The plinth of controversy.

[MartynK]

On another forum site, someone asked the question: If it's acceptable for a dark skined actress to play Anne Boleyn in a historical series, would it be acceptable for a light skinned actor to play Cassius Clay? If not, why not?

I know it's bad form to answer a question with another question, but in this case ...

'Actress' seems to have become an unacceptable term, and all thespians are actors now. That being the case, would it be appropriate for a man, or male actor, to play the role of a female character? Would it make any difference if he identified as a woman? After all, all female roles were played by young men on the Shakespearean stage, albeit for a different reason.

I really can't take this sort of thing very seriously.

 

[sphexx]

My problem with all this is it’s arising out of the murder of George Floyd in USA and in many cases taking the form of protests (like “taking the knee”) which make little sense in a U.K. context.

The police violence in the USA is awful but quite different from what goes on here (not saying there aren’t problems here). It’s true that ‘black’ people are disproportionate affected but not solely so -- remember the case of Justine Damond a 40-year-old ‘white’ Australian-American woman, was fatally shot by 33-year-old Somali-American Minneapolis Police Department officer Mohamed Noor after she had called 9-1-1 to report the possible assault of a woman in an alley behind her house, for example:

Killing of Justine Damond - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Similarly the US experience with slavery and it’s current affect ‘black’ Americans in zoning of housing, mortgages, voting etc — nothing remotely comparable here. Again, not saying there aren’t problems here but they should be addressed in our local context, not some other country’s.

 

[sphexx]

Derailing this tread even further.

This a fine example of “where will it all end” once you start down this road. Once again Hartlepool is leading the way. Sky News is reporting that they are proposing to put a label on their famous monkey statue in case people think it’s meant to be a ‘black person’. Presumably it’s going to say something like ‘this is not a black person’ possibly adding that there was some confusion in the past with a “cheese-eating surrender monkey” or Frenchman, that’ll go down well.

I confess I do not understand this modern ’monkey business’. Apparently people think ’black’ people are not monkeys. Well they are wrong of course, modern classification calls them so and also all ’white/brown/yellow/blue/etc/etc‘ people, plus gorillas and gibbons

 

[WaltonR]

Well if you're going to go there....
Back in the late 1980's there was a newspaper story about a Sunday School Vicar who banned the use of Lego as there weren't enough "black" faced ones and he thought it racist. Lego, in response said if he'd cared to have looked, NONE of the Lego men/women have black or white faces. They deliberately made them bright yellow to counteract that specific issue.

Derailing this tread even further.

This a fine example of “where will it all end” once you start down this road. Once again Hartlepool is leading the way. Sky News is reporting that they are proposing to put a label on their famous monkey statue in case people think it’s meant to be a ‘black person’. Presumably it’s going to say something like ‘this is not a black person’ possibly adding that there was some confusion in the past with a “cheese-eating surrender monkey” or Frenchman, that’ll go down well.

I confess I do not understand this modern ’monkey business’. Apparently people think ’black’ people are not monkeys. Well they are wrong of course, modern classification calls them so and also all ’white/brown/yellow/blue/etc/etc‘ people, plus gorillas and gibbons

I'm not usually known for seeing the Grey side of things; with me it's either black or white (no pun!!!). However, this really comes down to how it's used. Technically we are all monkeys, but the insult comes when someone says something like "He's a f@@@@ monkey!" It's how it said and the intent behind it. But some people out there seem to use any utterance, no matter in what context, to start shouting racist. It's all gotten far too PC these days.

 

[redsnappa]

would it be acceptable for a light skinned actor to play Cassius Clay? If not, why not?

Loads of white actors have played Othello.

 

[sphexx]

Loads of white actors have played Othello.

Othello being ‘black’ or ‘white’ is also a bit moot. He is described as black on the play but all Moorish and from Barbary, ie a Berber. Anyway, not a sub-Saharan African so the colour of his skin can be almost any shade . I guess it’s important (not an expert on this play) that audience perceive a dark face in contrast to the other actors so I would think it might be necessary for any light skinned ‘black’ actor to black up … or the others to white down perhaps .

I always thought it a pity the BBC didn’t make more of an attempt to get ‘black’ etc actors into radio plays .

The current idea that characters have to be played by actors with similar appearance, disabilities, etc as their characters is beyond ridiculous … it’s acting!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The current idea that characters have to be played by actors with similar appearance, disabilities, etc as their characters is beyond ridiculous … it’s acting!

Yes.

I wonder why that passes so many people by?

 

[Norkie]

Whatever next?

Queen's portrait removed after vote by Oxford University students

Oxford University students vote to remove the image as it is deemed a symbol of "colonial history".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jakeblu]

Yes.

I wonder why that passes so many people by?

Because its about inclusion. Ensuring more ethnic minorities and disabled people are included. I really don't see what's difficult to understand.

 

[whiteflyer]

My problem with all this is it’s arising out of the murder of George Floyd in USA and in many cases taking the form of protests (like “taking the knee”) which make little sense in a U.K. context.

The police violence in the USA is awful but quite different from what goes on here (not saying there aren’t problems here)..........

I think the governments own figure show there is a problem in the UK (OK not with actually killing people)

There are 3 times as many blacks arrested than whites in the UK, yet there are 6 times as many whites sentenced for indictable offences.

Which to me looks like they are arresting blacks for little or no reason, or they are not arresting whites for the same petty crimes.

 

[fujilover]

I`m amazed it was not put back, i think 15 - 20 years ago it would have been put back with a big F you from a defiant English Government calling the people who done it a low life scum

 

[sphexx]

I think the governments own figure show there is a problem in the UK (OK not with actually killing people)

There are 3 times as many blacks arrested than whites in the UK, yet there are 6 times as many whites sentenced for indictable offences.

Which to me looks like they are arresting blacks for little or no reason, or they are not arresting whites for the same petty crimes.

Yes, as I said earlier, we have policing problems here too but the are very different from those of US and require different solutions. We don’t have a “warrior culture” nor the general militarisation and various other problems associated with policing in US so I don’t think it’s helpful to equate them .

 

[Retune]

I`m amazed it was not put back, i think 15 - 20 years ago it would have been put back with a big F you from a defiant English Government calling the people who done it a low life scum

I think you'll find that Tony Blair led a British, rather than an English, Government. Though with a current Government that acts entirely in the interests of a segment of the English population, it would be easy to make that mistake. And the way things are going, in another 20 years England might well be all it governs. Or perhaps you put it this way to distinguish between people you do or do not regard as 'English'? As for 'low life scum', the term might be more appropriately used to describe the man on the plinth:

'During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey. The slaves were sold for labour on tobacco, and, increasingly, sugar plantations, whose planters considered Africans would be more suited to the conditions than British workers, as the climate resembled the climate of their homeland in West Africa. Enslaved Africans were much less expensive to maintain than indentured servants or paid wage labourers from Britain.'

Most statues aren't holy relics. Once they have outlived their usefulness, there's no particular reason for them to continue to clutter up our streets, especially when they celebrate people whose actions we would now regard as despicable. We might disapprove of the way Colston was removed, but he's now in a museum where he belongs.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There are 3 times as many blacks arrested than whites in the UK, yet there are 6 times as many whites sentenced for indictable offences.

There is a disparity but it's nothing like what you have claimed.

From: Arrests - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures (ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk)

• Black men were over 3 times as likely to be arrested than White men – there were 60 arrests for every 1,000 Black men, and 17 arrests for every 1,000 White men.

However, in court, the difference in the findings of guilt indicates that the arrests are not necessarily wrong. From: Prosecutions and convictions - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures (ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk)

• in 2017, the conviction ratios for Black and Mixed ethnic groups were lowest at 78.7% and 79%
• in 2017, the conviction ratio was highest for defendants in the White ethnic group, at 85.3%

In other words, the difference is roughly 6.5% and not the 600% your figures suggested.

 

[sphexx]

There is a disparity but it's nothing like what you have claimed.

From: Arrests - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures (ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk)

• Black men were over 3 times as likely to be arrested than White men – there were 60 arrests for every 1,000 Black men, and 17 arrests for every 1,000 White men.

However, in court, the difference in the findings of guilt indicates that the arrests are not necessarily wrong. From: Prosecutions and convictions - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures (ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk)

• in 2017, the conviction ratios for Black and Mixed ethnic groups were lowest at 78.7% and 79%
• in 2017, the conviction ratio was highest for defendants in the White ethnic group, at 85.3%

In other words, the difference is roughly 6.5% and not the 600% your figures suggested.

Often the kinds of crime vary between groups of people and some crimes are more likely yo lead to arrests than others, which can skew the numbers. I have no idea if that is currently true in U.K.

 

[whiteflyer]

There is a disparity but it's nothing like what you have claimed.


However, in court, the difference in the findings of guilt indicates that the arrests are not necessarily wrong. From: Prosecutions and convictions - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures (ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk)

• in 2017, the conviction ratios for Black and Mixed ethnic groups were lowest at 78.7% and 79%
• in 2017, the conviction ratio was highest for defendants in the White ethnic group, at 85.3%

In other words, the difference is roughly 6.5% and not the 600% your figures suggested.

Your figure is of the conviction rate of case that actually got to court, showing than many Black and Mixed ethnic groups get arrested but the case are dropped by the CPS before it gets to court. The question is why were they arrested in the first place,

 

[WaltonR]

Your figure is of the conviction rate of case that actually got to court, showing than many Black and Mixed ethnic groups get arrested but the case are dropped by the CPS before it gets to court. The question is why were they arrested in the first place,

Couldn't be that the CPS has to make doubly sure that they will get a result where non-whites are concerned, because if they do take it to court and lose, someone always starts making a case for a racism claim, could it?

And, I'm sorry to say, but if you only have to watch any of these "Police Camera Action" type programmes. Whenever you see crimes committed in the majority of cases, it's a non-white person(s) that's committed it. On top of that, the moment the police start to make an arrest, the coloured criminals start down the route "it's 'cos I'm black innit" and resist arrest. Resulting in an arrest being made for an offence that requires a caution and not a court case followed by conviction. I'm not in any way of form saying that I think that non-whites are mostly criminals, I believe that there's good and bad in all walks of life. However, the facts speak for themselves. Or are you now going to say that ALL of those programmes are inherently racist too?

 

[Marc]

Couldn't be that the CPS has to make doubly sure that they will get a result where non-whites are concerned, because if they do take it to court and lose, someone always starts making a case for a racism claim, could it?

And, I'm sorry to say, but if you only have to watch any of these "Police Camera Action" type programmes. Whenever you see crimes committed in the majority of cases, it's a non-white person(s) that's committed it. On top of that, the moment the police start to make an arrest, the coloured criminals start down the route "it's 'cos I'm black innit" and resist arrest. Resulting in an arrest being made for an offence that requires a caution and not a court cases followed by conviction. I'm not in any way of form saying that I think that non-whites are mostly criminals, I believe that there's good and bad in all walks of life. However, that facts speak for themselves. Or are you now going to say that ALL of those programmes are inherently racism too?

I'm not sure that what you see on Police, Camera, Action is representative of the country as a whole. It's 1 police force and 1 or 2 cres. I haven't watched it for a while but, from memory, I think I saw more white people being arrested than non-whites

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but the case are dropped by the CPS before it gets to court.

This is true of arrests generally. To get some understanding of the proportion of crimes accepted for trial by the CPS, see here: CPS data summary Quarter 2 2019-2020 | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Jelster]

........ Technically we are all monkeys,

I would have thought we were apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes don't, but at the end of the day, we're all primates....

Without trying to get labelled as a racist, if humans were now "discovered" by an alien form, much like we discover new species, would we all have one "latin" name, or would those with very obvious differences such as skin, facial features etc be classed as several sub-species ? It is quite clear that humans in different parts of the world evolved slightly differently, which to me would be classed as "sub-species" but as we are all intelligent, sentient beings, nobody like to label it that way.

 

[Jelster]

Couldn't be that the CPS has to make doubly sure that they will get a result where non-whites are concerned, because if they do take it to court and lose, someone always starts making a case for a racism claim, could it?

And, I'm sorry to say, but if you only have to watch any of these "Police Camera Action" type programmes. Whenever you see crimes committed in the majority of cases, it's a non-white person(s) that's committed it. On top of that, the moment the police start to make an arrest, the coloured criminals start down the route "it's 'cos I'm black innit" and resist arrest. Resulting in an arrest being made for an offence that requires a caution and not a court case followed by conviction. I'm not in any way of form saying that I think that non-whites are mostly criminals, I believe that there's good and bad in all walks of life. However, the facts speak for themselves. Or are you now going to say that ALL of those programmes are inherently racist too?

Not sure about that, I watch a lot of the these types of shows, especially the one based in London, Interceptors and a few others, and I would say that if any one "type" was arrested more often, they tend to be Eastern European, or British Asian, but it depends where in the country it's based. The Interceptors series that's based around Wiltshire, there is a low ratio of Black people in the West country, other than the larger cities, so you rarely see them being arrested. However, in the original series that was based in Essex, Black and Asians are more prevalent, so they make up more of "bad guys". The last series of Interceptors was based in Derby & Notts, and there were more British Asians that made up the arrests.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

or would those with very obvious differences such as skin, facial features etc be classed as several sub-species ?

No. All humans interbreed successfully so they are all "Homo Stupidiens" (the old "Sapiens" name clearly being inappropriate)

 

[WaltonR]

Not sure about that, I watch a lot of the these types of shows, especially the one based in London, Interceptors and a few others, and I would say that if any one "type" was arrested more often, they tend to be Eastern European, or British Asian, but it depends where in the country it's based. The Interceptors series that's based around Wiltshire, there is a low ratio of Black people in the West country, other than the larger cities, so you rarely see them being arrested. However, in the original series that was based in Essex, Black and Asians are more prevalent, so they make up more of "bad guys". The last series of Interceptors was based in Derby & Notts, and there were more British Asians that made up the arrests.

I agree. I did make a point of saying "non-white" so as not to say "black" which would have singled out one particular ethnicity. I also agree that where the programme is set, tends to have a different demographic and therefore, the ethnicity of those criminals is slewed towards that.
The point I was trying to make and probably not making a very good job of it is... Actually, I'm going to withdraw from this conversation because this is a very complex issue that's far beyond my tiny mind. There are so many variables and answers we are never going to get to the right or wrong of it.

 

[WaltonR]

I would have thought we were apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes don't, but at the end of the day, we're all primates....

Without trying to get labelled as a racist, if humans were now "discovered" by an alien form, much like we discover new species, would we all have one "latin" name, or would those with very obvious differences such as skin, facial features etc be classed as several sub-species ? It is quite clear that humans in different parts of the world evolved slightly differently, which to me would be classed as "sub-species" but as we are all intelligent, sentient beings, nobody like to label it that way.

My bad. For "monkeys" read "primates".

 

[sphexx]

I would have thought we were apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes don't, but at the end of the day, we're all primates....

Without trying to get labelled as a racist, if humans were now "discovered" by an alien form, much like we discover new species, would we all have one "latin" name, or would those with very obvious differences such as skin, facial features etc be classed as several sub-species ? It is quite clear that humans in different parts of the world evolved slightly differently, which to me would be classed as "sub-species" but as we are all intelligent, sentient beings, nobody like to label it that way.

I think you are wrong by current classification systems but you have to realise all these classifications are artificial and shouldn’t be used outside their original function. Humans aren’t in the group of current, modern, monkeys, nor the group of current apes but since all 3 groups share a common ancestry they are all descended from ‘ancient’ monkeys so can be said to be all monkeys. But, it’s all academic and doesn’t mean much in terms of name calling at football matches .

 

[gramps]

Without trying to get labelled as a racist, if humans were now "discovered" by an alien form, much like we discover new species, would we all have one "latin" name, or would those with very obvious differences such as skin, facial features etc be classed as several sub-species ? It is quite clear that humans in different parts of the world evolved slightly differently, which to me would be classed as "sub-species" but as we are all intelligent, sentient beings, nobody like to label it that way.

I would suggest that speaking of other nationalities as a "sub-species", you would find it extremely difficult not to be labelled as a 'racist'.

 

[sphexx]

I would suggest that speaking of other nationalities as a "sub-species", you would find it extremely difficult not to be labelled as a 'racist'.

But he clearly wasn’t saying that.

If H sapiens were any other mammal it’s likely it would be divided into sub-species and/or geographical races. One problem that arises from this consideration though is that “sub” is generally considered to mean “lower” which not accurate in taxonomy. The further problem is that the some/many of the various varieties of humans have been wrongly called sub-human (where “sub” does mean “lower”) at times in the past.

There is no absolute definition of “species”, it just a taxonomic convenience.

 

[Jelster]

I would suggest that speaking of other nationalities as a "sub-species", you would find it extremely difficult not to be labelled as a 'racist'.

Go back a read what I posted, myself, being a white European, would be one of the "sub" species. As Richards states, the use of "sub" is not a great way of dividing up a very closely related group of animals, but that is the generalised term.

You could be a reporter for a red top, they can read whatever they like into a statement....

 

[gramps]

But he clearly wasn’t saying that.

You could be a reporter for a red top, they can read whatever they like into a statement....

Really?

It is quite clear that humans in different parts of the world evolved slightly differently, which to me would be classed as "sub-species" but as we are all intelligent, sentient beings, nobody like to label it that way.

 

[sphexx]

Really?

Since we are now verging on a slanging match, I think I’ll leave this thread to go it’s merry way . I still think the photo was about the job of reporters and not about slavery but since it’s @gramps‘ thread I bow to his definition. Either way, it’s not been critique of the photo .

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Humans are really no more variegated than domestic cats. Just look at any group of urban dwellers and you'll see that facial characteristics and physiology are as disparate in one country as in another. The two most obvious variations: skin colour and epithelial folds, are found in widely seperated groups, indicating that they are common mutations not requiring any recent mutual ancestry.

 

[sirch]

If you lot want to carry this on take it over to hot topics. I have locked the thread while people cool down when it opens up again let's not have anymore posts not directly related to the original photo.