that existed outside of Europe for the vast majority of human history, aka doing anything to actually explore different non-Western narratives and how the world moved outside of the European bubble.
For two, like you said, a lot of the time "racebending" doesn't really include attempts to accommodate how the history would change. Bridgerton is a wish fulfillment fantasy show so I don't often care about how it deals with history (even tho I do think the Charlotte was black theory is complete bunk and I refuse to engage with people who think it's real) but its whole "and now England is desegregated" thing falls very flat when you remember how involved England was in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, how reliant it was on slave labor, how invested it was in capturing and buying and selling slaves, including the royals. It puts a lot of onus on characters that they've made POC without doing any of the work, and oftentimes deals in a lot of harmful stereotypes. This was seen most egregiously in the 2021 Anne Boleyn show that cast Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne. @duchessofferia discussed this much better than I will, but relying on the same old lazy tropes that have defined Anne Boleyn with a black woman playing her turned into genuinely harmful racial representation. Having Anne be sexually aggressive and domineering and harsh in her mannerisms, especially when compared to Jane Seymour, isn't new, but having a black woman be looming over a small white woman and being sexually aggressive with her feeds into harmful stereotypes about black women and their femininity, and by having George Boleyn also be black, painting him as a sexual deviant and adding a plot where he abandons his responsibilities as a father turns him into the "absent black baby daddy" trope that still does a lot of harm to black men today. Not to mention, changing George Boleyn's race but keeping the rumor about Jane Boleyn lying on the stand to incriminate him turns a "wife turns against her husband for unknown reasons" story into a "white woman accuses a black man of sexual inpropriety that his society would frown on for the purpose of getting him executed by the state" story, which has a long and incredibly dark history in the United States (it's basically the Scottsboro Boys but Renaissance now). I mean, it's basically my primary issue with Hamilton, that the show really wants to capitalize on the whole "America then as told by America now" thing without delving into what it means to have literal slaveowners portrayed by black men and to have the character of Thomas fucking Jefferson call Sally Hemmings by a pet name in that show without any introspection into the fact that she wasn't his girlfriend but, you know, a woman he full on owned and repeatedly raped. It's all surface level and generally causes a lot more problems by refusing to alter the history to deal with these new changes, because it's history and you can't really alter it without creating a host of problems.
With Cleopatra specifically, I mentioned it before but the Ptolemies were total fuckups and literal colonizers in and of themselves, and turning them from a Macedonian dynasty into actual people of color for some kind of narrative (like there aren't any other important women of color in history, or even that time period) while not attempting to even examine the history of that dynasty and that queen in particular doesn't sit right. Like, congratulations, you've now created a story where a woman of color's most important contributions in life were her relationships with white men who held significantly more power than her and over her country, and fucked up to such a degree that her country wouldn't even be considered its own country until the 1950s. How absolutely groundbreaking. Next you're gonna tell me it's subversive to paint Livia Drusilla as a scheming, conniving bitch who manipulated everyone around her, instead of a sexist and tired trope that exists only to demonize one of the few women of actual importance in Augustan Rome because she was half a decade older than her husband and was able to keep her own power after he died. It's not just a lack of intellectual curiosity or good storytelling, but a fundamental misunderstanding of why people want to see stories about people of color, and how Hollywood itself thinks so little of their audience that they think we'll be content with a simple coat of "hey this person's a minority now!" paint over a subject without any attempt to really look into things or understand why the world works the way it does or how these people shaped their lives or the lives of those around them, never mind the new messages you're sending now with these changes.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. There's a lot that can fuck up with historical representation in media, and representation of people of color in media in general can always be so incredibly fucked that giving people anything is oftentimes a win in and of itself. But I honestly think that focusing on the same Euro-centric stories and just switching around Pantone skin swatches to do the bare minimum is lazy and insulting. You want me to care about historical stories about people of color? Great, give me historical stories about actual people of color. Let me hear more about ethnic Egyptians, about their lives and their culture and how they influenced history, not ahistorical trash that causes more trouble than its worth and certainly isn't doing anything new or interesting with the subject.
10 notes · View notes