If you care to rebut those who criticize Merlin as unhistorical for having an African-descended castmember (with more substance than, "Yeah? What year is it set? Which episode's that dialog in? Got a map from that year with Camelot labeled?" or, "Oh, and the dragon is historical?"), bookmark this.
I'm going to have to rethink not having any black people in AKOTAS.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-13 10:24 pm (UTC)This film probably has a reasonably accurate depiction of both attitudes to and numbers/occupations of non-whites in medieval Britain, despite being utterly preposterous on the whole. Think about it - why were Gormund the African, Palamedes the Saracen and Thorstein the Black given those names? Because that was their most readily distinguishing feature. They weren't one among many, they were one among a few. Yes, Britain did have a noticeable non-white population in around 400AD, but most of them would have come over with the Roman Legions in 55BC or 43AD, either as soldiers or slaves, and when the Romans left, they would have lost their semi-protected status that close associations with an army brings. In other words, prejudice would have reared its ugly head, and the non-white population would have started to go down (proportionately, if not numerically). Any non-whites remaining would have been socially forced into lower-grade jobs - blacksmiths, servants, soldiers, and so on. The soldiers could have had an opportunity to make a name for themselves in combat, even reaching the heights of ruling their own fiefdom. And unless they stayed on their throne long enough to raise children who grew up as nobles, or if the king they served ennobled them for some act of heroism or chivalry, they would stay in low-grade jobs. They wouldn't become knights or abbesses, they'd become men-at-arms or nuns.
As an aside, I helped teach Angel Coulby to fence as part of her acting course at college.