Being Inclusive vs. Being Authentic

So for some reason my youtube is being besieged by rant videos over The Little Mermaid live action movie by Disney… AGAIN. You'd think the algorithm would know by now that I only watch ER skits and debunking videos, but here we are.

The controversy (again) is over the "wokeness", the "diversity" (i.e. making Ariel black), and/or the fact that Disney is doing another lukewarm cash-grab. Often, the former will be used as accusation ("you're bigots", etc) to deflect the latter in the dumpster fire that are some videos' comments.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about this whole thing from a different angle. I've talked before about how I'd love a "little mermaid" retelling in a setting where all the mermaids would be of a different race than white. Preferably, that they'd be colored like actual fish, and look alien fish-people. OR, traditional, but different races. I don't want to rehash that.

I want to talk instead about this lolly people have of accusing historical diversity as "woke" and immediately rejecting seeing a diverse cast in a historical film taking place in a predominantly non-diversified society.

I get it, I've been there, but I'm tired of it, honestly.

Even in the most homogeneous societies, there were always diverse individuals living within. Sometimes in atrocious situations (like slavery) but other times as esteemed members of their society. Often, both these occurences took place at the same time even at the same area or country. Just look up "black Edwardians".

The same goes for LGBTQ+ people. Just look up Albert Cashier.

So what is my point?

My point is that historical fiction can be diverse and authentic. What it needs to not be, is diverse in the way we understand diversity now, the way we talk about issues of diversity now, and characters shouldn't go about problem solving issues regarding diversity the way we would now.

Even that is a bendable rule, but the essence of it is that in order to create a feeling of authenticity, the work has to be familiar enough and alien enough to signal to the audience that this society is different to the modern, current one in that its values manifest differently even if personalities, people, needs, wants, desires, dreams, and the human existence remain the same through time.

So, I cheated with my title. There is no 'vs.' in being inclusive and being authentic- you can totally do both things. What is required is simply to research and get in the weeds to see how the communities of the diverse people of the time acted and reacted, interacted and sought to live within the society you are seeking to bring to life.

Going against the main realities of the time will strip the worldbuilding of that authenticity. For example, let's pick a 'controversial' issue: the race and appearance of Achilles.

Achilles is described in the Iliad as blond and drop-dead gorgeous. (Yes, there are Greeks that are blond) His coloring and his physique marked him as rare and coveted. So if you want to be authentic, this is how you need to depict him. That said, does that mean that everyone in the Iliad was like him?

Hell no.

There is a full range, authentically described in the Iliad, of all colorings. And there is also a black king- his name is Memnon and he was from Aethiopia, according to Homer. He was a great fighter, equal to Achilles, and one who managed to draw blood from him (which nobody else did in one-to-one combat) before Achilles slayed him. But his life didn't end there. Because he was a demigod, Zeus granted his father a wish and made Memnon immortal.

So there you go. You can make the frigging Iliad diverse, if you do your homework. It'll be authentic, and it'll be diverse, and it will be awesome because people will immerse themselves in a time and place other than now where people did mingle.

The biggest problem with 'inclusivity' today is that the work isn't done. Instead of being inclusive, there is just copious and haphazard race bending, which has its own problems people sweep under the rug and yell "bigot!" when people address them.

I DON'T refer to works of fiction that are not aiming to be authentic, but rather inspired by the style of an era without being bound by the historicity, such as Bridgerton. Those are awesome fun and irrelevant to the point and issue I'm addressing here. If the work signals that styles are being used for a new, fantasy world, no matter how authentic-sounding it is, then all bets are off regarding diversity distributions and arrangements in the population.

The problem arises when there is a conscious or unconscious attempt to rewrite history, in a sort of edutainment trope, that tries to reframe history into something it was not. People who are passionate about history will notice and will be angry. People who have experienced certain things differently will be alienated.

And this is why we won't have nice things.

Make diverse, authentic historical works. Please, we need every one we can get. But for the love of all that's sacred, put in the work to depict it properly. It existed back then. Make it visible. Don't invent it.

Don’t forget you can now advertise on DrunkDuck for just $2 in whichever ad spot you like! The money goes straight into running the site. Want to know more? Click this link here! Or, if you want to help us keep the lights on you can sponsor us on Patreon. Every bit helps us!

Special thanks to our patrons!!













Justnopoint - Banes - RMccool - Abt_Nihil - Gunwallace - PaulEberhardt - Emma_Clare - FunctionCreep - SinJinsoku - Smkinoshita - jerrie - Chickfighter - Andreas_Helixfinger - Tantz_Aerine - Genejoke - Davey Do - Gullas - Roma - NanoCritters - Teh Andeh - Peipei - Digital_Genesis - Hushicho - Palouka - cheeko - Paneltastic - [https://www.theduckwebcomics.com/user/L.C.Stein/]L.C.Stein - dpat57 - Bravo1102 - The Jagged - LoliGen - OrcGirl - Miss Judged - Fallopiancrusader - arborcides - ChipperChartreuse - Mogtrost - InkyMoondrop - Jgib99 - Hirokari - Orgivemedeath Ind - Mks Monsters - GregJ