BtEO wrote:I'll trust our commentary that said the majority of performers were volunteers
I never said that wasn't true. I only said that the actual show was written and main characters cast and posited that it's possible they selected who they wanted as filler from a pool of volunteers rather than use anyone and everyone who just happened to show up by random chance. I'll give you that NBC's coverage was rubbish, but I'm not really sure how that's relevant.
It was only relevant to your use of them as a source for why I should not believe the majority of the performers were volunteers. For reference, again, from the media guide:
The fictional family are all volunteer performers. Our heroes for the night are Frankie and June. Frankie is played by 19-year-old Henrique Costa and June is played by 18-year-old Jasmine Breinburg…
No doubt they were picked carefully for specific talents, but still from the pool of volunteers. Hence why NBCs unnecessary exaggeration of the process and your use of that to bolster your point caught my attention.
BtEO wrote:The great majority of the performers in the ceremony were volunteers, who ever turned up and was capable, would it have been better if they'd turned away black, asian, mixed-race, etc… folk because they felt it would upset the balance vs. whites.
What? Do you really believe that?
Obviously I misread you.
Deacon wrote: BtEO wrote:
Deacon wrote:I never said that it was an exercise in any particular racial pride
You just fucking said EXACTLY that. You shoved a couple of extra words inbetween "black" and "pride" but otherwise...
Words are important. There's a difference between racial pride and being proud of who diverse you can look.
BtEO wrote:it was not about black pride, asian pride, mixed-race pride, or even pure-bred-white-Anglo-Saxon pride
I see your distinction, but I meant the above to read that I saw no intention during my viewing to have any
specific racial or
overarching multicultural pride (the commas were OR not XOR.) Which makes your reply to that off-point then.
Apparently you meant to impart the same meaning when you wrote
Deacon wrote:Just for reference England is predominately black and should go to great pains to represent itself as such and to declare to the world its intense pride in that fact.
Again, apparently I misread, but perhaps 'non-white', or 'multicultural' would have served better than 'black' if you didn't want me to think you were calling out a specific racial pride, and maybe I'll try and be less specific too.
BtEO wrote:Those concerned with organising the show used whoever volunteered regardless of race.
Maybe that's true, that it was an inordinately large number of minorities were the ones who had both the inclination and the time to volunteer instead of their white neighbors, and the producers did not make any choices about who would represent the nation to the world. I don't know.
You don't know, but immediately speculated that it was desire to appear more multicultural than we are, possibly motivated by white guilt.
BtEO wrote:You sound like to kind of person who'd have gotten angry when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall.
I had to look that up to know what you were talking about. Comparing the manner in which a nation chooses to portray itself to the world during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics to a comic book character seems like kind of a reach.
I wasn't sure you'd get the reference, but knew I could trust you to look it up.
I merely pulled it up as an example of casting done without any attention paid to race — that such a thing could exist and not be a political statement. And that people can overplay the significance, perhaps angry wasn't the right word for you, but some people did genuinely feel appalled.
BtEO wrote:'This is Britain, it has people in it, this is a summary in music and dance and theatre of their history and achievements.' Not: 'This is Britain, in the days before the industrial revolution it had a population of nearly 100% white people, etc…'
It's impossible that it was instead, "This is Britain, look how color blind we are"?
That first interpretation is, pretty much, colour blind. I would feel that it is the correct approach, as opposed to requiring approximations of the overall ethnic balance of the country, or indeed requiring that the apparent ethnic balance be grossly misrepresented.
If the organisers of this event really did set out to explicitly highlight non-white ethnicities so as to make the country appear less white I'm with you in thinking that's wrong. But I simply didn't interpret what I saw that way.
BtEO wrote:It also repeatedly emphasises that the majority of the 7500 cast were volunteers (from all over the world apparently.)
Not just the London slums?
Yeah, that surprised me too. Though I still expect the bulk to have been more local to London, and East London. "Slums" is your choice of word though, not mine.