Turn on thread page Beta

Outrage Over Martin Luther King Being Portrayed By A White Man watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    It didn't need to. His history defines who he is (Royal Navel Reserve during WW2)

    But Fleming did actually picture him for us



    But PC washing any story just makes people look stupid and slightly desperate.
    Daniel Craig doesn't look exactly like that picture. So were you up in arms over his being Bond as well? No, thought not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Daniel Craig doesn't look exactly like that picture. So were you up in arms over his being Bond as well? No, thought not.
    He fits the profile but did think Moore was the most accurate portrayal of Flemings Bond.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    That's disgraceful how would white peoples feel if Spider-Man... Red from Shawshank... James Bond... Em never mind. Srsly though MLK shouldn't be portrayed as a white man cos he wasn't white. If he was he'd would've probably spent his life doing other things. Stop changing people's races though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonyeka)
    That's true but it won't stop the way people in the black community feel. I think the main issue is that they cast a white person as MLK junior who was very influential in bringing about equality within America. If they just cast a white person for a random black role it wouldn't be as big of a thing. It's the fact that the role was that of Martin Luther King. Besides racism is a touchy issue for black people especially in america, what with all the racists police officers. I just think they should have cast a black person.
    But MLK's message was about equality - if a black person's views and opinions are supported and represented by a white person... wouldn't that mean that his dream finally came true?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    He fits the profile but did think Moore was the most accurate portrayal of Flemings Bond.
    He doesn't, particularly. Also, it's worth pointing out that that picture doesn't have a skin tone, so still doesn't give us a full idea of what Fleming's Bond looks like - which of course is irrelevant on its own as Fleming didn't write all of the Bond books.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    He doesn't, particularly.
    have to disagree but the picture clearly shows what he wanted bond to look like

    Grump as much as you like doesn't change this fact.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evening)
    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...tor-university




    It's funny that whenever the libtards complain and campaign to have white characters changed to match their agenda, they justify their actions in the name of equality. Yet, here we have a perfect example of what MLK truly intended:


    "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."


    Okay, maybe for the sake of the play they should have cast a black person, but the people complaining about this have truly shot themselves in the foot this time. These are the same type of people who'd complain if a black guy portrayed Hitler or rejoice that James Bond was made into a black character, purely because of skin colour.

    Moreover, there is rarely any complaints about a straight guy playing a homosexual, why does it only garner criticism when it's to do with race?
    Actually most people would take offence to a real person being portrayed by someone whose ethnicity significantly differed from their own and did you hear of the Stonewall movie where massive numbers of people complained that it focused on a made up CIS white man and diminished or down played numerous other figures in the LGBT community?

    There is a difference between taking a fictional character and having an actor who differs physically from them portraying them, Dinklage's character in xmen is not a dwarf, Starbuck in the original battlestar galactica series was male, Nick Fury and Heimdall are typically written as white, I've seen a play of Othello where Othello was the only white character as opposed to being black but all were portrayed well because being a fictional character gave more freedom.

    A dramatisation of a real person, you generally have to match the actor with the role, at best if you swap a white character with a different ethnicity character it would be regarded as weird (no one would cast Hitler as a black person), when you're doing a dramatisation of an ethnic minority person and you cast a different ethnicity actor you are at risk of being massively insensitive because fundamentally there are fewer roles for those ethnicities. When said person is famous for campaigning for minority rights or faced significant opposition due to being a minority and you cast the complete opposite of him that is dumb if not offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Its whitewashing - do u even know what Martin Luther King stood for? For people of his race to be recognized as people and this just does that opposite, and how can this 'white actor' even begin accurately portray MLK's struggles when they were mostly centered on race?
    You sound like a racist bigot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I hear they are remaking Roots. Kunta Kinta is being played by Tom Cruise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You sound like a racist bigot.
    I don't even feel offended, just confused, what part of my comment wasn't justified
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why shouldn't a black actor be able to play Abraham Lincoln or Ulysses S. Grant? I think it would be better if whites and blacks were considered interchangeable in all respects.

    I don't get why some white people get upset with black actors playing certain roles, or the opposite. I mean, who is going to play him in a few centuries when there are no white or black people?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    I don't even feel offended, just confused, what part of my comment wasn't justified
    Your suggestion that skin color, (rather than acting ability or character affinity) should be the determining factor in portraying MLK is racist.

    The suggestion that a "white actor" cannot even begin portraying MLK's strugglers is profoundly racist. How can a person's skin colour determine whether he can or cannot act a certain part?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Your suggestion that skin color, (rather than acting ability or character affinity) should be the determining factor in portraying MLK is racist.

    The suggestion that a "white actor" cannot even begin portraying MLK's strugglers is profoundly racist. How can a person's skin colour determine whether he can or cannot act a certain part?
    Do you not understand that MLK's core cause was for racial equality and this had been influenced by his experience as a black man?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    People, when they watch plays and movies and so on, like accuracy. When the whole "black guy playing James Bond" debate was raging, I was in the camp that said it'd just be weird because James Bond is white - regardless of the fact that he's fictional, the character that was created was a white man and if you change the race, you change the character. It'd be just as weird him being known for being pretty tall, in good shape and being from the UK, and then having Danny DeVito play him. I said on that very thread, that I'd find it just as strange if a white man played Martin Luther King in a movie or play about his life, purely because it'd be a huge inaccuracy, and now here we are, and I still stand by that point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul353535)
    Name me a white man or women, of significance that walked this planet, but was played by a black person ?
    Well, sticking to real life people of significance, rather than fictional characters that must have been white, Peter Mensah played Oenamaus (a Gaullish gladiator) in the TV series Spartacus. He was significant in that he was one of the leaders of the slave army against Rome in the Third Servile War.

    Desi Arnaz Giles played Jesus, who is fairly significant.

    David Oyelowo played Henry VI, the English king, so fairly significant.

    Carl Anderson played Judas Iscariot in Jesus Christ Superstar, another significant historical figure.

    The Roman emperor Nero was played by Eric Burroughs (on radio).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    People, when they watch plays and movies and so on, like accuracy. When the whole "black guy playing James Bond" debate was raging, I was in the camp that said it'd just be weird because James Bond is white - regardless of the fact that he's fictional, the character that was created was a white man and if you change the race, you change the character. It'd be just as weird him being known for being pretty tall, in good shape and being from the UK, and then having Danny DeVito play him. I said on that very thread, that I'd find it just as strange if a white man played Martin Luther King in a movie or play about his life, purely because it'd be a huge inaccuracy, and now here we are, and I still stand by that point.
    Can you imagine James Bond being played by some Eskimo from Alaska? His ride now is some polar bear and his suit is no longer a black and white affair, it's literally made from penguin skin. Or better yet, we change the name and gender to Jenney Bond, since you know, it's all about equality isn't it? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Desi Arnaz Giles played Jesus, who is fairly significant.
    Jesus may have been a black man.

    But he for sure did not look like this



    The above picture of Jesus is dangerous and wrong.Dangerous because of the part White Jesus has played in dehumanizing people of colour, through racism. A white man with blue eyes ? Living in the middle east ? At that ? Yeah right. He'd have stuck out like a sore thumb, but the above pic is how he is often depicted

    Truth is Jesus most likely looked like this



    That is what Jewish men from Jesus’s time and place generally looked like. One had his appearance forensically reconstructed for the BBC in 2001 (pictured above).


    (Original post by Good bloke)
    David Oyelowo played Henry VI, the English king, so fairly significant.
    Yeah I'll give that one

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Carl Anderson played Judas Iscariot in Jesus Christ Superstar, another significant historical figure.
    Judas Iscariot was not white

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The Roman emperor Nero was played by Eric Burroughs (on radio).
    On Radio ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Actually most people would take offence to a real person being portrayed by someone whose ethnicity significantly differed from their own and did you hear of the Stonewall movie where massive numbers of people complained that it focused on a made up CIS white man and diminished or down played numerous other figures in the LGBT community?

    There is a difference between taking a fictional character and having an actor who differs physically from them portraying them, Dinklage's character in xmen is not a dwarf, Starbuck in the original battlestar galactica series was male, Nick Fury and Heimdall are typically written as white, I've seen a play of Othello where Othello was the only white character as opposed to being black but all were portrayed well because being a fictional character gave more freedom.

    A dramatisation of a real person, you generally have to match the actor with the role, at best if you swap a white character with a different ethnicity character it would be regarded as weird (no one would cast Hitler as a black person), when you're doing a dramatisation of an ethnic minority person and you cast a different ethnicity actor you are at risk of being massively insensitive because fundamentally there are fewer roles for those ethnicities. When said person is famous for campaigning for minority rights or faced significant opposition due to being a minority and you cast the complete opposite of him that is dumb if not offensive.
    i wish pain on you
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul353535)
    Jesus may have been a black man.

    Judas Iscariot was not white
    They were most likely to have been Caucasoid, as your picture shows, pretty similar to modern Europeans and as white as a Spaniard or Italian. They may have lacked blue eyes but so do the vast majority of Europeans. Brown-eyed people are in a majority across Europe, except for outposts like Ireland and Scotland.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The only people who care about this are lefties and black people. Cast the best actor for the role, black or white.
 
 
 

3,084

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.