[ SECRET POST #5989 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5989 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Friday Night Funkin]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #856.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

She wasn't black. It's fine that they want people to be accurate. But harping on it makes me go "Huh. You really really need to make sure everyone is very very clear that Cleopatra absolutely could not be and was not black I AM INVESTED IN THIS" is... IDK, it's uncomfortable.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean the problem to me is that it's not just a historical inaccuracy - I don't think historical accuracy matters all that much and I am fine with racebent casting in general even for a lot of historical figures.

It's the fact that it's a specific pseudohistorical narrative that bothers me. My issue is that I don't want to promote those kinds of revisionist ideological misreadings of history. If some racists who complain about anything where a character is black complain about this too, there's nothing I can do about that.

[(Anonymous)]

You definitely sound like you care a normal amount about this.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Oh no, someone cares about what's true.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you care this much about other, more widely known and accepted as "true", revisionist accounts of history?

Maybe you do, but the "I care about historical accuracy" reasoning from most people sounds a lot like "Gamergate was about ethics in journalism" the way they frame it.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you care this much about other, more widely known and accepted as "true", revisionist accounts of history?

Yes, I would say generally I do.

Maybe you do, but the "I care about historical accuracy" reasoning from most people sounds a lot like "Gamergate was about ethics in journalism" the way they frame it.

I mean you have to use your own judgment on that. But just to reiterate - my point is not that I care about historical accuracy in general; I don't. I'm fine with racebent and genderbent casting in most contexts. My point is that I generally don't like pseudohistorical revisionism, no matter who's doing it.

[(Anonymous)]

Tell me more about your opinions about the integrity of women’s sports.

[(Anonymous)]

Lol nice try derailing in lieu of actual arguments.

[(Anonymous)]

da
I hate all revisionist and inaccurate history Media. They even incorrectly annotate some photos in history books to better match political agenda.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. Yeeeeeah. Especially because the folks having a fit about the accuracy aren't complaining about the costumes, or the styling, or really ... anything else. HMMM.

[(Anonymous)]

... there's a pretty big difference between changing the race of an actual historical person and having costumes that aren't 100% accurate to the time period.

Also, as someone who knows an actual movie/TV costume designer, a lot of times stuff like that is done for budget reasons or for ease of making the costumes/having the actors be able to move around in the costumes.

[(Anonymous)]

You have a point, but I think it's also a heck of a lot easier for the average person to tell the difference between two races than it is to figure out which costumes are historically accurate or not. The latter is pretty esoteric knowledge, the former is fairly obvious to the naked eye.

[(Anonymous)]

The difference is that there isn't a big conspiracy to claim that the clothing of certain time periods was actually different than the academics claim.

There is an actual conspiracy that Egyptian Pharaohs were black and European colonialist powers have been covering it up. I had a professor in college who was one such person. He literally told us that the nose of the Sphinx was destroyed to hide the fact that Egyptian pharaohs were all black, which... no. Noses on statues just... break off, dude. Also, Egyptians themselves have stated repeatedly that they take offense at a so-called documentary claiming that Cleopatra was black. If Netflix had just not called it a documentary, I wouldn't give a shit. But they did, so I'm gonna side with the Egyptians and the academics on this one...

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know if it's actually true, but my grandfather told me the nose was shot of by either the French Legion or "the English" for shits and giggles.

[(Anonymous)]

DA but, yeah, the Sphinx's nose getting blown off by Napoleon is a really common story but it isn't true, the nose has been missing since at least the 15th century. There's stories that it was the result of an iconoclastic attack by Muslim rulers at some point but no one actually knows how it happened.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen plenty of criticism of the clearly painted cardboard accessories.