trying to watch black mirror again. 2nd episode. black man gives life savings to hot white girl he just met. this isnt agenda, its reality of male simping...

Most of these are pretty silly, especially Anne Boleyn (WTF?) but Romans recruited soldiers wherever the conquered and they certainly had North African troops. I guess they would have looked more 'brown' than 'black' if that makes sense but whatever.

The Daily Mail is a chit show so I don't know how reliable this is, but that black Victorian soldier screen shot is referenced in this article and what makes that him a big deal is that it was extremely unusual to have a black guy in the British Army. Goes into the story of his life.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-only-10636596

It's based off of a work a fiction that loosely uses real world events/timelines. It's not even 50% historical accuracy, and not even the main character was real.

As for shows/movies with forced diversity. I'm not here to defend them, or diversity. I don't give a chit about it.

My point is, that you guys make yourselves sound like azzhats when you say the diversity is what is ruining the shows. It's not the diversity it's the writing and acting that ruins the shows.

Are there shows hastily/poorly written for the sake of producing a diversity product? I'm sure there are, and i'm sure they are terrible. But it's notbecauseof the diversity. It's because it was garbage to begin with. The same shows wouldn't magically be good because they used historically accurate ethnicities/races.

Race swapping characters in any fantastic show, so long as the acting skill was still there, wouldn't diminish the show (provided race was not essential to said show, IE: A show about white slave owners where a black man is playing a white slave owner).

Breaking Bad, Last Kingdom. Name whatever show you think is amazing. The show would still be just as good with the same writing/quality of acting, regardless of races playing the characters.

If you like Last Kingdom, and you now think it's chitty because a priest is Black, Urine Idiot.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint and agree in broad terms, but I think it's reasonable to be irked by depictions of events which claim to be historical but have actors who are glaringly physically different to the person they are portraying. If you made a movie about Shaka Zulu or Ghengis Khan, I could understand why people would be annoyed if they cast Tom Hanks in the lead role. Similarly if it's about Henry VIII, I would rather Denzel Washington wasn't playing him. If your setting is supposed to be medieaval England, the cast probably shouldn't look like they were scooped off New York City at random and a period drama about Japan should have a cast that mainly resembles Japanese people.