Well, this was an interesting read.

I was wondering whether this kind of carry on, especially Peter Jackson's reaction to the accusations strike anyone else unfair. Given that there don't tend to be white people in the Films about historical black units. Unless they're antagonists or "see the error of their ways."

I'm assuming the multiculturalist rebuttal to your argument would be 'but Lord of the Rings isn't history'. This was the argument the director of Beowulf: Prince of the Geats used, when challenged on why he cast an African-American actor to play the lead role of Beowulf, who was a 6th century Geat (an indigenous Scandinavian tribe). There actually weren't very many black people in 6th century Scandinavia, so he actually changed the story so that Beowulf was a great African explorer who discovered Scandinavia. My response to that would be that Beowulf is history. Many characters are found in other historical sources.

My response for Lord of the Rings is similar. Professor Tolkein based it all off indigenous Celtic and Germanic mythology. He intended Lord of the Rings to fill the place of a systematic mythology for the English, based on other Northern European mythic cycles. The Shire is supposed to be the West Country (even today, the whitest part of England, demographically). In the films, they speak with West Country accents. Rohan is meant to be Tolkein's idealised Anglo-Saxons. All the names are Germanic or Celtic, the languages are based off Welsh and Finnish I believe . . . I could go on.

I believe that having black Hobbits running around in the Shire would ruin the entire aesthetic and it would certainly hamper suspension of disbelief. It just wouldn't make sense, the whole point of Hobbits is that they've been in the same place for ages and are insular and isolationist. Where would black Hobbits come from? Is the audience supposed to assume there's another Shire in Somalia somewhere?

If Hobbits being white is racist, then Hobbits being short must be heightist. But I don't see a big scandal about requiring Hobbits to be short.

Sources.

I did enjoy your sources. But I prefer these sources. They're more reliable.

But seriously. This is a good source to add to this thread.

I think there is an agenda to 'diversify' traditional stories deemed too white. It's like white people aren't allowed our own history anymore, we've got some obligation to include other races now. I can think of several other examples off the top of my head:

• The recent BBC Merlin, where a black actress plays Guinevere. Apart from the fact that it's 6th century Britain, the name Guinevere is Welsh for 'white sorceress'.
• The recent BBC Robin Hood, where 13th century England is depicted as positively teeming with black people, in high positions in society. One of Robin Hood's Merry Men is a Muslim Asian woman, Friar Tuck is a physically fit black man, the Sheriff Of Nottingham has a black Master-at-Arms, a black Mother Superior running a nunnery doesn't raise eyebrows . . .
• The recent Thor film, where a black actor plays a Norse god. If this wasn't inappropriate enough, he plays Heimdall, who is explicitly known as 'the white God'.
• The recent Wuthering Heights film has a black Heathcliff in 18th century England (Heathcliff wasn't a slave . . . and he wasn't black).

BBC reinvent fat balding Friar Tuck as black martial arts expert for new series of Robin Hood
English professor Helen Phillips, from Exeter University, told The Times: 'Sub-Saharan Africans wouldn't have been converted by that point, they would have had other religions. North Africans would have been mostly Muslims. Also, friars came from upper-class families, as did monks. The kind of families from which friars were drawn wouldn't have been in any sense African.'

Robin Hood to be armed with black warrior Friar Tuck
But actor David Harewood says it's time to reshape English folklore, by appearing as the first ever black Friar Tuck.

I think black actor Joseph Paterson belies the agenda in his article "Why Wuthering Heights gives me hope", where he says "Drama must give us a view not just of what was but of what could be".(Sound familiar?) And according to the Guardian, if you think traditional white characters from European folklore should be depicted as such, you must be a 'white supremacist'.

I think Bill Nighy should play Shaka Zulu.

I think Warrick Davis should play Michael Jordan.

Blame the free market. As much as there are people who make campaigns to do silly things like make the Gods of the Far North black, these things happen because when racial minorities are without representation in films, producers fear that they will not be as likely to see the film. Sometimes they change the race of characters to tap into a market they would otherwise miss. It is the idea behind blaxploitation, and is still the motivating factor behind most racial changes in casting decisions. This is the same reason Red Tails was almost not made or distributed (fear that whites wouldn't be compelled to see a film without whites in it), and probably a contributing factor in the films poor box office showing. Peter Jackson won't be advocating this kind of change because he knows that The Hobbit will be a success.

That being said, there are many films in US production with an all-white cast, many more with an all-white main and supporting characters, and many more with no non-white protagonist. Racial minorities and women are flat out statistically underrepresented in popular media. Period.

In the end, unless there are racial contributions to character motivations, it makes no impact on the story if characters in movies aren't the same race as their source material. I think it's silly to make a Norse god black, but in the end I see no harm in it.

I also don't think it's a big deal if producers want to reimagine done and done again tales such as Beowulf, Shakespearean plays, or Robin Hood by changing the race of characters. I've seen an Othello where Othello was white (which is far more an oversight than hobbits which are black, as Othello's race is a serious motivating contribution), and I've seen a Romeo and Juliet which takes place in 1980's New York.

I certainly do blame the free market, but it isn't enough to just 'blame the free market' without asking why the free market is doing this. The free market 50 years ago didn't need to 'diversify' white history. Now it does. The BBC didn't interpolate black and Asian people into Robin Hood to appeal to blacks and Asians in Africa and Asia. They did it to appeal to blacks and Asians in England, and to push for more multiculturalism in England. As the black actors say themselves "Drama must give us a view not just of what was but of what could be" and "It turns out that I am the black character so I think it adds a modern dimension to it, as well.'

• "If it is felt that coloured workers should not be allowed to obtain employment in this country, I should have thought the proper course would be to deny them entry to the country.” - Sir Winston Churchill, 25th November 1952

It's no coincidence that multicultrual propaganda began appearing in British media in the 1960s after the racial tension of the 1950s. They saw the indigenous people didn't like it, but instead of stopping it like Sir Winston Churchill suggested, they began a propaganda campaign to convince us it's good for us.

I agree with you that the diversification of the white past is the free market's response to the diversification of the white present. However, the BBC is a state-funded broadcaster with a track-record of anti-white bias. So in the case of the BBC at least I think it's much more than an accidental excercise in ratings, but rather a deliberate ideological agenda to make white people think we never existed before multiculturalism. As the BBC is a taxpayer-funded organisation, can it really be blamed on the free market alone? The free market is facilitating the mass multicultural immigration of the last few decades. Whether it's anti-whites deliberately pushing multiculturalism in white countries for ideological reasons, or capitalist film producers doing whatever it takes to appeal to as wide an audience as possible isn't a particularly important distinction in my opinion, if the result is the same.

But they did make Red Tails. Was race a contributing factor in the story? Did they cast white actors in black roles to appeal to whites, or did they leave them black?

I wasn't making a point about a statistical under-representation of non-whites in American media, I was making a point about white cultural history (be it literal history, classic literature or mythology) being hijacked and peppered with non-whites in order to suck up to a multicultural agenda.

Whether non-whites are statistically "under-represented" in American popular media is a separate issue in my opinion, I'm a little uncertain as to what sort of films these are, if they're films based on traditional Eurocentric folklore and they're all-white, or if they're from a modern source with no potential positive implications for white heritage, so therefore they slip by. Tacking blacks and Asians onto white folklore undermines everyone's ethnicity, including theirs.

I don't believe blacks and Asians should necessarily be statistically represented in British media, as I don't agree with there being significant numbers of blacks and Asians in the country in the first place to lobby for such representation. People moan that English media is too white, but I wouldn't move to Nigeria and moan about Nigerian media being too black and expect Nigerians to use white actors for traditional gods just so I felt included. I'd expect Nigerian media to be black.

TV is too white, Lenny Henry says
"When I started, I was surrounded by a predominantly white workforce, and 32 years later, not a lot has changed,"

He says "not a lot has changed" like it's supposed to change. Like we all agree that a white workforce in England is a terrible thing that must be rectified. I don't think it should change. White people should be allowed their own countries with their own media. So should black people and so should yellow people. But black people and yellow people are, and it's not a problem. It's only turned into a problem when it's white people. I don't want English media to become more black, any more than I want Kenyan media to become more white. Just imagine if we reversed the races. "TV is too black" or "TV is too yellow".

The BBC is 'hideously white' according to Greg Dyke, the corporation's director-general.
He admitted the management structure at the BBC was more than 98 per cent white.
I had a management Christmas lunch and as I looked around I thought, 'we've got a real problem here'. There were 80-odd people there and only one person who wasn't white,' he said.

The BBC director general is on record saying whiteness is 'hideous' and 'a real problem'. Imagine the uproar if he'd described blackness as 'hideous' and 'a real problem'. An excess of white people is a hideous problem, but an excess of non-white people is ideal. The BBC has radio stations specifically dedicated to Asians and blacks, but still pushes for the other stations to be less white. So it's okay to have channels that mostly appeal to black and Asian people, but a channel that appeals mostly to white people is deemed problematic and in need of diversity. Shakespeare was a white English playwright, so casting a white Othello is different, because Othello is not a character from traditional African folklore, he is a character created by a white playwright for a white audience. We created him anyway. I wouldn't care as much if a white character created by a black playwright was played by a black actor, because it's not my culture. Othello would have also been traditionally played by a white actor out of necessity, due to the lack of black people in England. Beowulf, Robin Hood et al are more than arbitrary stories with no meaning beyond entertainment. They're our ethnic heritage and transmit our sense of group ethnic identity to us. Part of what defines an ethnic identity is an exclusive shared history. So making the characters other races takes them away from us and says they're everyone's, like we don't have a right to an exclusive ethnic identity.

I also think race is a motivating contribution in these tales. Blood loyalty is central to the themes of Beowulf. If he was a different race he'd have different loyalties, relatives, and motivation. Hobbits are white, if there was a black Hobbit it'd be immediately obvious that they were from a separate lineage to everyone else. Hobbits are an mythical white race, they were created and intended as romanticised West Country folk. Heimdallr is explicitly referred to as "the whitest of the gods". His whiteness is mythologically important enough to be referred to multiple times. It's quite the coincidence to me that they chose a black actor to portray 'the whitest of the gods'.

But even if it wasn't Heimdallr, man makes his gods in his own image. White people shouldn't be being taught to envision their gods as non-white, because that's telling us we're not allowed to exist as an exclusive group, we're not allowed an exclusive identity, and we're not allowed cultural autonomy or to look to our independant history outside the context of modern multiculturalism (where we're always the bad guys, getting in the way of 'diversity'). Unless, for example they are described as a different race, like how the Mesoamerican god Quetzecoatl is described as being a white bearded man who brings knowledge.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

I will not.^ I don't have a problem with black people not being represented in movies where they shouldn't be.

Race was a contributing factor in the story of Red Tails. That's why it was shot with an all-black cast. It was not due to tradition or exclusion, but for coherency. It was also based on a true story, and was the original cinematic depiction of that story, all of which makes it a different case according to the guidelines with which I had justified my opinion.

They may very well be appealing to Asians in Asia, as the Asian film market is the largest in the world, and most Western films try to appeal to that foreign demographic.

LiV, we won't be able to see eye to eye on this issue because we simply see race differently. And, for the record, I was making a separate, related point about American media because this thread started on the topic of American media, The Hobbit, and racial depictions therein. In reality, everything about British media depictions is what is off-topic, as the BBC has nothing to do with American film productions.

Even for one who doesn't agree to racial autonomy, you must surely see the irony of "give preferential employment to blacks in the BBC because otherwise you're a racist."

I think that's just really poor casting. Actors should be cast in part based on the casting crews' estimation of their physical resemblance to the character they're trying out for, insofar as that character has a physical description.

I think it would break my suspension of disbelief to see a Pakistani hobbit in the Shire because hobbits are supposed to be from the same ethnic background.

Isn't Red Tails just a story about a group of men in the air force? Surely white actors could fly a plane and do all the same things. The point wasn't that they were black, the point was that they served in the air force. So what if the Tuskegee Airmen was historically all black, is their race really that important? They weren't motivated by their race. If it was a group of historically all white pilots, would we equally need to make sure that the actors were all white, or does cultural preservation not apply to whites? The Geats were historically all white, but it's okay to change the race there. The Britons were historically all white, but it's okay to change the race there. Medieval Englishmen were historically all white, and it's okay to change the race there . . .

Whether or not a 'story' is a 'true story' is ambiguous, and in my opinion irrelevant. Beowulf is about real people and real tribes, who are attested in other historical sources. 'Fictional' Folkloric characters still have races. Like you said, Othello is a black character. Friar Tuck, Beowulf, Guinevere etc are white characters, irrespective of their individual historicity. They're set in real places in real time periods, with real people. For example, King Hygelac from Beowulf was a real Geatish king who died during a raid in Frisia circa 516 AD.

It's the BBC, they shouldn't be appropriating indigenous English culture and selling it to the highest bidder like that. Naturally Robin Hood is going to resonate more with the Anglosphere, because he's one of our mythic forebears, an English cultural icon we all grow up with from childhood, and a connection to our collective ancestral past.

The example from the OP happened to be from a film being backed by an American studio (produced in New Zealand), but that doesn't mean the thread is about American film production or restricted to America. The thread is about race, not country. Specifically the OP was about non-white actors being interpolated into white cultural stories, and the example was The Hobbit. I made the same point with examples about the same race, from a different country.

The thread wasn't about statistical represenation of races in American media, and I don't see how this issue is relevant to the issue of cultural appropriation of white source material, unless you were simply making a comment that the statistical under-representation of non-whites in the American film industry is part of the reason American studios are so keen to insert non-white actors into films based on European folklore, in an attempt to include more non-white actors in American films generally.

If that was your point, then it's not white people's fault if non-whites in America are statistically under-represented in American films, non-whites are still being crowbarred into stories they don't belong in in order to make the material less white and appeal to multiculturalism. Maybe non-whites are statistically under-represented at the decision-making level of the American film industry (Whites are . . .), but I don't see that as an excuse to plunder white cultural property in the name of a political agenda that works against our interests.

In movies like the Tuskeegee airmen, it is VERY relevant that they are black. Their story is ABOUT the racial discrimination within the air force, and how they proved themselves competent despite that discrimination. Having a bunch of white actors randomy discriminated against for no reason makes no sense in the historical context if we're trying to be at all accurate.

I haven't seen the film, but the wikipedia synopsis doesn't mention racial discrimination as an important part of the plot. The story appears to be about their combat experience.

However, in my post above I was being tongue-in-cheek to make a point. Why is race obviously crucial when it's black people, but obviously incidental when it's white people? I agree with you that it's appropriate for black characters to be portrayed as black, just as it's appropriate for white characters to be portrayed as white. Having a bunch of black actors randomly fighting against the Sheriff of Nottingham in 13th century England for no reason makes no sense in the historical context if we're trying to be at all accurate. Having a bunch of black actors randomly fighting against the Anglo-Saxons in 6th century Britain for no reason makes no sense in the historical context if we're trying to be at all accurate.

It's relevant when the plot is carried due to race. I haven't seen Red Tails, but I HAVE seen the first movie on the Tuskegee Airmen (titled "The Tuskegee Airmen"). It was directly about the fighter pilots initially not being put into important positions due to their race, and only because they were a new experiment that they were even allowed to fly. It wasn't just a group of men flying - it was about a group of men overcoming the prejudices that said they were inferior and not worthy to be pilots. Their race and the way they were treated made them special. They were the first and at the time the only black pilots.

The film was produced in the US. Production is taking place in New Zealand. Those are different things. It is being distributed by the US departments of US companies. It is an American film.

As such, my qualifying statements about the representation of non-whites in American film seem pretty related, while your statements about racial policies of British television stations seem pretty unrelated. To me, anyway.

However, you are vitriolic on this issue, and I see no benefit of discussing it at length with you again. I have stated my opinion that I do not see the harm in general of changing the race of characters in new interpretations of old stories; I also think it would be silly and uncalled for in The Hobbit, but in the end would by no means ruin the film. They won't be doing it, anyway, so it is a moot point. I will continue to read the thread, and if I change my mind I will be sure to post something here.

It wouldn't ruin the film, but if I saw a hobbit depicted as non-white in the movie, I would be momentarily confused and distracted, which would detract from the overall experience by making suspension of disbelief harder.

I would agree with that. The Hobbit is not a story which has been done and done again, so reimagining it in this way for the debut cinematic interpretation would be a poor choice.

But, as I said, that isn't happening.

To me, non-white actors being anachronistically inserted into traditional white roles in one country, and non-white actors being anachronistically inserted into traditional white roles in another country seem pretty related. I don't see why the country matters, since we're talking about race and the collective cultural inheritance of white people around the world. My statements about the BBC are related because it's the same thing, the idea that white media shouldn't stay white and must be diversified, and provides context for the motivations and wider political agendas behind this idea that it's wrong for white people to have any sort of cultural-historical autonomy. The issue goes way beyond just this one film.

I accept that the example in the OP, The Hobbit, is an American film (of an English book, set in a mythic ancient England, with languages and themes based on Old English and Welsh). I just don't understand why the fact that it's American is apparently so crucial and why it was wrong to bring up non-American examples of the issue raised by the OP, that of European cultural property being retroactively diversified with non-white actors. Are you saying we should only be talking about the issue as it pertains to The Hobbit? If so, what point you were making when you said that non-whites were statistically under-represented in general American media, how is that related to the issue?

I certainly haven't insulted you. I know you already stated your opinion, but obviously if we all just stated our opinions and didn't interact, there'd be no discussion. I was unclear as to your point about the under-representation of non-whites in American media, and unclear as to why you feel America is so crucial to the issue, and why other examples of the same process were off-topic because they weren't from America. I still am. You say they won't be doing it, but: "It is not something the producers or the director of The Hobbit were aware of; they would never issue instructions of this kind to the casting crew. All people meeting the age and height requirements are welcome to audition for The Hobbit." So they are opening it up to all races.

Not only that, but the casting director who said Hobbits are white got fired because of this, and the Pakistani woman is on record saying: "Obviously, hobbits are not brown or black or any other colour. They all look kind of homogenised beige and are all derived from the Caucasian gene pool." First she complains about racism, then she rails against 'the Caucasian gene pool' and 'homogenised beige', as if being racially homogenous is something to be ashamed of, and being 'from the Caucasian gene pool' is a problem. What point is she making by saying Hobbits are white? She says it like it's a bad thing.

I never said you insulted me. I said I didn't want to discuss your interpretations of race ad nauseum again. I still don't.

And, no, read their release. They said that people of all races are welcome to audition. They did not say that people of those races would be picked. They do not want their casting directors explicitly stating that extras are being turned away due to race because they do not want to upset the sensibilities of certain demographics. This is very typical in film production. That casting director was fired for not knowing the rules of the road, even though in the industry those expectations are obvious.

They did no retroactively hire that woman, which is what they would have done if they were planning on pulling in extras of varied racial backgrounds. They were trying to minimize negative publicity, in the same way that a politician sends a form letter saying, "I won't vote for X bill in this form" but then votes for it with a two line ammendum. If The Hobbit comes out, and there are little black hobbits running around, you can say, "I told you so."

It should also be noted that there are darker-skinned hobbits in the Tolkien diegesis.

You accused me of being vitriolic, which I interpreted as meaning I was being rude or insulting. Presumably if we had this discussion, it wouldn't just be about my interpretations of race, it'd be about yours too. I don't know if this falls under 'my interpretations of race', but the director explicitly saying Hobbits are any race is part of the same phenomenon, the idea that it's unacceptable for white people to have an autonomous narrative. You just said yourself that this was 'the rules of the road'. What we know from the articles is that the casting director was fired for saying Hobbits were white. Tolkein describes three breeds of Hobbit who live in separate habitats. He says the Harfoots were browner of skin than the Stoors and Fallohides (whose name means "pale skin" in Old English), but I don't think that necessarily means Pakistani dark, as opposed to a tanned European. They're not 'brown', just browner than the other breeds.

"Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble; and they preferred highlands and hillsides. The Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger, and they preferred flat lands and riversides. The Fallohides were fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were taller and slimmer than the others; they were lovers of trees and of woodlands".

Parts have races just as much as parts have genders. You wouldn't sue for not, as a male, getting a scripted female character.

Even in school drama productions, in Robin Hood a guy isn't Maid Marion. Just as much as a girl isn't Robin Hood. Just as much as a white character that cannot be changed for authenticity or plot purposes cannot be filled by a black actor. It seems that people are looking for racism where it's not because we live in an extraordinarily politically correct society.

She will not get a settlement if she sues. The studio did nothing wrong.

Vitriolic can mean bitter, harsh, or severe. Based on the regularity and quantity you talk about this issue (and how you talk about it), I felt it was an appropriate adjective. It does not inherently mean offensive.

The casting director was not fired for saying Hobbits are white; she was fired for causing bad press by telling a prospective employee that she could not be hired because of race. Causing your studio bad press by saying something, even something true, which may cause a negative public reaction is an obvious no-no. There are a lot of people who have been fired for less in the world of low-to-middle film production jobs. Also, saying why extras are or are not being chosen in front of them is also typically a no-no. You just select the ones you want and tell the rest to try again next time. That's how it works; that is the expectation. Both sides are making mountains out of mole hills.

I have known a couple lighter-skinned Pakistani and Indian subcontinent humans in my day. It does happen. Assuming that there are no Pakistanis who could pass as light enough to be a dark skinned Hobbit is a bit brash. In addition, makeup, lighting, and color correction all make a significant impact on the end product.

I don't see where Jackson says, "Hobbits are any race."

I agree completely. Nothing racist here. But people have won lawsuits over less, i.e. the McDonalds hot coffee and lack of warning thereof.