Love the video but are you gonna make a video about Outlander I literally started the show because of a comment you made about it in another video

Wait! Alice Kingston isn't white? I thought they introduced the whole genetic engineering backstory to explain how to white people had a biological black kid. Well at least Dr Who isn't as inappropriate as I thought

@Hannibal Vigour What is your issue with her? I ask in good faith.

Most white women go for darker skin men. Unless they are part black.

Re rape scene: Surely the real problem here is that race can't be discounted in the film. Did the writers forget that a character was black? Or that this historical baggage of white women and black men is a massive thing? Or . . . What??? As the plot's explained here, the book sex scene casts Daphne as a wronged person wronging, but does not create any false eye-for-an-eye moral equivalency, only understanding of her mental process in an abusive mindset. Fair enough -- interesting territory, as we could easily get another man-on-woman rape scene, and this, at least, explores less conventionally covered, more nuanced territory and seems not to be there purely for shock-value. Maybe it's even worse because men who have been raped deserve better representation in film and this trauma should be followed up on and not just this thing that is over in an episode.

Also the fact that the real life counterpart of the king was involved in slave trade is.....yeah.

Exactly!!

literally, i would have preferred if they didn't mention race at all because that didn't even make sense like wtf. you can't just mention race for 2 seconds because you feel obligated to and then not mention it ever again... if you're gonna talk about it then do it correctly and fully

@@lydhaile agreed

And the concept of it is like... still super dehumanising? That all PoC need to do to avoid oppression is be desirable to white people, which again is false, but actively ignores the fact our humanity is inherent and should always be respected. Not surprising when the dialogue acts as if it was a mutual schism, not one artificially created (and stoked) by one side in particular.

if you look at all if not most of the big companies in Jamaica and the positions of power, all you see are white or racially ambiguous men leaning towards looking white.

Well said. To me the whole show was a joke. I am black British of Carribbean parentage and as much as I was happy to see the actors of colour shine. The show made no sense. However in the end I just subscribed to the popular view of my black friends who were just so desparate to be included in a fake narrative lost themselves in the ridiculous fantasy.

best comment on all the comments section.

Royal family propaganda is second to none. People should immediately think of murder and domination when they think of the royal family not whatever this is

@@sagittarius1112able As the video said, and I will iterate, there is so evidence to suggest that Queen Charlotte was black quite the opposite. Also Micheal Manley having a black wife doesn’t change the fact that only Two Jamaica prime ministers since its independence has been darkskin. Their are multiple darkskin and actual black people who have been exceptional in history. Tell us their stories and not only when you want to fit the slavery plot line.

Yeah you can literally look at how well received Megan Markle was and get an idea of how that would've gone down 200 years ago

literally, doesn't even make any sense. i would have preferred if they didn't mention race at all

A completely agree that they should have left that out

They should've just totally omitted the issue. Most of us would prefer to see this as a fantasy. I'm tired of having to see black characters "struggle" in every show now. At least in the 90s/ 2000s we had shows where the characters were just living their lives, thriving as families, singles, etc.

That's where my head turned too. It was out of the blue and so surface level and never talked about again.

Valid criticism of the "what about the men" attitude arises from the fact that certain antifeminists use it to deflect attention away from women's issues, often without sincerely caring about men; it's used as an excuse to be misogynistic, and that's bad. It isn't saying that it's bad to care about the forms of harm and discrimination that men experience. I think a lot of well-meaning people misunderstand this. The problem with replying to a MeToo post by complaining "What about men being assaulted?" isn't that it's wrong to care about male victims of sexual harassment and assault, or that it isn't a problem that male victims are often underrepresented and not taken seriously. The problem is that it's detracting from an important movement by shifting attention away from women, without actually helping anyone. Teaching men that their consent matters isn't _just_ important because it means they would take women's consent more seriously too, though that's also a good thing. It's also important because it is bad for men's consent to be violated, period. They're people too.

I think a better way for me to have phrased this is consent is not a gendered issue and everyone has a right to it. I think all genders are think through a lens of misogyny to have unrealistic expectations and project things onto their partners. Men not feeling like speaking up about how they feel and how to talk to their partner about "not feeling sexy" dosen't exactly lend itself to them being able to put themselves in their partners head.

@Hannibal Vigour Not sure who you think is a lesbian in this thread but I'm a person who has sex with men sooooooooooo also you just hate lesbians? I don't think this channel likes that shit. and like, you CONDEMN them? to what HeLllL??? For real bro?

@Hannibal Vigour Nevermind, you have to be a troll

@Hannibal Vigour again, deciding consent is for everyone is not a form of mate guarding. It kind of seems like you're just antifeminist, and feminism (when practiced correctly) helps men too. I don't know why you assume "lesbians" are trying to steal your woman, it kind of sounds to me like you're not a great partner and someone might prefer a feminist lesbian over you. Basically everyone I've talked to would agree that consent is important and this angle is one of the most messed up ways to say you don't agree with consent. Also I don't know how you think lesbians are guarding you from strait women?

Omg SAME

My boyfriend doesn't get this lol. He always asks why I watch videos on shows/movies I've never seen .

Lol me too, half the time I don't even care about the shows/films that are being talked about! 😅

Same; I think it's because I'm not worried about spoilers but still enjoy listening to youtubers talk about their opinions

Same 🤣🤣

It's so sad our African aristocracy has been erased. There were complicated relationships later there of course with the slave trade being a business agreement before the Europeans decided to go full takeover, but before that there were gorgeous kingdoms in Nigeria and Ghana. Not just Egypt.

@@13realmusic aristocracys are not something to be proud of.

@@13realmusic If you are interested in actual african aristocracy, I suggest you read about the Kingdom of eSwatini.

@@leigy100 you're projecting white western aristocracy animosity on to non western aristocracy. Do reconsider. There's beauty and faults in every kingdom that's ever existed, but we haven't gotten non western kingdoms depicted from a non white lens. Asian kingdoms being an exception, and even in that on screen colorism is at play.

I mean on the one hand I hate the concept of hierarchies among people based on inane bullshit on the other hand I really like decadent outfits and hairstyles...in the heart of every rebel is a class traitor...I might resemble that phrase.

They would've avoided so much trouble if they did it. But they just couldn't stay in their lane.

Definitely, though to be fair, the realism of much supposedly historically accurate period dramas is debatable. Downton Abbey is to me basically propaganda for the aristocracy and by extension the British class society.

@@Monkeyninjaghost Oh, god, I can't stand DA's messaging. It literally falls over itself showing just how much better life was for The Poor when the aristocracy was still around.

@@amelieviljoen6766 i never got that message. i think we're meant to root for lady mary specifically sure. but the reality is that way of life is failing during the period of the show and 100 years later has failed. in the fictional future, the crawleys (ie lady mary) might prosper, but we know she won't be bringing the whole of the aristocracy up with her. i see some of the characters who aren't able to cope with the new way of things as sad without actually feeling sorry for them (because they aren't shown to have many redeeming qualities and/or neither does the way of life that they long for). but neither side is all good or all bad and their story can be entertaining without being aspirational or nostalgic even.

to be fair, a "historically accurate" regency would also be confusing to the modern viewer.

Beetlejuice gives me the creeps. Not in a fun way.

I saw the Beetlejuice cartoon before I saw the movie and oh lawd when I finally did my little baby girl mind was not prepared for it 💀

Same!! I’ve always been a Beetlejuice fan, but I was actually more partial to the cartoon because I preferred their relationship in the cartoon, I just thought it was more fun 😂

I thought the same thing, she would have gotten pregnant that way eventually and I wish it had happened like that

If you thought the sexual assault in the show was bad, you would be horrified by the book. I certainly was. I was shocked and beyond disappointed that they included it in the show. They softened it quite a bit, but it wasn't enough. I had hoped that because it had been 20 years since the book was published, that they would do better than that. Sadly, no...

@@larzinthelibrary2530 yeah as I was listening to the passage read out in this video and how the protagonist was talking specifically about how much power she was wielding over him and how sexy it was for her I was like :(( and the writer DIDNT think this was a sexual assault scene HOW :(?

@@mishaz4820 It was horrifying. I will agree with MelinaPendulum that the aftermath was handled a bit better in the book, but the scene itself was so obviously a rape that it was disturbing. He was saying "No, stop!" And she held him down. In the show it was a bit quicker and he just kinda said "Daphne?" but no obvious verbal objections. Still bad, though.

@@larzinthelibrary2530 What makes it "rape" though? I didn't watch the scene, but it was my understanding the encounter was consensual & these individuals had been having sex for a while. She appears to be much smaller & not engaged in any sort of coercion. He was defrauding her by feigning infertility. Therefore, weren't they both acting badly?

I think it should’ve been kept in. I think it’s an important conversation to have and shouldn’t be shied away from.

Yeah it should have been kept in but written better and they should have had a consultant

Honestly, I think they kept it in for people to talk about it. There are many ways that they could have addressed Simon lying to Daphne (with Daphne confronting him about it / him pulling out), and then her realizing that he is lying to her again. That would have given you the same effect as the (less rapey than the book) scene. I feel that it was a production decision, as the actors talked around it, and (at least to me) seemed to think that it was fucked up, but couldn't say that/criticize it. There were a lot of really good conversations they started - starting with portraying Daphne as not only a heroine who WANTS to get married and have a good marriage, but also her lack of knowledge and naivete. They then go further and portray her as someone who takes her own agency back e.g. getting angry at her brother for claiming that Simon seduced her, etc. But then they also decided to keep the stealthing scene in. I would also argue that they basically smoothed past the emotional arcs by not having Simon tell Daphne WHY he didn't want children (instead of her finding out from the housekeeper basically). They wrote it essentially as the book did...which is dated...but they could have done so much better. And I think they know that, thus it had to be deliberate. It really pissed me off that they did not have her apologize. I think that it is a totally valid storyline - IF done properly. She had a husband that could have children but was choosing not to. She was brought up to believe her entire worth (her college, so to speak) was getting married, having an heir. She did that - she went further. And married a DUKE. And then finds out (eventually) that he lied and didn't want children. Maybe she thinks he's nervous about it, isn't used to having a family - but she knows better AND she's angry and that's how she justified it. Fine. But real conversations need to be had. Romance novels still sometimes like to force drama by not having real conversations, but I'd hope we are past this. (Erotica still does it and it's fucking annoying then too). Personally, I think all of the issues about colorism and queerbaiting will be solved by further seasons. Marina, for example, is a direct foil to Daphne and a (black) female character who didn't get her HEA at the end (although they are in almost the exact same circumstances)....will that be the first thing you think of when they do two more seasons and have other black/poc female leads (Simone Ashley)? I don't think so. I could be wrong. In that sense, I think they colorblind cast "too well". I am wondering if changing the heroine for the next season's name from "Kate Sheffield" to "Kate Sharma" is in response to critcism. Maybe. I don't know. The only thing I would "criticize" about this video is that I've seen a lot of videos critiquing Bridgerton that are really well done - but they seem to take Bridgerton as a serious, historical piece rather than what it is - a regency romance novel series. So by all means, critique the rapey, queer baiting storylines. But the point of this series is for every romance reader that said "wait a minute - we don't want to read about dukes who are over 60*, have syphilis, and ten illegitimate children, so why can't the duke be Indian? Or black? or Gay?" Any historical aspect should be minimal because the romance and relationship is the point of the story. In my opinion, of course. But I hope that its popularity increases the idea of adapting romance novels by streaming channels and cable channels. Bridgerton was almost essentially a blank slate, in terms of adding additional storylines, so I can understand why they chose it - but they could make so many other ones. Beverly Jenkins, KJ Charles, etc. *In England in the mid 1800s, I remember reading that there were only six dukes alive, and only two of them were under the age of sixty

Honestly, the first book is not to my liking. I prefer Penelope.

One can argue the race relations at that time in their universe was more progressive compared to ours around the same time. Basically, an alternate universe where racism wasn't as bad as it was here and just never reached the level of dehumanization but still there. Not sure if that is the way Shonda and them intended but it's the only thing that makes sense since this is supposed to be a fantasy. If not, it certainly downplays how bad racism was back then; it's not ok and makes the whole black aristocracy thing truly look stupid. Perhaps they were trying to say something about the slight privledge lightskinned especially mixed race people have in white society. More so in Queen Charlotte but again, it seems kinda shallowly done.

He has African heritage from his great-great-grandfather, is it really right to call him a POC?

@@kindateia Yes, you're right that he would not be representative of POC and was most certainly light skinned. But looking at his portraits, he was depicted as having Black characteristics, so he definitely didn't look 100% Russian or European. I just wanted to point out that there was a person of African descent that was a part of a prominent Russian noble family and is now the most celebrated Russian poet (on par or even more significant than Leo Tolstoy).

@@AzharZhanazarova yes, as someone who studied Russian history of the period I do know that and his curls are indeed iconic and made a lot of ladies swoon. But the thing is it's hard to define "European" as Europe is itself diverse even without migration. Italians and Greeks look nothing alike Swedes and for some reason weren't even considered white enough by Americans at some point, so it truly is a complicated topic. I do see your point and agree with it, though c:

Or even the life of Alexander Dumas, who was a Black French aristocrat, wrote the Three Musketeers, and got seriously white washed by later generations. There are a ton of actual POCs running around Europe, doing great things, throughout European history. Just because most white folks haven't a clue that Black people were actually present in history, is no reason to have to make up fake Black people to write about. XD

@@eshbena Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make (rather clumsily). It rubs me the wrong way that there's this narrative around having to make up fake stories about Black people in European nobility when these people definitely existed in real life and achieved great things.

when she did that i couldn't believe what i was seeing, it's so fucked up

I knew that happened in the book, which is why I didn't plan on watching any of it. The clumsy handling of race is just another reason to keep it off my to watch list.

@@MRuby-qb9bd thanks for sharing! I am considered white were I live (though in US or other places I would definetely be seen a slatino or mixed) so thats my bg when I say I didnt feel a problem with that. I just used suspension of disbelief and said to myself "well, at least we can have and see a more diverse approach for settings like this". Hadnt thought about the added frakauperry of the rape scenehaving happened from a white woman to a black man though. That does make it worst, and yeah, I hadnt noticed the colorism, but that`s also a good point Melina made there.

Seeing people constantly gush about this series all over social medias and actually seeing people discuss the whole thing (like this video) are two completely different experience for me as an outsider

@Anita Alvarez Cox exactly!! that scene wasn't necessary at all, they could have achieved the same thing without it. people are saying that if they went the route of her getting pregnant bc of his pull out game then it would have changed the entire dynamic of their sexual relationship but i disagree. they could have made it work, i'd take that over rape any day

And in the end, Daphne faces little to no actual consequences for it and gets what she wants in the end anyways, making it appear to be not a big deal to viewers, which of course is not okay

A Maria Theresa/ Frederick the Great feud series would be fabulous.

YES except for england and the US not a single country gets enough attention. We have the whole of continental europe, asia, australia, africa and Latin-America, all chock full of history yet we get 1000 Tudor movies. To be honest I even find it insulting that they'd rather make a movie about a black anne boleyn than an actual black queen of which there were hundreds, like their stories aren't even worth exploring

@@BelgianBisous you complain about west setting storys in the west🤔

there's a youtube account called Lili1127 which has highlights clips from an AMAZING Maria Theresa series from 2017. The clips on that channel are only from Season 1 cuz the youtuber doesn't really like the actress they used to play MT in the later seasons but it's so good. Season 1 is her youth and the War of the Austrian Succession up to her crowning as King of Hungary.

We need something about Empress Matilda. First female primary heir to the throne of England (she would have been the first Queen Regnant), Holy Roman Empress, and as such would have held the largest European landholdings since Charlemagne, responsible for the first English civil war following the Norman conquest, escaped by herself from a guarded tower in the middle of winter and ran across a frozen river through enemy territory, easily the most powerful woman of her time in Europe and for years to come, and yet there is nothing about her in pop-culture. There’s such potential for a great, feminist historical epic (Elizabeth I but 500 years earlier). At the same time it would be just more white feminism... but at least it would be new.

@@sagittarius1112able Except for you know the ones who were being sold. And those who hid from and fought slave traders

@@sagittarius1112able No, she didn’t. This is even addressed in this video. Her alleged Black ancestor, Madragana, lived 15 generations prior and considering she was born in what is now the Faro region of Portugal to a Muslim family, the daughter of the local magistrate judge on Sharia law, the odds are quite high that she was probably of Arab ancestry since she was living in a region that had been colonized by the Umayyad Caliphate. Even if her family were locals who had just converted, that would indicate they were descended from the Visigoths who had conquered Iberia in the 400s. But most likely they were a mix of both.

@@piratesswoop725 Portuguese mixed Arab-berbers of Moroccan descent.

@@piratesswoop725 plus, even if queen Charlotte did have a distant moorish ancestors, that ancestor almost certainly wouldn't have been black. There's a misconception that the moors were all black, when in fact the vast majority of them were arabs and berbers especially the elites. This is evident in the way moors were depicted in medieval spanish paintings as light to medium skinned folk wearing turbans. It was the arabic Umayyad Caliphate who colonized the iberian peninsula in the first place. There were some black moors, but unfortunately they were mostly slaves to the arab and berber elites. Black africans were enslaved by arabs in the trans-saharan slave trade for over a thousand years

@@hi-ve1cw So we're going to pretend light to medium tan black people don't exist? Sounds like gatekeeping.

Your not the only one.

I haven't even gotten to that part but I feel like I know exactly what movie you're talking about 😂

It was worse in the book. The show (and I say these next words loosely) "at least" made it seem as though Daphne was naive and sort of, but did, know what she was doing when she stayed on Simon. To me, when I watched it, they made it more of a stealthing scene (where Simon was fine with it, until he realized that she got on top of him to stay on him when he orgasmed, and THAT was where his panic came from) vs... The book he was completely drunk and it was completely nonconsenting.

@@virgiliacoriolanus5093 Now that would be rape

Yup and I bring that up in here AT LEAST we will have one next season

jeez...

It's why I kinda hate this bait of a question though because, on a certain level the person asking already knows the author is Ill equipped to deliver a certain thing...or else they'd already be doing it. So the whole point is to catch them in the explanation and tear then apart and brand them...either with it or a racist. It's a real waste of time and it's a sound bite dig and I kinda hate it but it's material so...

I think she was speaking off the cuff and deserves a ton of leeway just based off that alone. If you take the charitable interpretation of what she was saying, you actually run into a pretty interesting dilemma-how exactly can you keep a character relatable when, during such a time period, even extremely good-natured people were virulently bigoted due to social conditioning and sheer ignorance? She’s right to point out that simply pretending like her characters aren’t bigoted completely apropos of nothing would be jarring and contrived barring a really damn good explanation, and I can’t blame her for not wanting to even try. This isn’t just an issue with white/gentile characters, either. If you wanted to write about, say, an orthodox Jewish community in 18th century Amsterdam, or a group of escaped slaves living in Canada, or really any other group living anywhere else at the time, you’d have to depict pretty much everyone, heroes and villains, carrying around a shitload of sexism, homophobia, and general bigotry.

@@Jjames763 how can your write a bunch of historical fiction and ignore the racist and homophobic and everything you care about but still say these are good cherished people .....it innately says passive heterodoxy and is same issue i have with praise for handmaid's tale the novelist saying she sent black people back to Africa and thus didn't have to explore that but then wrote while novel exploring white slavery Ummm. You can't love this period be education on hair and bussles and know what kinda of love interest and still expect actual people of color to praise you. This level of ignorance and I mean literal ignoring a problem because you can't explain away your lack of perspective. Yet are able to research every other aspect of period. It feels like criticism lobbed at these creators is somewhat valid they wanted regency, antebellum to be more romantic than reality would bare , and maybe these should be referred to as romance fantasy which always peaks of white supremacists fantasy. Just an opinion

@@Jjames763 This is exactly how I feel. Having to respond to a baited question, while under a lot of pressure, and try to say something that is meaningful and eloquent is insane. I'm surprised she was able to say it as well as she did, and I completely agree with her. She's writing about a time period that is racist, sexist, anti sematic, classist, and a whole bunch of other horrible things just as the baseline for normal society. If you're going to write a storyline that challenges that you have to show that evolution, which she does with sexism and classism to an extent. But you can't have a character that's a member of nobility and was raised in this society suddenly have world shatteringly different views for no reason, and certainly not publicly. And you can't explain it away with "they're good people therefore they just inherently know racism is bad" because of all the things that implies. So for someone who is just wanting to write a cute romance you need to write a really heavy book, trivialize and simplify an issue in a way that's probably insulting, or avoid it all together. I get why she made that decision.

@Bella Rose I didn’t say she was eloquent, I said expecting someone to be eloquent when they’re speaking off the cuff and having to answer a nuanced question under pressure is unreasonable.

@Alex Styles Wow I keep seeing you under all these Bridgerton videos! Because like many other shows it conveniently biracial people at the forefront and parading them around as black. Both the main male character and the supporting character are supposed to be these beacons of hope for change in society, but the show doesn't properly depict how they would get treated for being biracial in that day and age. The creator of the show stated that it's not supposed to take place in a post-racial society or an alternate universe. So it still falls victim to the same repetitive blunders these so-called "woke or socially conscious" shows make.

All the sex is a bit much. I don’t think anyone sane has that much sex. Perhaps it is a fetish for the writers, who went dateless in high school. So voyeuristic.

I am an ace person and I'd love a sexless era of film :$ /nm

@@florastewart7957 Prudish much?

My two dead husbands think you are funny

That's rough. I dont know why ppl cant respect that something they enjoy could be flawed without getting so worked up. I enjoyed the show in a turn your brain off visual spectacle kind of way, but I'm also someone who loves all things jane Austin, the books, adaptations, especially pride and prejudice and this show was like a sexy pride and prejudice fantasy. But when I watched it, I did notice the colorism right away, so when I told my friend who is a darker skinned black woman about the show and how I did enjoy it, I did warn her that this was one of the shows most obvious flaws and one she will notice probably quicker than I did. Like I know the colorism in this show isnt gonna hit me emotionally, a lightish skinned south asian girl, the same way it will hit my friend, and I dont think it's something I should be offended about even though I did enjoy the show Well enough

@@user-po3nr7ez3n Agreed I don’t understand why ppl can’t do that, nothing is without flaws. Thank you for your comment. I’m glad we are getting a dark skin Asian women next season but I still think we have to acknowledging how Netflix chooses to cast black people more specifically black women. I should not be shocked when I see a black women who looks like me in a lead role but I am because we rarely get dark skin black women as a led role on a Netflix show, they are always mixed or light skin and I’m tired of that.

Sucks that happened. I just recently discovered Julia Quinn and binged the books. I really like them but I honestly don't have any plans to see the show either. I've just got too many books to read and the book is almost invariably better. I'm genderqueer and pretty much never see myself represented. (Not sure I have a strong urge to honestly, but it is nice if done well.) Not to excuse anyone being rude but I think there's a reason a lot of fans of romance in particular get defensive considering the massive stigma against it. For let's be honest, no other reason than sexism. Yes, romance, mainstream historical romance in particular, has issues of racism, sexism capitalism, etc but I think too many people are much harsher on that genre than others with the same problems. Fantasy, Steampunk, you name it, y'know? And I think for far too many youtubers it's not because they give a shit about these issues, it's just about clickbait and jumping on the hate bandwagon, etc. It's why I trust Melinapendulum as she is one of the few whom will give an actual nuanced perspective.

I know. I commented that Anthony was abusive and that it would make it difficult to root for next season, and I was blasted into oblivion. Still stand by my opinion. He worked well as a villain. I didnt expect him to be the lead of season 2.

Might I suggest Khadija Mbowe's video? She definitely addresses colorism in the show.

Great suggestion!

an excellent point!

Exactly, just say y'all hate POC and GO.

Am I missing something? What are you talking about?

@@alexman378 it's just a request for her to expand on a point she made in the video. It's a good point and would make a very interesting topic in it's own right. You're not missing anything.

Same, I would rather they didn't even address race than have it be that.

@@a.inesfidalgo3367 exactly. they only mentioned race because they felt obligated to, but now that we know race exists in that world and it's not just some fantasy land, it messes up the entire dynamic because nothing else makes sense. like if you're gonna talk about it, at least do it right.

They left their position as working members of the royal family, but Harry is, and always will be (until he dies/unless he converts to Catholicism) in the line of succession. Same with Archie and the future baby when it’s born. Their places will fluctuate with the eventual deaths of their great grandmother and grandfather, and eventually when their three cousins start having children, but they cannot have their right to succeed removed or taken away.

You're wrong. They left their position as working royals voluntarily. But despite this, Harry and Archie are still in the line of succession. And the british public don't hate Meghan for race reasons, she's only 1/4 black anyway and is very white-passing, they hate her because she's a hypocrite and a liar

I tried looking for your comment on Black Panther 2 but I couldn’t find a single comment about you complaining about the lack of diversity there. I also had a quick look at Shang-Chi, but no comment from you complaining about the lack of diversity. What’s going on here Joanna? Are we being a little stupid?

I don't see anything progressive about creating a fantasy universe where 18th century europe wasnt racist and black people were treated equally by members of high society. First of all, the number of black people in late 18th century England was tiny; the black population of london during the late 1700s was only 1% and this was the most diverse city in the whole of Europe at the time. And that 1% of black people was predominantly made up of escaped slaves. Slavery was technically always illegal WITHIN the UK, it just wasn't in the colonies, so when slave ships stopped off in England before heading to the US and the caribbean if a slave escaped they weren't allowed to be resold on english soil. There are a few examples of these ex slaves achieving some success in England, such as Bill Richmond who became a famous boxer and several prominent black abolitionists such as Olaudah Equiano. However, the majority of black people in 18th century england lived impoverished lives. I don't see anything progressive about shows like Bridgerton pretending that reality was any different, it's just whitewashing history

@@jimkillerx "are we being a little stupid" not 'we', just 'you'.

Is it, tho? Because seeing those stays without a chemise underneath is visual cringe.

@@annenonimus6709 best comment

@@annenonimus6709 it can be a feast for the eyes in an ahistorical fantasy setting lol

@@kraziiXIII Nah, still cringe. No chemise under corse is like no socks. Your feet are gonna be sweaty, your shoes will stink and your feet are also gonna get hurt.

The Great was a much better feast for the eyes. The costuming was 👌👌

I LOVE THAT BOOK!

Historical accuracy debate tends to revolve around the topics that make blood boil the most in today's world, so race and sexual orientation. But that's only one issue and a relatively easy to avoid at that (most of those casting choices are made by producers anyway and it's always big news on Twitter and the like so it's part of the marketing campaign). What is truly remarkable is just the unpronouncable chasm between the actual worldview of the past and the one we are presented with: nobody gives a fuck about religion, everybody spouts American-style cynical humor like a late night show host and everything is just. So. Damn. *Sexualized!* Yeah, well, sorry. Much of history is boring. Those folks weren't the same as we. That's perhaps why only the select few writers can actually get them right. But they tend to put their efforts in some genuine pieces, not tween fantasies.

It sounded more like "I dont want to have to write a reason for them to not be racist in historical eras where most people would be racist"

To be fair, I prefer Quinn's reasoning not to place other races in her books, rather than the clumsy 'solving' of racism in the Netflix series. She just doesn't have the range, and I wish she'd literally just said that 🤭

I think it's sensible: I think it's way too easy of an handwave for shows with settings that have widespread racism(either our "wonderful" irl brand of racism or fantaisy racism) to have the main cast be magically be naturally good people very aware of the underpriviledged struggle and not racist, despite the fact otherwise the entirety of society is racist It makes it too much of "racism is only a problem of evil people and people who make mistake" and while malice and ignorance is certainly a great part, You don't have a racist society without it being widespread and embedded in the system. The main character are often, willingly or not part of it either at the start or throughtrough most of the story so it's unrealistic to me a large group just so happen to not have the bad part of their society touch them for no reason. She COULD have written such a reason for them not to be racist/Deal in the story with the fact they have those bias but either way she'd have to at least acknowledge that part in story which is would have been interesting i would admit, but it would have been something ultimatly irrelevant to the plot she was writing

@@namoma4922 not quinn, but lisa kleypas have written some historical romance novels where the protagonists were of completely different class and social statuses, and those issues did take up a significant portion of the story. so i can only imagine how the story would be if the protagonists were of different race, bc that'll probably result in more scrutiny from the society they live in than ... a rich girl eloping with a barn boy or something.

What's the point of POC representation in media set in historical europe? I really don't get it. This was a place and time which was 1. Not diverse at all, and 2. Very racist. I don't understand how it's progressive to pretend otherwise. Its almost like a kind of white supremacy, to think european history and culture is so superior that people of all races should want to be represented in it despite that not being a historical reality. The number of black people in 18th century Britain was miniscule, and the ones that did exist were not treated well. Why do you want representation in a culture and history which isn't yours and didn't accept you?

i don’t think i’ve ever seen him in a sex scene in a movie either so when i say this revelation had me SHOOK

He sorta does in My Private Idaho though its more of a montage of still photos

He uses the pull out method, so she could've just gotten pregnant anyway! There still would've been plenty of drama

I can't tell if they couldn't decide to go for the Gossip Girl in Regency era with modern thinking protagonists fantasy versus reality or if the writers have fucked up double standards about rape.

yeah if she went to a different man that would have been 1000 times better than having her commit R and then the show bot discussing the topic apporpriately.

Ugh that is what I HATE about Outlander, and specifically why I skip the episode where Jamie and Claire see Jocasta for the first time. All of that would be fine, if it was then PART OF THE STORYLINE. Jamie and Claire and the Underground Railroad or something. I see a lot of people who criticize the show for not including the minor POC characters (A lot were pissed when Phaedre was not in the 5th season, etc) - and I'm like why? Their function in the book (beyond the two - Phaedre and Ulysses - that had sexual/romantic relationships with their white masters) is to either be slaves or tell their stories to the white main characters, who nod in sympathy, say something supportive, and then leave when they've done what they need to. That is basically it. That's not representation. That's "you need to criticize the author for writing characters that can be excised so easily because the books are over a thousand pages long and they only have 12 episodes".

@@virgiliacoriolanus5093 Imagine I have "liked" this comment at least a dozen times. I can understand why "Claire goes back in time and SOLVES SLAVERY" wasn't something Diana wanted to do (and shouldn't have), but there WERE ways that the Frasers as white people - eventually as white land owners (!) - could have done more for slaves or indigenous people than just go "that's awful, I'm so glad my One Black Friend in the Future doesn't have to deal with this anymore". Girl, really? I get that they wanted a rich ally in the colonies, but Jocasta squicks me all the way out. "She's a GOOD slaveowner and Ulysses is in love with her!" The fuck with that. There are so many choices you could make if you want to have a rich or influential ally for them but don't want to actively make them a slaveowner. Jocasta could've had a living husband who controlled everything. She could have had a male relative who inherited if you wanted to keep her single. She could have lived somewhere else, in a place where she could "get away" with having paid help but not a whole-ass plantation. Cities were things! But this squirmy thing where Jocasta owns humans but don't worry, guys, she's one of the GOOD ones, she's one of the GOOD CHARACTERS (vs. being someone they have ties to but being around her is kind of making a deal with the devil to survive or something) is... eugh. Sure, okay. I'm further along in the show than I am in the books right now, so I don't know yet how the book is going to handle the Frasers' interactions with the tribe whose land they settle on. I appreciate, to an extent, that Diana doesn't too often give characters opinions or instincts that are hundreds of years ahead of their time. One of the things I like about Claire is that, for all her progressive modern attitudes, she is still ultimately fairly progressive in the context of her own time period (the 40s and then the 60s), rather than being a perfect 21st Woke Lady (mostly). I LIKE that she and Jamie clash because of their cultural values. I even find it interesting that she ends up striking a balance between Jamie's documented dedication to freedom for his own people and protectiveness of his own homeland with his period appropriate racism, and that Claire doesn't "cure" him of it through a heartfelt conversation, because that's not how unlearning racism works. But there are times when you can see the clear difference between "this is the character being the character" and "here is Diana Gabaldon putting in her own opinions, #nofilter", and the second one happens a LOT when anyone of color shows up.

Try Cat Sebastian if you're into Regency romance, especially queer romance. Beverly Jenkins also writes a lot of period pieces set in America, if you want to get away from Regency/Victorian, and she has a LOT of books under her belt to choose from

Thank you for shouting out the authors I love 💗

People who say that romance novels are problematic don't keep up with the romance community. Romance is consistently at the forefront of social justice conversations in literature.

Tessa Dare is another fun regency romance author (while not diverse) whose books ooze respectful consent and feminist discourse!

I adore Alyssa Cole. Also Sonali Dev has remixes of Austen set in a South Asian community in San Francisco.

LITERALLYYY WHAT IVE BEEN SAYINGGG,,, it’s straight up cultural racism

I love nollywood films

Ok the low-budget thing you threw in there gave me feels that I dont like as a Nigerian who loves nollywood. For 1, we DO tell stories about our history, they're just usually in native languages. I've watched movies about pre-colonial Igboland but it was entirely in Igbo. Secondly, alot of the "low budget" vibes are done on purpose. Nigerian tend to prefer informality in our story telling. It's why many actors are encouraged to freestyle even with a script. Third, MOST of the films coming out of Nollywood today do not even still have the "low budget" vibe of the 2000s. Infact I havent seen that since Patience ozokwor was her full villain self. And that was like in 2007 or something. Finally, we do not have access to the stories that you want to see because they were taken from us. Imagine blaming us for the damages caused by the colonizers loll Like we've spent decades since independence just trying to get 90% of our art back from Britain. What stories do you want us to tell when we dont know them? Please check how you dismiss Nollywood, and especially how classist it comes off when you call us and our art "low-budget" it felt rude. And after writing my thoughts I agree with my initial feelings

I'm from Egypt and we are not black we can range from dark brown to white

@@mynameisuju I wasn't dissing Nollywood, I was pointing out a possible reason for why non African audiences might not be interested in Nollywood. Not that every Nollywood film even looks that way, or that there is anything bad with their storytelling structure, it just appears cheap through the Western film viewer lens. And native people do still have access to the stories and history in Nigeria and other countries that were colonized. The lack of artifacts and written records aside they still exist orally and people are working on making new records. It's just to say for example stories like Mulan or the European story of Sir Arthur and Merlin those urban legends to ancient histories get retold in fiction constantly, but I've never seen a western fim try and adapt any legends from Africa. If it happens it's in pieces as a plot element, not for a full adaption like The Hot Chick or Teeth. Bad Hair was more of a modern African legend adaption.

Amen!!! You set your own rules and alternate situations or narratives.

What do we mean ‘based on?’ Do we mean like aesthetically?

She uses not living as them as an excuse when she never lived in that time period either.

Preach! Some writers forget that they are in charge and that they have the control. Yet they don't use properly.

True but manifestly she value historical accuracy which is her concern As a writter i could also write a story where any politician attempting a racist law would get immediatly booted out by a public who doesn't tolerate that shit. And that can happen in real life. But what can also happen in real life is that most of the people won't give a shit if it doesn't concern them(yes false equivalence but you get my point) Call this a "as a black man" but I don't feel the absolute need to be forcefully included in a time period and social caste(one which in addition is cause of many suffering for others) which actually would have few black people in it. This only apply to "nobility" type of show in Europe/shows set in "very white" settings(high class america, some neighborhoods) and even in the latter i d argue there had to be at least one poc in it. In ANY OTHER context or setting however agree that Having poc demands no explanation at all(and in some setting, lacking poc is a big lack of realism) so not having them is either an oversight(a white author will tend to naturally think more of other white person, like a male author would naturally think more of male character), a conscious choice or a very misguided self limitation that old no real logic behind it. In her case this was circumventable either by writing about royalties of other areas(which would have required way more research and might not really be her place as someone not from that culture) or by including black nobility character inspired by real exemples. The former is not what she wanted to write about and it's valid In the case of the later it's not a fact known by many and to be completly honest the only example i have heard about before this video was in a moovie i forgot about which specifically treated the romance between the black noblewoman and some white dude(don't remember the plot) So while you could say she could have "just researched" i can't blame her for not knowing.

Thanks for the recommendation. This comment could be pinned.

Theres a lack of sources because there were very few black people in 18th century Britain, so its very difficult to research the few that did exist. Its estimated that black people made up 1% of london's population in the late 1700s and this was the most diverse city in the whole of Europe at the time. That 1% was predominantly made up of escaped slaves. Slavery was technically always illegal WITHIN the UK, it just wasn't in the colonies, so when slave ships stopped off in England before heading to the americas and the caribbean if a slave escaped they weren't allowed to be resold again on english soil. There are a few examples of these ex slaves achieving some success, such as Bill Richmond who became a famous boxer and several prominent black abolitionists such as Olaudah Equiano. But in general examples of 18th/19th century black people in europe are very few and far between, firstly because their population was very small, and secondly because most of them were very impoverished and thus did not reach the levels of wealth/fame/success in society for people start writing about their lives

Rude! And thank you so much

They can do that!?

I realised a few days ago I was unsubscribed too, and my memory for names is terrible so it took a while to find my way back 😅

I thought I was crazy because I just subscribed a few weeks ago and I clicked on this one and was unsubscribed

This happened to me too!! Wth

Now that was a great show!

Loved this show and I'm black.

Love this show

That show is all over the place. While I can accept one or two token black guys at court. (It was actually historically accurate) the fack that there were black actors playing rank and file Russian soldiers was too much. Can't wait till I see movie with black samurai.

@@grzegorzswist it's not supposed to be an accurate show though?

Agreed with everything you wrote!

I agree 100%. It totally ruins the story when a period character talks in 21 century fashion. It´s like the last adaptation of Little Women, when Amy has her stupid monologue abut marriage been a monetary issue. Like, of course a man of her period would know, she desn´t need to say so. It is only for us the audience to understand.

that one was GOOD

I’m pretty sure in the books Penelope was overweight but when she became a love interest she lost weight. Which is still problematic

I still haven't seen Bridgerton, but I've seen Still Star Crossed and it seems like it was a more organized adaption, as well as little better at the representation they were going for.

I’m still crossing my fingers that Shonda will bring it back on Netflix

I was late to finding out about it but I remember binging the hell out of it over the weekend. I was so disappointed when I got to the finale and there was nothing more.

@@StrawberryChaiLatte I was glad we at least got a kiss before the show was canceled, but it still has a bit of a cliff hanger, which is unfortunate.

Still pissed that Still Star-Crossed got cancelled and while I'm over the moon that Lashana is getting big time Hollywood roles now it also hurts that her success means there's basically no chance of us ever getting the band back together. (Unless we get a movie... oh my god imagine a movie!)

It may not be perfect but i appreciate how british tv handle their diversity, i think in a way it's better than hollywood

Right? There needn't even be gender blind casting. There's countless of examples of wealthy women simply refusing to marry and give their wealth and privilege to their husbands, and queens practically ruling everything through a dumb husband. but no let's do the 100th poor woman succeeds in life by marrying rich dude movie

You should try Gentleman Jack. Based on Anne Lister, who was about as openly lesbian as you could be at the time. She was a landowner and industrialist, and she had a "Boston marriage" with a lady called Anne Walker.

ABC sucks they always cancel their high concept fantasy shows in the first season I mourn Galavant and still Star Crossed. And before some chicken head comes at me with "What about Once Upon a Time ?"of course Disney's disaster of a fanfiction advertisement survived the usual cull people come out for disney/ marvel even if they don't like it.

@@FreyaEinde Yes, OUAT. OUAT was the Regina show (No hate towards the actress, she was the one good thing) and have 7,000 plot threads and all told badly. This was especially true for S07 when they finally did a Cinderella that I was on board for!

@@katherinealvarez9216 The truth!

It's wild. She's making the whole thing up she could do whatever she wants!

the whole shallow diversity thing felt very racebait-y

I think the problem is that this is a romance series. The courtship has to take center stage. Tackling these types of conversations are more for a drama series. The very genre of romance is meant to be escapist and the way the series has brought in race is not escapist. If the wanted to have more diversity in a romance the Brandy Cinderella approach would have been better. Maybe these issues will be discussed more in future seasons, but I doubt it.

@@swimawaylittlefish1542 absolutely

Exactly, like give me historical costume porn, but absolutely NONE of the contemporary problematic shit. I'd love to wear a 30 lb ballgown with 8k layers, a bonnet, and a cloak just because. The sky should be the limit when creating fiction and yet, creators have to be so damn boring and uninspired.

Like honestly they could pull a Futurama and just say that if you go further enough into the future the past "repeats" itself. Like Disenchantment has a direct reference to that episode in Futurama, which implies that Disenchantment is set further into the future than the year 3000, but is set simultaneously in a fantasy land while it also has a steampunk land in rhe neighboring kingdom. Like someone also could do a holodeck version of a Regency era drama or even have a whole country dedicated to LARPing Regency era social cues, fashion, social events, architecture, etc while having like holographic/robot servants (lol) and where all of the less appealing aspects of historical living (lice, bedbugs, bathing, chamberpots!) and having black people in positions of power and respect and "color blind" casting actually being "color conscious" casting while moving aware from making black trauma a main plot device.