"long ago in the heart of France"

>"long ago in the heart of France"
>half of the people are black

Not even a racist, but why would they do this? Would it be so bad if some fairy tale set in the past doesn't have diversity?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/02/steven-moffat-there-was-going-to-be-a-black-doctor-who
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Literally
>I'm not a racist, but...
lol

There's nothing racist about getting triggered by the lack of authenticity in my fairy tales.

Lots of blacks in France at the time.

>not knowing France always had a large black population
>not knowing French kings were descended from africans

0/10 go away Sup Forums

>the heart of France
If they're talking about Massif centrale, I never saw niggers in my area.

Wait, is this a shitty Sup Forums thread or did they actually have black people in a movie set in 18th century France?

What's wrong with "I'm not a racist but"?

>implying there were not lots of black people in 18th century France
>complains about anachronism while being completely ignorant of history

>Not even a racist

you should be

They had black people they literally bought as curiosities at the royal court, but that's it.

>did they actually have black people in a movie set in 18th century France
I'm just watching this. Literally in the first scene the prince has a ball and half of the women there are black. The second scene is in the village and around 1/5th of the people are black.

i dont really give a shit but it is frustrating because i know theres no way they would do this with white people in Mulan or Aladdin

There were, in their American colonies and in the court of nobles as pets, not in the fucking Champagne or Auvergne or whatever other French region the movie is supposed to take place

You gotta admit it was a little weird that a black man was a fucking librarian of all things.

I'm French and this is bullshit

Fucking retard, very very few black people were in France, you're right

That's what he said, we're all glad you can read. The monkey learned a trick! But what's wrong with it?

they did it because if they didnt do it they would get slated by mainstream commentators and panned in the press like the OSCARS SO WHITE fiasco a couple of years ago

it's the truth now goy

Stupid dumb racist scum. Blacks fought for Napoleon among other things. Why are racists so fucking deluded?

They want to perpetuate the myth that multiracialism is normal and not an aberration.

It's always used as a preface to a racist thought

You can stop pretending now

>implying multiracialism isn't normal
>implying Normans, Celts and Angles were the same race by racist standards
>implying "white" is not the result of racemixing
Lmaoing

How is "why are there x people in a setting without x people" racist?

This is Alexander Dumas' father

>Twitter and Buzzfeed told me so
Writing off his comment as wacist because of a phrase is a shitty thing to do

Yes, he was from Haiti, a French colony mainly inhabited by African slaves, and he was only half black, his father was a French noble that liked to fuck his slave maid

implying nations that had empires led the colonies population enter the metropolis
this is some next level revisionism
and the user was talking about middle ages not the 19800's

>moving the goal posts
I don't think beauty and the beast was set in the Middle Ages but I might be wrong

more black people live in france in percentage that white french ever lived in africa when it was a french colony
multiculturalism came after the fall of the empires, ironically
same in spain, there were no latinos in spain when the had their empire, now that they no longer have colonies, they have latinos in spain

Multiracialism isn't normal. The Normans, Celts and Angles were all White by racist (and everyone else's) standards. "White" is not the result of race mixing, it's the result of the opposite, of the homo sapiens that migrated to Europe being isolated enough to have evolved differently to other humans.

You literally have no argument.

>moving the goal posts
I'm not moving the goalpost, just stating that he did not live in France until his father bought him back after selling him into slavery, because he had no other heirs. He is a curious exception but hardly proof of any sizeable black population living in France during its history before the XX century, which is a completely false statement

>beast
>tall dark and handsome

>moving the goal posts
The goal post is "half of the people are black". You haven't scored a goal with your literally 1 example.

>they're skin is the same (which it really isn't) so they are the same forget the
>different haplogroups
>different language
>different religion
>different history
Yeah okay Varg all Europeans worshiped Wotan

And this is Pushkin's great grandfather. Wtf Russian Empire is black now.

>black people were oppressed and mistreated by whitey throughout history
>Europe was always diverse and blacks lived with whitey in peace and harmony for hundreds of years, being treated just like every other citizen, with the exact same opportunities and rights.

Which one is it? It's hard to keep up with history constantly being changed these days.

Hollywood FINALLY stops trying to cover up the fact that proud intelligent African-Americans have been present and contributing to important events all throughout the entire worlds history and you racist Drumpf supporters throw a tizzy and demand it get hidden again

Slave trade started in the Iberian peninsula in the 1400s. Metropolitan areas of France abolished slavery very early on (this is how Dumas got freed) There were no statistics for this at the time (at least not very good statistical sources), but, I am assuming there were enough black Africans in France at the time for it not to be completely ahistorical to include them in this story.

>different haplogroups
I'm sure they knew about DNA in the 7th century AD
>>different language
>>different religion
>>different history
None of those things define a race, they define cultures, and society was hardly multicultural back then: different people kept to themselves (also because Angles and Normans would have been the nobility while Britons would have been the peasants and clerics), or one culture eventually imposed itself over the others (like Norman culture eventually did in England)

I didn't say you should forget anything. A human is very different to a dog, but that fact doesn't refute the reality that we're both mammals. There are degrees of separation, this isn't complicated.

I don't think many Nationalists would have a problem with you using the violent oppression and cultural genocide meted out by the Normans/Angles/Saxons/Jutes as a advertisement for mass immigration and multiracislism though, frankly.

>tfw no qt black slave maid

why even live

>authenticity in my fairy tales
>authenticity
>in fairy tales
This never happened user.
They can tell the story however they want and no one can tell them they're wrong.

Except England doesn't speak a Nordic language and England doesn't have a Nordic culture even now. And we were talking about multiculturalism so the fact that they had different cultures is relevant. White Muslims and non Muslims genocide each other in the balkans regularly. And if different DNA doesn't define race idk what does. You are literally just hating melanin content and it doesn't make sense except for your fee fees

>black people were oppressed and mistreated by whitey throughout history
this is used when there are not enough blacks to make people feel bad and open the border
>Europe was always diverse and blacks lived with whitey in peace and harmony for hundreds of years, being treated just like every other citizen, with the exact same opportunities and rights.
this is used when there are already enough blacks and they are predicted to become the world's majority so the history books have to be changed to somewhat integrate them

>but, I am assuming there were enough black Africans in France at the time for it not to be completely ahistorical to include them in this story
Here's the part where you're retarded

you have to go back

We have numbers in 1800s that were in the low thousands for a country - even then - of millions, which would have no doubte centred around Paris. The idea that a random rural village would have been dotted with niggers like it was nothing is comical, frankly. Doctor Who is even worse for it. The producers are genuinely deluded.

cultural authenticity is important ESPECIALLY in myths, fairy tales and legends of said culture. I'm sure if a subsaharan african legend was made into a movie and it starred 50% white people, you would be among the first to complain about it.

>Slave trade started in the Iberian peninsula
there weren't slaves in the peninsula though
it was from africa to the american colonies that have had their native population crippled by desiease and a cheap workforce was needed
the caribbean population was extinct so that's why there were negros sent there, same as brazil wich was mostly empty
regions like mexico or peru didn't have slaves cause there was no genocide there so there was already a cheap workorce
in north america they were sent cause they were just lazy

There is no difference between races genetically and before you throw IQ into the argument try to imagine what the samples were for your racist memes and realize that those statistics like all statistics are fallible and using them to define your world view is confusing the map for the territory. And speaking of dogs there is a reason you wouldn't eat one or abuse one. Hell im a vegetarian so my compassion isn't even limited to different species but whatever.

>Slave trade started in the Iberian peninsula in the 1400s
Europeans didn't import African slaves to Europe in any sizeable quantity, otherwise there would be a historical Afro-European population just like in the USA, of which there is none, and registries of the slaves being sold in Europe, of which there is none
>Metropolitan areas of France abolished slavery very early on (this is how Dumas got freed)
No, he was freed because his father bought him back and freed him
>There were no statistics for this at the time (at least not very good statistical sources)
There are parish registries, graves and the fact that there are basically no people of African descent in France or any other part of Europe from before the last century to suggest the fact that there was indeed no sizeable African population (especially Sub-Saharan African) in Europe before decolonization

Who has numbers? And who is to say that village wasn't different from the rest? Again you guys are complaining about something so retarded it hurts.

representation is important, ok? it doesn't matter how things were in france a couple hundred years ago. today's society is diverse, the audience for movies is diverse, said audience wants and needs to see themselves represented on screen. deal with it.

>I'm sure if a subsaharan african legend was made into a movie and it starred 50% white people,
Mansa Musa with Michael Fassbender when?

That's Satan.

All this blatant satanism in Hollywood and you don't bat an eye

>the homo sapiens that migrated to Europe being isolated enough to have evolved differently to other humans
>according to my ass
You realize "Europe" is a completely arbitrary region right?

Do you even know who the Normans were? It's not the same thing as "Nordics". The language they spoke was French, and it transformed English from a purely Germanic language into a Romanic-Germanic hybrid.

English is a Germanic language just like German, Swedish, Norwegian etc.

b8

France was a colonial empire that had a lot of land on Africa.

That's the problem with colonialism. You can't conquer and exploit other countries without some of the colonial population always leaks back to the mainland. Hundreds of years later, you dumb motherfuckers complain about having niggers in your country. Should have stayed out of Africa then, asshole.

>There is no difference between races genetically

So you're saying a forensic scientist couldn't tell the race of a person based on a DNA sample? That's wrong, you know that, right?

>You realize "Europe" is a completely arbitrary region right?

No? It's bordered by the Mediterranean to the south and the Ural and Caucasus mountains to the East.

>There is no difference between races genetically
liberals now antiscience

>You realize "Europe" is a completely arbitrary region right?
relativism now in geography

my bad you are right but still I was thinking of the Norse invasions of Briton either way French and Angles and Gaels though similar are not the same. Homogenous whiteness is not real.

>I'm not a racist, but the Blacks should go back to Africa

>Except England doesn't speak a Nordic language and England doesn't have a Nordic culture even now
Normans had stopped being Nordic in culture after living some centuries in France, they had adopted metropolitan French culture and that is reflected in the fact that the English language, while retaining its original Germanic grammar, has a blatantly French-influenced vocabulary
>And we were talking about multiculturalism so the fact that they had different cultures is relevant
Theirs was not a multicultural society, the different cultures either barely interacted with each other (see how Celtic language survived in Galles and Ireland, despite being dominated by Norsmen) or they were completely replaced (see what happened to Anglian and Celtic culture in England)
>And if different DNA doesn't define race idk what does
Phenotype does, differences in the DNA don't necessarily translate to that, especially if your base of separating race is something like the genes in Y-chromosome

>That's the problem with colonialism. You can't conquer and exploit other countries without some of the colonial population always leaks back to the mainland. Hundreds of years later, you dumb motherfuckers complain about having niggers in your country. Should have stayed out of Africa then, asshole.
this is so fucking wrong
colonies population only went to europe after the european powers lost their empires because too new empires arise, USA and the USSR who control global politics and wanted it that way to keep europe down forever

be racist. it's natural.

>There is no difference between races genetically
Yeah right, they all must have distinct phenotypes my magic then. You should take this revelation to the press, then maybe all those companies that can tell you your heritage from a DNA sample might get sued for false advertising. It's fucking amazing how they always fluke the rights answers. This is mind blowing.

>statistics are fallible but my baseless assertions are solid

Get back to school, nigger.

you realize we all just float in magma right? i mean why should I pay my taxes in france and not in the cayman islands, we are all the same landmass yo

>includes islands for some reason
>includes Scandinavian for some reason
>doesn't include turkey for some reason

considering there are no large geographical barriers between europe, asia minor and north africa, our definition of what's "european" is completely arbitrary.

>why would they do this

To retcon history in the minds of the public. To seed a general sense that it was always like this.

They think it's a morally good thing to do because they believe in the multikulti society. If they can lie and manipulate people For The Greater Good, they think it's okay.

Ask liberal teachers and they will say it's their duty to instil values in students. Ask media people and they will say it's their duty to "fight the fascist narratives" or something similar. They really believe their manipulation is a moral good, so it doesn't matter that they lie.

Steven Moffat said it outright. See the pic. He admits it's a lie, and that they're doing it to manipulate people's perception.

theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/02/steven-moffat-there-was-going-to-be-a-black-doctor-who

It's disgustingly Orwellian, but again, these people believe lying for The Cause is just. They're exactly like christians who think it's moral to "lie for Jesus"; as long as people convert, it's morally good. Social Justice is a religion.

It only started making territorial gains in Black Africa after the Convention of Berlin, and blacks only started moving in en masse AFTER the dissolution of said empire

only 5 nations had african empires
somehow all europe have to have negroes

Complete homogeneity does not exist, that much is obvious. To say that a Sub-Saharan African is at the same distance, or even nearly the same distance, to an Anglo-Saxon as a Frenchman is would be retarded, however, and even children instinctively recognise as much. It takes a lot of brainwashing and social engineering to get people to believe otherwise.

No, it's completely based on culture, bloodshed and history.

We know it's retarded, that's why we're complaining. The fact that you feel the need to be an apologist for Disney however is quite suspicious.

no it's not
asia minor is asia is just that the turks have tracia wich was always europe

desu the most nigger filled ones are France, England and Portugal, which all had large colonial empires. The rest of Europe mainly has Arab, Turks and Chinese

>b8
How is he wrong though?

we're talking about genetics you fucking mongrel. you can't say "hurr europeans evolved differently" and then not have a reason why europe doesn't include anatolia when there are literally no geographic boundaries between the two areas

evolution is based on culture and history? what the fuck? this doesn't make sense anyways since byzantium was the only western civilization in europe for a fucking millennia. along with al-andalus which apparently doesn't count as european despite being in spain

Reminder that the so calle minority blacks will be half the world population in 2100 and the companies are just adapting to the great replacement

>north africa
what's the suez canal?

Then why don't white and black people have epicanthic folds like Asians?

Fuck (You)

>what are the ural mountains
>what is the caspian sea
>what is the black sea
>what is the mediterranean sea

>suez canal
a man-made canal in egypt that didn't exist until ~140 years ago? dunno what that has to do with anything

>The rest of Europe mainly has Arab, Turks and Chinese
yet thanks to the EU they now have to open their borders to africa?
and they have turks not because they had colonies but because they were the ones that were a turkish colony
somehow turkish imperialism is ok and turks in europe can stay but whites in africa can not

>Homogenous whiteness is not real
One think liberals get right is that race doesn't exist. White and black means nothing, those terms are made up, only ethnicities exist. Saying that one ethnicity is more white than the other doesn't mean anything at all really.

>there are no large geographical barriers between europe, asia minor and north africa
What are the Bosphorus and the Mediterranean Sea? The only part where the border between Europe and Asia is unclear is towards Russia

>what are continents

>thanks to the EU they now have to open their borders to africa
You're retarded.

>what is the english channel
>what is the north sea
>what is the baltic sea
>what is the mediterranean sea
>what are the alps
oh i guess those don't count though for some reason huh

>we're talking about genetics you fucking mongrel. you can't say "hurr europeans evolved differently" and then not have a reason why europe doesn't include anatolia when there are literally no geographic boundaries between the two areas
may because anatolia wich was greek was invaded and raped by turks who come from turkestan that is mostly asian? do you even history?
don't aply your relativism in geograpy
even though the suez canal was manmade, the red sea was always the division with africa
ask the arabs if you don't believe me

>Bosphorus
Okay then the English/Irish aren't European since they're separated by the English Channel. Same with the Scandanavians sans Denmark, and the Sicilians/Cypriots

Anatolia was never considered part of Europe, it was called "Asia Minor" for a reason