The Larkins.

[mickd1961]

I’m amazed that people are so pissed off just by having a few brown faces on TV
Does the colour of a few people skin make you that offended that you wanna stop watching the TV. Surely there’s always some artistic license in any drama or TV programme

In fact there is a massive amount of “artistic license” used when discussing history colonialism decisions made by people who are liked and the colour of people skin generally throughout history.

I hope you all get seriously offended every time there’s any depiction of Jesus and him being some blue-eyed blond haired pale skinned fella from the Middle East, and the rest of his disciples

And Boingy if you want to learn from history then shouldn’t history be taught as it was in our schools?
Do you feel school children get the truth about colonialism and how people are treated and how anybody that wasn’t white skinned was thought of as inferior almost animal like in the not too distant past, look at what Winston Churchill did during the Second World War causing hundreds of thousands to die of starvation in India. Please feel free to look up some of his quotes of how he felt about Indians

Indians, Africans and others were treated horrifically and their countries had their fortunes stolen and were put in permanent debts so they could always be classed as the third world, but apparently they did get roads, aqueducts etc etc

Do you feel this is represented well enough, in programmes, in history taught in schools?

Not everyone in every other country were living in mud huts, there was wealth and intelligence
But what we are taught is that colonialism taught these people how to behave, and become civilised
Due to the fact only Europeans know how to be civilised, even though they were doing the same things just a hundred years ago.

Do you feel all the programs that are depicted in the times of slavery show how brutal it was?

How many shows do you watch where a white person turns up and helps non-white mainly black people to do things and inspires them.
Really do you feel this happens as often as it is portrayed, or is it a good story for the masses to make them feel better about themselves?

If you think some of this isn’t relevant and should be in the past than one way to solve that is to let everybody play together rather than everybody just pandering to make white people feel better about themselves and their achievements.

My main issue is the re writing of history BS.

It’d be ludicrous if Gandy was portrayed as a white man or the same with Martin Luther King.

If I were living in India I wouldn’t expect them to to try and make me and the other minority white people feel better ( supposedly l! ) by making Gandy a white bloke.

History is history, do you not agree?

[BaggieSingh]

I don't disagree with many of the points BS made but it still doesn't alter the historical inaccuracies that appear in so many television historical dramas. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I think it’s because programmes need to entertain with some sort of artistic license and not always be totally honest and accurate
That’s more what documentaries etc are for maybe ??

[boingy]

I’m amazed that people are so pissed off just by having a few brown faces on TV
Does the colour of a few people skin make you that offended that you wanna stop watching the TV. Surely there’s always some artistic license in any drama or TV programme

In fact there is a massive amount of “artistic license” used when discussing history colonialism decisions made by people who are liked and the colour of people skin generally throughout history.

I hope you all get seriously offended every time there’s any depiction of Jesus and him being some blue-eyed blond haired pale skinned fella from the Middle East, and the rest of his disciples

And Boingy if you want to learn from history then shouldn’t history be taught as it was in our schools?
Do you feel school children get the truth about colonialism and how people are treated and how anybody that wasn’t white skinned was thought of as inferior almost animal like in the not too distant past, look at what Winston Churchill did during the Second World War causing hundreds of thousands to die of starvation in India. Please feel free to look up some of his quotes of how he felt about Indians

Indians, Africans and others were treated horrifically and their countries had their fortunes stolen and were put in permanent debts so they could always be classed as the third world, but apparently they did get roads, aqueducts etc etc

Do you feel this is represented well enough, in programmes, in history taught in schools?

Not everyone in every other country were living in mud huts, there was wealth and intelligence
But what we are taught is that colonialism taught these people how to behave, and become civilised
Due to the fact only Europeans know how to be civilised, even though they were doing the same things just a hundred years ago.

Do you feel all the programs that are depicted in the times of slavery show how brutal it was?

How many shows do you watch where a white person turns up and helps non-white mainly black people to do things and inspires them.
Really do you feel this happens as often as it is portrayed, or is it a good story for the masses to make them feel better about themselves?

If you think some of this isn’t relevant and should be in the past than one way to solve that is to let everybody play together rather than everybody just pandering to make white people feel better about themselves and their achievements.

With due respect you have no idea how I think but you have jumped to quite a few assumptions. I always defended anyone black who was mistreated at school and had a deep love for red indians and even bought books on chief Seattle’s quotes about the mistreatment from whites. Very moving raw and honest works. Ann Boleyn was not black. Full stop. Modern storylines misrepresent the truth. Artistic license doesn’t mean you have to lie about Victorian values for example. Are we going to have a new schindlers list with all black prisoners for the sake of proportional representation? Or how about a film about Obama played by Sean bean? I don’t want to see that.

[BaggieBlood]

I think the point the author cannot comprehend Is THAT THE LARKINS ISN'T REAL OR A DOCUMENTARY PURPORTING TO BE HISTORICAL FACT.

FFS you really had to look up the first Asian officer or whatever you wrote above to disprove what is the academically serious hypothesis being put forward in, ahem, the f ucking larkins?

[kettering_baggie]

The Larkins……? Who gives a damn, it’s just utter rubbish, more entertaining to be asleep.

[BaggieBlood]

It is quite shocking how what is happening in TV and especially the adverts isn't obvious.

Nearly every commercial I see is targeting the black/mixed race market. Why?

Because the companies have spent millions in market research to see who is and who isn't buying the c rap they are peddling and they then target that market.

The same with sh it shows like the larking.

Itv are even telling you in their own ads the battle for your attention has begun before showcasing a pile of s hit they will be showing soon.

Fact is terrestrial TV is s hit and is being hammered by netflix, prime and Disney plus, etc, etc, therefore they try to attract whatever audience they can get by trying to appeal to the widest audience.

Anyone moron kid that watches the larkins and thinks it is historical fact needs to ditch the TV and read a f ucking book or 3.

[kettering_baggie]

I think that some kids probably think that books are something that referees use to write players names in when they brandish a yellow card!

[Omegstrat6]

As others have said, the point is in making a distinction between drama (not real) and documentary (factual). Surely any actor/actress can play any role? Or can they? Think about the Shakespeare era when the women's parts had to be played by young lads as women were not allowed to act or all those cowboy and Indian films where white actors played the Indians or Jean Simmons playing the part of a Himmalayan girl in "Black Narcissus". Maybe it was a lack of ethnic actors or maybe it was the dreaded "race appropriation". Personally, I quite enjoyed the recent David Copperfield production as I did the Bridgerton series and have no issue with seeing Brown or back faces in roles that would normally be given to white actors in these circumstances. We are all aware that these stories are set in periods of time where this would not be historically accurate but as the stories themselves are not about race, does it then really matter?. If you are proclaiming to make an historically accurate piece however or one dealing with real historical people then maybe it does. Would a white portrayal of Martin Luther King be acceptable ? (They had enough problems with some Afro-Americans as it was for casting a British Black actor) What about Ben Kingsley as Ghandi? Could a white or Brown actor play Muhammid Ali? Or Black or Brown one play George Best? I would argue that an actor of any ethnic background should be able to play any role in a work of fiction as it is an interpretation of that work, but that it remains important to be as historically accurate as possible when it comes to producing factual documentaries and this includes race. To not do so would be-as others have pointed out-to risk giving the wrong (unfactual) impression to the audience.

[Albionic68]

As others have said, the point is in making a distinction between drama (not real) and documentary (factual). Surely any actor/actress can play any role? Or can they? Think about the Shakespeare era when the women's parts had to be played by young lads as women were not allowed to act or all those cowboy and Indian films where white actors played the Indians or Jean Simmons playing the part of a Himmalayan girl in "Black Narcissus". Maybe it was a lack of ethnic actors or maybe it was the dreaded "race appropriation". Personally, I quite enjoyed the recent David Copperfield production as I did the Bridgerton series and have no issue with seeing Brown or back faces in roles that would normally be given to white actors in these circumstances. We are all aware that these stories are set in periods of time where this would not be historically accurate but as the stories themselves are not about race, does it then really matter?. If you are proclaiming to make an historically accurate piece however or one dealing with real historical people then maybe it does. Would a white portrayal of Martin Luther King be acceptable ? (They had enough problems with some Afro-Americans as it was for casting a British Black actor) What about Ben Kingsley as Ghandi? Could a white or Brown actor play Muhammid Ali? Or Black or Brown one play George Best? I would argue that an actor of any ethnic background should be able to play any role in a work of fiction as it is an interpretation of that work, but that it remains important to be as historically accurate as possible when it comes to producing factual documentaries and this includes race. To not do so would be-as others have pointed out-to risk giving the wrong (unfactual) impression to the audience.

Someone keeps stealing your paragraphs. Fact 😊 .

[Leicesterbaggie]

If, that in all these TV dramas/films the main plot is not affected, why not make the rest of the action match the era that the storyline is set in. Yes, we understand that it is fiction but surely this will make it more watchable and believable for the viewer. It spoils it for me if I know that there are obvious inaccuracies.