What’s Next, a Black George Washington?

SOCIAL ENGINEERING VS. OUR UGLY HISTORY

Forgive the attention-grabbing headline and question. But, think about it.

Today’s thought melds the aspirations of modern entertainment vs. real history and the ugly cultural norms of earlier times.

I was triggered to create this new post by Jonathan Kaplan, who strikes me as both thoughtful and opinionated. Here’s what he posted in a Facebook thread (I apologize for taking this somewhat out of context):

“That sounds similar to the reaction I had when viewing the recent television show Bridgerton. That show was set in late 1800s Britain. Numerous scenes had people of color as lords and ladies of the aristocracy, (and) the perception was that this was the norm, or at least, not notably uncommon.”

Let me state very clearly that Kaplan bears no overt attitudes of racism nor prejudice, and I’ve known him 30 years. In fact, he’s correct. He also had the courage to bring this up, which isn’t a topic that I’ve seen discussed anywhere. Perhaps it’s stating the obvious, but also risks being misconstrued.

As a loyal viewer of several UK-based historical dramas, many of which appear regularly on PBS, I’ve noticed an undeniable trend where people of color (mostly Blacks) are included in contemporary portrayals of both real and fictionalized historical events. Think of Masterpiece Theatre. Many of these dramas are about the royalty and people of privilege. Almost none of these shows are about working-class poor people.

What’s odd is — people of color are now cast in roles that, historically speaking, never would have happened. In fact, sometimes these drama include mixed-race romances, which would have been unthinkable in the 1700s, 1800s, and even into 1900s and beyond into the present day. If you have a hard time understanding this unusual *casting,* well then, imagine the American founding fathers portrayed by a number of Black actors. Oh, maybe we already have that here, in part — thinking of Hamilton. But in Hamilton’s case, by most historical accounts he really was part Jamaican (a.k.a. British West Indian).

If we watch these programs through the prism of race (only), they are open to criticism. One expects epoch period pieces to accurately reflect the times, and back then, our own history was quite ugly. Embarrassingly so. But we also can’t escape the past, and so the ambition here should be (in my view) not to perpetuate it.

Indeed, by casting WASP-ish actors in the roles which have always been the sole domain of Whites, all we are doing is extending the overt forms of racism that once plagued most all cultures (especially the UK and USA). Denying people of color opportunities to work in a high-profile and often-lucrative field simply because of their race as is the case in modern casting of these dramas would only serve to recycle it again in a different form. Sorry, Black people — unless the role is a slave or menial worker (or perhaps a wild caricature of savagery), all the good classical roles go to White people. Marlon Brando, fresh off his “Godfather” performance in 1972, was among the first to champion this cause (see his appearance on The Dick Cavett Show which is a phenomenal testament to standing up for this principle–see link in comments). But hey, that’s just my opinion.

Watch here, and go to the 9-minute mark to see one of the first in-depth media discussions on this point:

Like Kaplan pointed out in his comment, my eyebrows too have been raised by historically-inaccurate casting and portrayals. But then, what’s the real harm in doing so? One presumes people of all colors want to enjoy the classics and historical period pieces. It’s also important for the young, especially people-of-color to see people like themselves in entertainment. In short, I think the longterm good outweighs the short-term awkwardness and criticism.

Join the discussion on Facebook here: