Mixed race girl stirs up controversy after chosen to play as Joan of Arc in Orleans,France

#51
There ya go guys. As you can see, well.... Some people want to 'black-wash' history. And many are fine with changing facts to accommodate 'muh diversity'. While I have nothing against Mathilde Edey Gamassou she just doesn't fit the part.
+1 to the revisionist historians .... for now.
...So your stance is that if this girl plays this part in a local parade then people might forget that a white person did something once?
That's some pretty subtle racism, but it's still there. You're just using the dog whistle of "diversity" to push a narrative of white people being forgotten, somehow.
You're really just saying "'white' places should stay unassailably 'white.'"
Then you even end your post with a vague threat in "...for now."
I mean, if those darn "libruls" keep professing tolerance and inclusivity obviously your only recourse will be violence, right?

Seriously, you're just...reprehensible.
 
Last edited:
#52
"No one really gave a shit" has but one implication. Again, did you actually pass grade 3 english?

The rest of the article either 1) Points to old movies from the 60's and earlier. 2) uses pathetically flimsy examples 3) Virtually every single modern one has outrage attached to it.

Stay losing :rolleyes:
Oh, you just read at a third grade level. Only thing i can assume if you think the Latino Reporter really thinks no one cares.

And yes just old movies
 

Weapxn

Mikkelsexual
#53
Have none of them heard of Hamilton

In all seriousness...what sane person would care about this? And are we even 100% sure that Joan of Arc was 100% white? Real question. Back then, religious feuds were a thing, classism...but was racism? I'd love to know how many historical figures we typically think of as being "white" were actually of mixed race.
 
#54
Oh, you just read at a third grade level. Only thing i can assume if you think the Latino Reporter really thinks no one cares.
What? Seriously... WHAT? How in the actualness of fuckery did you come to that conclusion? Seriously, please, step by step guide me.
And yes just old movies
A mighty heart, no outrage detected...

But another quality strawman :rolleyes:

Have none of them heard of Hamilton

In all seriousness...what sane person would care about this? And are we even 100% sure that Joan of Arc was 100% white? Real question. Back then, religious feuds were a thing, classism...but was racism? I'd love to know how many historical figures we typically think of as being "white" were actually of mixed race.
The actual event, very little. But the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance it puts on display, quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
#55
In all seriousness...what sane person would care about this?
...I'd love to know how many historical figures we typically think of as being "white" were actually of mixed race.
Almost nobody is a pure-blooded anything.
I'm the most "allergic to the sun" blindingly white skinned Irish guy you'll ever meet - and I'm also 50% black, by paternity.
You would be amazed how many 180s people's treatment and attitudes towards me shift once they're informed of what isn't immediately obvious.
Racism doesn't have to be overt - it doesn't even have to be rational or reasoned.

Lookt at the responses to that article that way back in British ancestry there may have been darker skinned individuals.
People reacted like the absolute worst thing they can imagine is the idea that generations ago somebody loved someone that wasn't the same race as them.
 
Last edited:
#56
Almost nobody is a pure-blooded anything.
I'm the most "allergic to the sun" blindingly white skinned Irish guy you'll ever meet - and I'm also 50% black, by paternity.
You would be amazed how many 180s people's treatment and attitudes towards me shift once they're informed of what isn't immediately obvious.
Racism doesn't have to be overt - it doesn't even have to be rational or reasoned.
Depending on the reactions, I would put it to you that the negative ones are actually because of the holier than thou insinuation you would put forth by having to point out to people you're "half black", would likely to be worse when, by admission, you're whitey mcwhite. These people wouldn't actually care at all, but when you make it your business to inform them as if they're racist by default, they will react negatively.
 
#57
Depending on the reactions, I would put it to you that the negative ones are actually because of the holier than thou insinuation you would put forth by having to point out to people you're "half black", would likely to be worse when, by admission, you're whitey mcwhite. These people wouldn't actually care at all, but when you make it your business to inform them as if they're racist by default, they will react negatively.
I think it says a metric fuckton about your worldview that the idea of someone sharing their racial make up must be done in a "holier-than-thou" manner.
It's a random bit of trivia that comes up organically when people are discussing their families/backgrounds/etc..
You seem to have a mindset where, if race isn't obvious it just...shouldn't ever come up lest it inherently be some sort of eye-rolling self-aggrandizing gesture?
Cool, that's not a perfect and completely unironic example of a societal and psychological oppression at all, no sir.

The only type of situation where I would "smugly" bring up my genetic lineage would be if someone said something blatantly racially offensive and I chimed in with "You might not realize this, but you're actually speaking about me."
I suppose that would be "holier-than-thou," though, right? Am I oppressing their right to be a jackass?
I guess the parents who told their kids they didn't want them hanging out with me any more when I told them I was adopted and mixed race were just reacting to being condescended to by a 10 year old?

My god, seriously. What's your problem?

Also, your statement at face value means that you basically see literal skin color to be the be-all-end-all of racial identity, and not actual blood and lineage, which is a fucking grim Schrodinger's Cat of racism.
It's not literally racism, but it's hard to find a more appropriate word for "I'm not judging them based on race - just the color of their skin!"
It's like distilled, purified racism with just a hint of artificial flavoring.

EDIT: I got some flack a week or so ago for saying it felt like GAF had undergone a weird, not-entirely-subtle swing towards "alt-right" viewpoints being more comfortably, openly shared, but take a look at some of the comments I'm responding to in this thread. It's shocking how baldfacedly discriminatory people's even minor opinions and reactions to race relations can be while they share them with a straight face as thought they're just commenting on the weather.
 
Last edited:
#58
I think it says a metric fuckton about your worldview that the idea of someone sharing their racial make up must be done in a "holier-than-thou" manner.
It's a random bit of trivia that comes up organically when people are discussing their families/backgrounds/etc..
You seem to have a mindset where, if race isn't obvious it just...shouldn't ever come up lest it inherently be some sort of eye-rolling self-aggrandizing gesture?

Cool, that's not a perfect example of a societal and psychological oppression, at all, no sir.

Also, your statement at face value means that you basically see literal skin color to be the be-all-end-all of racial identity, and not actual blood and lineage, which is a fucking grim Schrodinger's Cat of racism.
The preface of "depending on the reactions" is a significant part of my hypothetical post.

You cannot blame people when they react weirdly or negatively when, as you said, the whitest of white "allergic to the sun" guys says "I'm half black". Taken at face value, people will rightfully think, "um, genetics don't work like that".

I would actually be very interesting to see how one of these 180'd conversations goes down. It may very well be raw unbridled racism. Maybe you're just a dick in the way you go about it. Maybe there isn't even a thing there and you're completely misconstruing a reaction.

And you'll have to explain that last bit. Seems like some identity politic nonsense saying that I should identify as an aboriginal because somewhere along my fathers side there was a mixing of the races.
 
Last edited:
#59
You cannot blame people when they react weirdly or negatively when, as you said, the whitest of white "allergic to the sun" guys says "I'm half black". Taken at face value, people will rightfully think, "um, genetics don't work like that".
Not all "black" people are dark-as-pitch living charcoal drawings.
 
Last edited:
#62
...So your stance is that if this girl plays this part in a local parade then people might forget that a white person did something once?
That's some pretty subtle racism, but it's still there. You're just using the dog whistle of "diversity" to push a narrative of white people being forgotten, somehow.
You're really just saying "'white' places should stay unassailably 'white.'"
Then you even end your post with a vague threat in "...for now."
I mean, if those darn "libruls" keep professing tolerance and inclusivity obviously your only recourse will be violence, right?

Seriously, you're just...reprehensible.
Wow I have never had so many words put in my mouth before. I'm actually laughing at your interpretation of my post. I mean you almost got a bingo.... "pretty subtle racism, dog whistle of 'diversity', push a narrative of white people, vague threat".

So what you are saying is.....

Nah ;) I wont do that to you.
 
Last edited:
#63
What? Seriously... WHAT? How in the actualness of fuckery did you come to that conclusion? Seriously, please, step by step guide me.
Hold my hand and I shall you lead you to water but I can't force you to drink.

As if it wasn’t enough that Hollywood lacks serious diversity behind and in front of the camera, the industry also has a nasty (not so) little habit of giving diverse roles to white actors.
This implies the author actually cares about diversity and is going to show us some examples that she takes issue with . So the author by creating this article actually gives a shit, otherwise she wouldn't write this article or describe giving roles of POC to white people as "nasty". Hope I haven't lost you yet.

Over time we have come to expect a tsunami-sized wave of backlash when an actor of color is cast as a fictional character that audiences feel should be white ― see controversies over Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch or Amandla Stenberg as Rueof “The Hunger Games” ― but the outrage isn’t quite the same when white actors portray characters of color. Even when, often, they are based of off real-life people of color.
Then the author takes us here. What do you see here?

I'll tell you. The latina reporter is using examples of white people being outraged over fictional heroes. And the bolded part clues you in who the title refers to, the people that get outraged by something like a black human torch or Rue. She is saying these people don't give a shit when Hollywood casts white people as POC.

Drink or Don't, your call.
 
Last edited:
#64
Misused that word, 'understandably' would be more apt.

EDIT: I got some flack a week or so ago for saying it felt like GAF had undergone a weird, not-entirely-subtle swing towards "alt-right" viewpoints being more comfortably, openly shared, but take a look at some of the comments I'm responding to in this thread. It's shocking how baldfacedly discriminatory people's even minor opinions and reactions to race relations can be while they share them with a straight face as thought they're just commenting on the weather.
Back this up...

You have a disgustingly broad opinion on what "alt right" is. Nothing in here is pro nazi or white supremacist. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in a race discussion does NOT make someone a nazi/white supremacist. To even claim such is fucking disgusting.

I'll tell you. The latina reporter is using examples of white people being outraged over fictional heroes. And the bolded part clues you in who the title refers to, the people that get outraged by something like a black human torch or Rue. She is saying these people don't give a shit when Hollywood casts white people as POC.

Drink or Don't, your call.
How do you come to the conclusion that I think the "journalist" doesn't care?

She shows that people "care" about, lets call it "minority washing", films. Then goes on to claim that no one cared about white washing which, as I've pointed out, is unequivocally false.
 
Last edited:
#65
Wow I have never had so many words put in my mouth before. I'm actually laughing at your interpretation of my post. I mean you almost got a bingo.... "pretty subtle racism, dog whistle of 'diversity', push a narrative of white people, vague threat".

So what you are saying is.....

Nah ;) I wont do that to you.
How else would you respond to your post?
The sentiment was "having a mixed-race individual portray a character in a local parade doesn't somehow negate or belittle the original history and accomplishments."
To which you responded, basically, "Look at these depictions. She's white. She's so white. I have nothing against this individual except that she isn't white enough for what she wants to do. History is being black-washed."
Then you threw on an extra "revisionist history" and a vague, ominous threat in "...for now" while simultaneously laughing at the insulation that you just did those things?

I mean, even if we reduce this whole thing down to "she just doesn't fit the part" (because of her race), and the term "black-washing," we have:
A) Being exclusionary based on an individual's skin coloring.
B) Pushing a narrative that "white history" is under attack.

Come the fuck on.
 
#66
You have a disgustingly broad opinion on what "alt right" is. Nothing in here is pro nazi or white supremacist. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in a race discussion does NOT make someone a nazi/white supremacist. To even claim such is fucking disgusting.
Let's see if I can respond to this without even leaving the thread to venture out into the larger forum.

There ya go guys. As you can see, well.... Some people want to 'black-wash' history. And many are fine with changing facts to accommodate 'muh diversity'. While I have nothing against Mathilde Edey Gamassou she just doesn't fit the part.
+1 to the revisionist historians .... for now.
"History is under attack by black people. (And their allies.)"
"I have nothing against this individual except that she shouldn't be able to do what she wants to do because of the color of her skin."
"Those 'black-washers' are safe... 'for now.'"

The white legacy is under assault? Discriminating against people because of skin color? Vague threats of violence should the world not conform to their views?
Yeah, that... That reads a lot like white supremacy, to me.

As for the Nazi part, I'll have to jump threads, but this was simply too perfect to pass up quoting.

its stuff like this that makes me wish Hitler had won the war..i dont even care if i get banned its the truth.
-AnimalFather, on censoring classical artistic nudity in video games.
"The Jewish population, Gypsy population, Gay population... All acceptable sacrifices if I can see breasts in a video game."

Yeah, I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that people were becoming more emboldened to share "alt-right" viewpoints. The idea is laughable. /s
 
Last edited:
#67
Let's see if I can respond to this without even leaving the thread to venture out into the larger forum.

"History is under attack by black people. (And their allies.)"
"I have nothing against this individual except that she shouldn't be able to do what she wants to do because of the color of her skin."
"Those 'black-washers' are safe... for now."

Yeah, that... That reads a lot like white supremacy, to me.

As for the Nazi part, I'll have to jump threads, but this was simply too perfect to pass up quoting.
This still just looks like, as I've pointed out, a post against the "OMG white washing" crowd. It is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance it takes to act as though this is ok, but the other side is the worst thing in the world. Albeit with little decorum.

It was also a direct response to your post reading;
There's really no issue with this girl playing a part in a parade and if anyone thinks it's an intentional attempt to misrepresent or rewrite history then maybe they should be doing more to make sure people actually know the original history.
As if absolutely any time a white actor was used in place of a minority character it was to rewrite history.

-AnimalFather, on censoring classical artistic nudity in video games.
"The Jewish population, Gypsy population, Gay population... All acceptable sacrifices if I can see breasts in a video game."

Yeah, I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that people were becoming more emboldened to share "alt-right" viewpoints. The idea is laughable. /s
Banned...

Does not support your claim that gaf has had a wild swing to alt rightness. Now, if he wasn't banned then I would agree. And I also see no one supporting the post or poster either. *one user might of, post was edited and user banned*
 
Last edited:
#68
Banned...
Does not support your claim that gaf has a wild swing to alt rightness. Now, if he wasn't banned then I would agree. And I also see no one supporting the post or poster either.
Alright, this one's more subtle, but:
What did you expect from a company that feels the need to indicate that their game is “a work of fiction crated by a team of various races, religious beliefs and gender identities” on every startup?
"What do you expect from a company that shoves their 'diversity' down our throats? I hate being reminded that people that aren't just like me exist."
Not banned, though warned. 3 people 'liked' this post.
 
Last edited:
#69
"What do you expect from a company that shoves their 'diversity' down our throats? I hate being reminded that people that aren't just like me exist."
Not banned, though warned. 3 people 'liked' this post.
That's an impressive reach...

It bears bringing up again, the point I've made before that there are certain users who frankly think anyone sitting to the right of chairman mao, is literally hitler. It's a disgusting and self destructive way to view the world. Now, I don't know if you think you are just a normal lefty or even moderate left, but it's clear that you are almost as left as left can be and you cannot see anyone who isn't as left as you as anything but hitler.

It's an impressive reach that this level of outrage in reaction to a company hiring a diverse development staff is leaning "alt-right?"
Because a vitriolic hatred of "diversity" and using the word as a dog whistle is one of the traits I most associate with that population.
It looks to be more a commentary on how the AC development very prominently point out just how diverse they are.

That could be seen as virtue signalling.

As a long time AC player, I've always seen it as a forward defence against people complaining about the religious topics the game touches upon in a fantasy setting.
 
Last edited:
#70
That's an impressive reach...
An impressive reach that this level of outrage in reaction to a company hiring a diverse development staff is leaning "alt-right?"
A vitriolic hatred of "diversity" and using the word as a dog whistle is one of the traits I most associate with that population.

Boiled down to its core that statement is pretty nakedly discriminatory, at worst, ridiculing inclusivity and varied viewpoints, at best.
 
Last edited:
#71
It bears bringing up again, the point I've made before that there are certain users who frankly think anyone sitting to the right of chairman mao, is literally hitler. It's a disgusting and self destructive way to view the world. Now, I don't know if you think you are just a normal lefty or even moderate left, but it's clear that you are almost as left as left can be and you cannot see anyone who isn't as left as you as anything but hitler.
Nah, this is stupid, reductive, and an obvious attempt to reframe the conversation, move the goalposts and muddy the waters.
I'm not "as left as left can be," I lean liberal fiscally but I'm actually surprisingly socially conservative.

I don't think all "right" is "alt-right" or I wouldn't need to add the "alt-" preface to differentiate them.
I think racial discrimination often repackaged as indifference or aversion to "diversity" hand-in-hand with a paranoid persecution complex that minorities are "eroding something" are headlining traits of "alt-righters," and that's what I'm seeing here.

If you consider diversity to be, in and of itself, an inherently negative thing - guess what? You're probably a supremacist in defense of whatever thing it is you perceive that "diversity" as diluting.
 
Last edited:
#72
Nah, this is stupid, reductive, and an obvious attempt to reframe the conversation, move the goalposts and muddy the waters.
I'm not "as left as left can be," I lean liberal fiscally but I'm actually surprisingly socially conservative.
I'm merely pointing out how you've come across when ever I've seen you post in such topics.

I don't think all "right" is "alt-right" or I wouldn't need to add the "alt-" preface to differentiate them.
I think racial discrimination often repackaged as indifference or aversion to "diversity" hand-in-hand with a paranoid persecution complex that minorities are "eroding something" are headlining traits of "alt-righters," and that's what I'm seeing here.
I mean, your evidence that gaf has swung alt right is 2 posts both of which got disciplined. Do you not think you should just retract it? Not only that but in the compass thread, the vast majority are still left leaning. Gaf merely no longer silences anyone who isn't far enough left. And yes, that was a thing before October last year.

If you consider diversity to be, in and of itself, an inherently negative thing - guess what? You're probably a supremacist in defense of whatever thing it is you perceive that "diversity" as diluting.
There is no racism in aversion to diversity for the sake of diversity. Everyone, minorities included, should be insulted by it.

For this topic at hand, if the actor was chosen specifically because she wasn't white, then there would be a reason to be annoyed. While it doesn't appear outwardly so that this is the case, in this day of social justice warrior mentality, it's not hard to make that leap. I don't agree with it, but it's not the worlds largest logical leap in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
#74
Alright, this one's more subtle, but:


"What do you expect from a company that shoves their 'diversity' down our throats? I hate being reminded that people that aren't just like me exist."
Not banned, though warned. 3 people 'liked' this post.
Post quoted out of context, after mod edit, purposely misunderstood and abused for sake of argument in a different thread.
Well done
1/10


@Topic: I don’t understand why this is an issue. She is simply playing a short roll, not starring in a historically accurate TV series or documentary.
 
Last edited:

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
#75
Really dumb controversy.

This is a "snowflake" moment as good as any. Who the hell cares? It's festivities in the town of Orleans. She's French, she's cute, she's learning how to to fence. What's wrong here? Because as we all know, a young woman who is bi-racial temporarily playing an historical figure this one year in some goddamn parade, is such a big deal!
 
Last edited:
#77
What is the point of writing "news" articles about internet controversies? Isn't it a statistical certainty that at least some number of people would complain about this? That's just the law of large numbers.
 
Last edited:
#79
Because it's a parade there is really no need to be negative about that, it's not a historical reconstitution or anything, just a celebration. For a movie one could argue that you have to "look the part", whatever that means (does Milla Jovovitch really look like Jeanne d'Arc ?).
On the other hand while reading about that parade, I was quite surprised to see that one of the four requirements for the position is to be catholic. Why such a condition ?
 
#80
She died over 500 years ago, artist depictions of saints and any other religious figures is sketchy at best. If she beat 249 girls to the gig, and has the mayor's blessing amongst many others then that should be that.

Wanting a white Malcolm x would be offensive due to 400 years worth of injustice, it could be the straw. The casualness of the insensitivity is baffling to me. Move with the bloody times and evolve.

Wasn't Joan burned at the cross anyway. Got a posthumous sainthood.
 
#81
The end goal is to keep representing diverse places with casts like this






As a kid in Europe I grew up watching Urkel, the Huxtables and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air when they aired on prime time TV. We didn't give a shit about the color of their skin, they were characters and each of them unique. I hope you're aware how incredibly off-putting your grating, rude and narrow-minded identity politics race baiting is.

And many are fine with changing facts to accommodate 'muh diversity'. While I have nothing against Mathilde Edey Gamassou she just doesn't fit the part.
+1 to the revisionist historians .... for now.
You are aware that this is the one and only contemporary depiction of Jeanne d'Arc that we have right?



Then you should also know that the picture was drawn on the basis of pure hearsay. Heck, we don't even know her exact birth date. Jeanne is celebrated more as a symbol than a historical figure. She was also raised in a deeply pious family and was so religious that she started hearing 'the voice of god'. I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sure that Mathilde, who is herself a catholic growing up in catholic school, can ride horses and fence, fits the part way better than most other light skinned European girls.

If the historical accuracy of a local event that merely serves as a cause for celebration and entertainment is so frikkin' important to you, then why aren't you up in arms about Jeanne's representation in anime?



Yeah... considering who Jeanne d'Arc was as a pious person, I'm pretty sure she would have much preferred to be represented by Mathilde. Judging by the comments in this topic alone, you and Krazen are two sides of the same coin.
 
Last edited:
#82
Ok let’s cut to the chase because this is unbelievable absurd.

1) ethnicity and even sex in stages roles has been something that has been swapped around since the dawn of human stage acting in almost every culture. See Shakespeare or Japanese theater.

2) The false equivalence that it makes pieces which are supposed to be historically accurate ok to portray people in less history or cultural accurate ways is absurd. Getting a white guy to play a historical black figure like Malcolm X makes no sense especially when there are black actors who can play the role competently.

3) it’s like everyone is suddenly ignoring all the local school plays where the kids play MLK or Abraham Lincoln. When you are working on the local level you work with what you got. When you work on a National or global level product and the purpose is historical accuracy and reverence then it’s best to be sensitivity to the topic at hand.

Not everything needs to be a full debate when a little common sense and sensitivity is all it takes. Honestly just being a decent and functioning base level intellect human being would have you draw the same conclusions.

Also don’t give me the false “well the other side started it” narrative.

As pointed out this isn’t something that recently started happens in almost every culture as they play foreign actors on a local level. Please don’t equate this to white people playing MLK when you have the means and resources to recruit competent black actors in a role which would require a certain amount of reverence. I wouldn’t cast Denzel to play George Washington and I doubt many people would agree to that.
 
#83
What I find most worrisome is anytime a black person accomplishes something white people try to explain why. This role casting is clearly a SJW situation, black panther is black pander, Obama was an affirmative action president(have heard this numerous times irl). Almost like people don't want to accept they earned this on their own merits. Somehow someway white people are responsible for black peoples successes. It's a common theme by many right wing talking heads and it is disgustingly transparent.

Just saw this....http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...ly-because-he-was-a-black-guy/article/2649946
 
Last edited:
#85
...So your stance is that if this girl plays this part in a local parade then people might forget that a white person did something once?
That's some pretty subtle racism, but it's still there. You're just using the dog whistle of "diversity" to push a narrative of white people being forgotten, somehow.
You're really just saying "'white' places should stay unassailably 'white.'"
Then you even end your post with a vague threat in "...for now."
I mean, if those darn "libruls" keep professing tolerance and inclusivity obviously your only recourse will be violence, right?

Seriously, you're just...reprehensible.
Ethnic french people protest non-ethnic french actors playing roles from french history.

Imagine the roles reversed for any other race and you'll understand the outcry.
 
#86
Nah, this is stupid, reductive, and an obvious attempt to reframe the conversation, move the goalposts and muddy the waters.
I'm not "as left as left can be," I lean liberal fiscally but I'm actually surprisingly socially conservative.

I don't think all "right" is "alt-right" or I wouldn't need to add the "alt-" preface to differentiate them.
I think racial discrimination often repackaged as indifference or aversion to "diversity" hand-in-hand with a paranoid persecution complex that minorities are "eroding something" are headlining traits of "alt-righters," and that's what I'm seeing here.

If you consider diversity to be, in and of itself, an inherently negative thing - guess what? You're probably a supremacist in defense of whatever thing it is you perceive that "diversity" as diluting.
Who's Alt is this?
 
#93
I mean that literally happens every single day in the US.. there’s no need to imagine at all.
Yes, in america this would not be a big deal, since genuinely ethnic french people are harder to find. In France it is much easier to find an ethnic french actress who would play the role.

Either way it's not the end of the world, but I understand the outrage.
 
#94
"What do you expect from a company that shoves their 'diversity' down our throats? I hate being reminded that people that aren't just like me exist."
Not banned, though warned. 3 people 'liked' this post.
Responding again on this. I asked the user what was actually meant from this and it was to point out what ubisoft is willing to do to avoid offending people. In the context of a thread about nudity censorship, it holds water imo.
 
#96
Yes, in america this would not be a big deal, since genuinely ethnic french people are harder to find. In France it is much easier to find an ethnic french actress who would play the role.

Either way it's not the end of the world, but I understand the outrage.
I feel like I'm missing it. Whenever Jesus is depicted in a parade or other public display, do we demand an ethnically appropriate middle eastern Jew play the part? No, of course not, and some people would loose their minds if such a person portrayed the Son of God. If this was an historical film or documentary, something that presented itself as a credible re-creation, I could certainly understand this being called out. However, frankly, my requirements for historical accuracy are pretty lax for parades. It's about symbolism and representation, less so authenticity. A woman on a horse who answers to "Joan" is, at least to me, good enough for this type of thing. Otherwise, where do we draw the line - era-appropriate horse breeds, correctly fabricated armour, proper weapon training, speaking era-appropriate French, etc.,?
 
#97
Links? Evidence? Anything that is near the same stage as a citywide celebration? Has no outrage associated with it?
So before I go down this rabbit hole with you I want to agree to the terms of the game before we begin.

I’m also giving you a chance to back out now. I’d look at my post history to get an idea of how I will reply so I think you should think long and hard before decideing to engage me. I can assure you everyday somewhere in America, some person, child, whatever is playing a role which conflicts with their race ethnicity.

What constitutes a citywide celebration? Can it be a local play? A parade? An event? Etc.
Further I never claimed anything about outrage so I’m not sure where that came from unless you misread something.

I’m ready to start this charade when you are.
 
#98
I feel like I'm missing it. Whenever Jesus is depicted in a parade or other public display, do we demand an ethnically appropriate middle eastern Jew play the part? No, of course not, and some people would loose their minds if such a person portrayed the Son of God. If this was an historical film or documentary, something that presented itself as a credible re-creation, I could certainly understand this being called out. However, frankly, my requirements for historical accuracy are pretty lax for parades. It's about symbolism and representation, less so authenticity. A woman on a horse who answers to "Joan" is, at least to me, good enough for this type of thing. Otherwise, where do we draw the line - era-appropriate horse breeds, correctly fabricated armour, proper weapon training, speaking era-appropriate French, etc.,?
It's a spectrum. If it's really easy to be historically accurate, I support that. If you have to go to great lengths to find someone who looks like the historical figure then it's not worth it.

If you're making a movie about Jesus outside of the region that he came from, the Levant, then no it probably isn't super easy to find a similarly looking person. It's really not a good analogy for several reasons, including the fact that Jesus is portrayed as many different ethnicity's' across the globe for centuries.



Otherwise, where do we draw the line - era-appropriate horse breeds, correctly fabricated armour, proper weapon training, speaking era-appropriate French, etc.,?
If all of these things can be done easily, yes they should. It's also much easier to find an ethnic french women than the points mentioned. Here are her qualifications, which probably hundreds if not thousands of ethnic french qualify for as well.

"She responds to our four criteria -- a resident of Orleans for 10 years, a student in an Orleans high school, and a Catholic who gives her time to others."

I think it's important to respect the ethnic traditions of a region, to a reasonable degree. I can understand why ethnic french would be upset. I don't think it's that hard to see why.
 
#99






As a kid in Europe I grew up watching Urkel, the Huxtables and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air when they aired on prime time TV. We didn't give a shit about the color of their skin, they were characters and each of them unique. I hope you're aware how incredibly off-putting your grating, rude and narrow-minded identity politics race baiting is.



You are aware that this is the one and only contemporary depiction of Jeanne d'Arc that we have right?



Then you should also know that the picture was drawn on the basis of pure hearsay. Heck, we don't even know her exact birth date. Jeanne is celebrated more as a symbol than a historical figure. She was also raised in a deeply pious family and was so religious that she started hearing 'the voice of god'. I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sure that Mathilde, who is herself a catholic growing up in catholic school, can ride horses and fence, fits the part way better than most other light skinned European girls.

If the historical accuracy of a local event that merely serves as a cause for celebration and entertainment is so frikkin' important to you, then why aren't you up in arms about Jeanne's representation in anime?



Yeah... considering who Jeanne d'Arc was as a pious person, I'm pretty sure she would have much preferred to be represented by Mathilde. Judging by the comments in this topic alone, you and Krazen are two sides of the same coin.

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/Submit
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"the