On one hand you are correct, the best example of a TV show like this is ripper street, set in london in the 1880s it does dedicate episodes to the Indian and chinese popualtions of London, but it does it it a mature and realistic fashion unlike dr who. You didnt get a rainbow of different ethnic groups prancing about in high society fashion back then, the immigrant popualtions in the past were typically poor and including them in any period drama should reflect that and the characters which are the exception to this are typically more intresting and thier story is worth telling because of this.If it’s not historically accurate to depict real locations with all-white populations, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. If it is, they should. Simple.
London throughout most recorded history has been an awful place filled with horrible people that would kill you for your shoes, it's just that historically most of the criminal untermensch have been Britons and/or Irish.They don't like period dramas becuase it harkens back to a simpler time when an englishmans home was his castle and when you didnt live in fear of your daughters safety when catching a taxi cab and when the biggest fear of the english mind was several contients away in some far flung colonial rebellion rather than the group of hoods down the street that would happily stab you for a £10 note.
Modern BBC desperately fetishizes black persecution victim culture and fervently wishes that England had had black slavery like America.I can understand it for America, but why England?
Try juxtaposing "Jewish" and "extinct" in an article title and I can guarantee you that this clown would not be responding in any sort of rational or thoughtful manner.It just hit me that they used "white" and "extinct" in the same sentence. Would I be approaching tinfoil territory to think that's sketchy and possibly subliminal?
There's plenty of interesting shit, both in African history and folklore, that they could adapt, but the people at the BBC and elsewhere supporting this idea that we must crowbar nonwhites into adaptations of European history/folklore almost certainly are unaware of it. They tend to operate from the same colonialist mindset their ancestors once did, but from a perspective of racial guilt instead of superiority.You see, nobody gives a shit about Africa. They are just aren't that interesting and will probably raise uncomfortable questions about the perpetual stagnancy of this area and the morality of tribe warfare.
I would argue that white neo-liberal racial guilt is just a different, and rather more malicious, mindset of superiority, since it hinges, when you get right down to it, on the implicit assumption that white cultures and cultural institutions are so invulnerably superior to anything else on earth that they can withstand any amount of destructive virtue-signalling and retain their hegemony. It's like the symbolic significance of the potlatch among the Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest: "Look at me! Look how much stuff* I can afford to give away/destroy! Bow before my awesomeness!"There's plenty of interesting shit, both in African history and folklore, that they could adapt, but the people at the BBC and elsewhere supporting this idea that we must crowbar nonwhites into adaptations of European history/folklore almost certainly are unaware of it. They tend to operate from the same colonialist mindset their ancestors once did, but from a perspective of racial guilt instead of superiority.