Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

From You Know That Thing Where:
Ununnilium: All right. In one of the new episodes of Doctor Who, there were random black people in a historical setting. None of the characters seemed to take any notice of it, and they were in a place and time where you wouldn't think there'd be any.

Is this, then, an emerging trope? Race-blind casting, for extras at least, even in settings where there's supposed to only be people of a certain race? Hm.

Red Shoe: There's a bunch of Power Rangers examples too, and kids shows in general. Every time I see it, I'm reminded of the girl in my eighth grade history class who would shout "But that's SEXIST!" whenever the teacher spoke of the roles of women in various historical periods, as if history ought to be expected to revise itself to current cultural sensibilities.

Phartman: Dude, I'm still hearing that stupidity in college. I can't tell you how many egos I must bruise whenever I respond to crap like that.

Ununnilium: Heh, yeah. Perhaps Politically Correct Time Travel?

Politically Correct History, to include when a Moor joins the Merry Men, and similar. Note though, there has been a small black population in Europe since the 1500s. Some arrived as sailors, others as servants, but either way they stayed, mostly marrying into the native population. They wouldn't be found in the nobility, or outside the great cities, but a few blacks and asian faces may be more historically correct than the writers realised - a case of getting it right for the wrong reasons.

Ununnilium: No, this is different. The black people in the Doctor Who episode seemed to be Frenchmen, not visiting Africans or any of that. French nobles, even.

Robert: Black Frenchmen isn't a problem. They were rare, but not non-existent. Africans didn't just visit, they stayed, sometimes marrying into the European population. Their children, while black, were also French/English/Dutch. It's the black nobles who mark it as Politically Correct History, not the mere existence of black Frenchmen.

Ununnilium: ...exactly. >>v

Ununnilium: Frozen in Time doesn't really mesh here.

Silent Hunter: In fact there were black soldiers in England in Roman times.

Ununnilium: ...okay? ``;

Ekkelis: You ARE aware that North African and Sub-Saharan African are completely different things, right? In antiquity the Barbary coast was inhabited primarily by Berbers with notable Phoenician and some other Mediterranian settlers present. Black people were referred to as Ethiopians and were believed to live south of Egypt and in India. As such, a Roman auxiliary unit from the province Africa, today's Tunis and Libya, would have certainly had roughly the same ethnic makeup as a Carthaginian unit.

Major Major: IMHO someone should work in color blind casting in Shakespeare here. The recent(ish) movie example that springs to mind for me is Denzel Washington in Much Ado Aobut Nothing. It's common, been done for 40 years or so, and widely accepted (except maybe for the main characters "Othello" or "The Merchant of Venice") and might provide some baseline for comparison for the other examples—there's actually a fairly big difference in philosophies between being indifferent to the gender/race of the actors or characters (as in the heroic fantasy stuff) and being consciously multi-cultural (the All American Squad example).

Jordan: I think the BBC series Casanova deserves inclusion, as it seemed to feature both black nobility and two characters who I'm pretty sure didn't exist and/or if they did were probably caucassian.

Ununnilium: Took out:

Still, 1900 against 30,000 isn't exactly an even spread, but -accurate or no- the 300 certainly makes for better drama. The film didn't exactly gloss over the early training, either.

...because it weakens the point being made without actually adding anything.

Jolanda: The WTC and West Side Story examples may well be political correctness, but they're not Politically Correct History. I would suggest removing them, or moving them somewhere more appropriate... (Not sure about the Iwo Jima thing either, there may be a reason for the Native American soldier that is not anachronistic or not PC, I just don't know enough about the history there.)

Sebastian The statues in the Iwo Jima Memorial are historically correct. The American Indian involved in the flag-raising was Ira Hayes, a member of the Pima tribe from Arizona. Amerindians would have had a rough time in the military under some circumstances, but they were not usually in segregated units, as blacks were. Also, since there were not enough of them to register as a threat to white racists, they had very few problems with riots, beatings, lynchings, harassment from officers and non-coms, all things black soldiers had to worry about whenever they weren't in actual combat. Ironically, when Hollywood decided to do a movie about Hayes, who died of alchoholism a few years after the war, they cast the part with a Jewish-American actor from Brooklyn: Bernard Schwartz, aka Tony Curtis. Additional irony: about the same time, the movie version of Audie Murphy's service in World War II included both Murphy, playing himself, and an actual Indian playing "Chief," an Amerindian squad-mate who died in Italy. Can't say who insisted on letting an Indian actually play an Indian in that case, but it was very rare for the time.

The comment about the firefighters is not really history, it is "current events" and might not be appropriate for the section. The awkward part about the controversy is that New York firefighters ARE almost all White. The union and hierarchy of the NYFD is dominated by a die-hard racist faction that both liberal and conservative politicians seem to cater to. Not only are women, blacks, hispanics, and most of the fifty other ethnic groups in NYC mostly excluded from serving, I understand it is hard getting anywhere if you are not ethnic Irish. Per the Denzel Washington appearance in Much Ado About Nothing, I don't think they were even attempting to recreate any period of history in that flick. The costuming department barely got past billowing sleeves, tight pants, and long dresses. Might not be a good example.

Stm177: The description of the trope doesn't match all the examples. Some of the examples are fictional works where the racial identity of the character is changed (Starship Troopers). That universe doesn't have a real history, so it seems like part of a separate trope to me. One where the directors massacre the source material.
Sci Vo: "Wodehouse himself, while probably a bit of a racist, appears not to have been a particularly bad one, for his time." My life's ambition is for people to say things like that about me after I'm dead. I leave judging my seriousness as an exercise for the reader.
arromdee: The Spartans training their boys brutally from the age of 7 is not ignored by the movie 300—it's mentioned in the first two minutes (they also mention leaving the sickly babies out to die).


joeyjojo: took out

"Of course, this can be explained by the fact that there is no Christianity in many Heroic Fantasy novels, and Christianity is at least partially responsible for the lack of gender equality. In fact, many fantasy novels have pantheons that include goddesses, so it would make no sense at all to have sexism in the setting."

As it doesn’t really fit as well as being very debateable.

Nornagest: Debatable? It's flatly wrong. Case in point: the patron goddess of ancient Athens was one of the biggest badasses in all of mythology, but Athenian women proper were under many circumstances not even allowed outside the home. The reasons for the distinction are unclear to me, but it's definitely not the case that goddess-worship equals lack of sexism.

Amen. East Asian religions are FULL of important, powerful goddesses; Kali, Kuan Yin, Amaraterasu, but did that have any impact on the status of real live mortal women? Heck NO! At best the worship of goddesses leads to high status jobs for elite women. For that matter Christianity brought us the Virgin Mary and assorted other wonder working female saints.

Gender inequality is, quite frankly, due in large part, to child-bearing and rearing which take up most of a womans' time and energy during the years that her male counterparts are building careers.

Doctrain66: Took out part of the second comment on The Patriot. Just because it's an action movie is no justification for the writers not caring about hiostorical accuracy.

Silent Hunter: I think that last example was Julian Fellowes Presents and it was actually a barrister.

Ophicius: "Even more recently, in "Human Nature", Martha is racially abused in the early 20th century." doesn't fit. Was it meant to be a counter-example?

Silent Hunter: Counter-example.

Randallw My response to the idea that the American Civil War was all about slavery went on a bit so I'm putting it here for discussion. <there being no rebuttal I'll add it>

Daibhid C: Pulled this:

for two reasons. The first being that it's not Politically Correct History, because it's not history. The second is discussed in Author Appeal Discussion.

Kizor: Please makes something of this that can be put back into the article.

  • Real Life: Read any history book for the masses, namely children's school history books. Just about every nation and culture has them match the prejudices of those currently in power.
    • This troper was amazed at how a person he knows who grew up in the American South, despite being proudly part American Indian and having no prejudices against blacks or any other race, strongly insisted that the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, but was about States' Rights. Apparently, the damn Northerners just were trying to put the Southern man down. While it is quite true that the North was indeed quite happy to take advantage of anyone, including the South, the entire economy and culture of the South revolved around slavery and when slavery was threatened, the South started the war.
    • Your friend has a point. It's complicated and politically correct to just put it all down to slavery, rather than try to explain the whole thing. God forbid the Confederacy be treated sympathetically. As the Simpson's writers knew. To become a citizen Apu (A real American Indian) has to explain why the Civil War happened. He gets into the specifics but is told to just tow the line and say slavery. Technically I would think the South didn't start a war. They Seceeded and the North started a war to force them back. People aren't generally told Lincoln would have kept slavery if it had meant restoring the Union. He set them free so the US were the good guys, and the UK and France could hardly support the slave holding bad guys then.
      • The Reconstruction period in the American South also tends to get glossed over. All I heard when I was in high school was that was the time that share cropping and Jim Crow was instituted, although my teachers insinuated that there was more then that. In college I learned about the Radical Republicans, and how they enacted measures that would purposefully cripple the South and allow Northerners to take economic advantage of them as revenge for the Civil War and the Lincoln assassination. The fact of the matter is that both sides were responsible for horrible things, during and after the war.
    • Japan refuses to discuss or acknowledge a number of atrocities it committed.
    • U.S. history is quite silent on the number of times the USA has invaded and removed governments in Central America. Including overthrowing the government of Guatemala because they planned to take land from the United Fruit Company at the price the company itself had declared the land was worth in their tax returns. When Guatemala refused to pay a much larger price the company demanded, the company got the CIA to overthrow the government.
    • ...You know what, just read anything by James W. Loewen. There's plenty more where that came from.
    • This troper remembers a section in the textbook that was only glossed over: The way America obtained Hawaii by deposing it's government.
      • Actually, what happened was that the sugar plantation owners overthrew the government and tried to join the Union. The senate committee sent to investigate this (a subtle bit of irony in that the American nation anthem played was Dixie and the leader of the committee was a pardoned Confederate) held the revolt to be invalid and restored the original monarchy. Then the ruling monarch ordered that all the sugar plantation owners be killed. 'That's' when America deposed the Hawaiian government.
    • Russian history and the Great Patriotic War. Those Germans didn't disappear from Poland on their own! Come to think of it just about every country glosses over their atrocities. The only exceptions are ones like Iceland- ones that have never had neighbors close enough to have to deal with war. To be fair to the Icelanders, they had to deal with starving to death.
    • Nor did those Germans conquer Poland in the first place by themselves.
  • I removed the attack on Lincoln because it was just that, an attack on Lincoln not an example of PC history.

—- PodPodPod Racist much? :| The idea around here seems to go that History is simply rewritten not to offend those clearly oversensitive blacks/"minorities" (or going on to women) when most of the history rewritten (or just centered on) is to not offend the delicate sensiblites of white/male/heterosexual people. A very blatant example is in American Public Schools ( talking about Native Americans or worse doing little plays with the Indians and Pilgrims being friends when it was clearly nothing like that.

The True Story: The Europeans came over robbed them of their culture and slaughtered them like animals (or purposely infected them with diseases), and then trying to kill them off later in other creative ways.

Let's just completely forget the Tuskegee Experiment, That lynchings were at an all time high in the 1960s, The Birth of a Nation - and basically all movies dealing with race and especially Civil War recreations from the 1960s backwards. Not to mention loads of other stuff. No the only time History is rewritten is to not offend women, black people (because there are only two races White/Black) and possibly "the gays".

Though one funny example I just thought of is "Ba Ba Black Sheep" turning into Ba Ba Rainbow sheep.

Nornagest: Well, first of all what we call "political correctness" can be applied to pretty much any group, and has been. But this trope is really fairly value-neutral; it's just about applying cultural norms in a historical-fiction context where they shouldn't have applied. Depending on your own attitude, you can play this as an excuse for socially dominant groups to feel better about their own past (whence you get words like "denialist" thrown around), or as a way to cater to the sensitivities (justified or not) of more socially marginal groups. The title seems to imply the latter, but the examples point to both. Let's not get too worked up about it, okay?

As an aside, the famous smallpox-blanket trick was done only a single time, by combatants in an active war zone, and it's not clear that it was successful (see The Other Wiki). Biological warfare is nasty stuff, but that particular incident has been blown way out of proportion.

scifiaddictActually that's just the only proven and admitted case of the British using bio-warfare there are other examples of the British being strangely generous(in the specific case of I'm thinking of they were deliberately trying to starve the local natives into signing a treaty) with things like blankets and clothing and then suddenly the area suffers an outbreak immediately after. There are also some possible Irish and Indian(as in East Indian) examples as well, some more cynical folks have suggested this was actually a pattern of behaviour for the British.

Kongming: Took out a weird little rant about how the US was incredibly racist and the rest of the world was much more tolerant because of slavery and segregation and so on. It was a reply to the bit about the black judge. For whoever added that delightful bit of nonsense: you should check out some books on colonial policy in British Africa or the Raj. Slavery does not have to be de jure to exist. But of course, Europe did have de jure slaves anyway, it's just that they mostly weren't in Europe itself. Europe, for a host of geopolitical and economic reasons, never developed the kind of plantation culture that existed in the New World. Hence, Europeans for a long time did not have to deal with a large racial minority in their countries like Americans did after slavery ended.

Some Guy: Removed the natter about slaves in Spartan society being "complex". The point of the original entry is that if 300 had mentioned slaves in Sparta, at all, it would completely undermine the message that Spartans somehow believed in freedom. All we really need to know about it to see the Politically Correct History aspect is that being a slave in ancient Sparta sucked balls, and it did.

Kizor: Could someone turn this from an argument into an entry and then stick it back in?

  • 300 presents the last stand at Thermopylae as being a stand by 300 free men for democracy against an army of slaves. This omits the fact that 900 Helots (slaves) died fighting beside their Spartan masters. True, the Greek city states were more democratic than Xerxes' empire, but they weren't the champions of liberty that viewers of the film might think. And then there's the fact that, in addition to the Spartans, slave and free, there were 700 Thespian volunteers who also stayed in the last stand. Notable as a rare instance of history being altered to be more politically incorrect. (In fairness, the film makes no pretense of being historically accurate, and is clearly presented as a campfire story-like exaggerated tale of mighty heroism, told by Spartans about Spartans.)
    • There's also the fact that they were accompanied by roughly another 5,000 Greeks for the first two days of conflict (though the graphic novel mentions this).
      • The film actually has the Thespians offer their aid. Leonidas uses them as part of a flanking attack (and then, only about 20 of them), and apart from that has them hang back while the Spartans do almost all of the fighting.
    • Actually every character in the film is Thespian (Well, a thespian)
    • The Second Peloponnesian War (which is what the movie is presenting) actually started when Athens and other Greek city-states were being attacked by the Persians they had defeated a decade before (a conflict in which, by the way, the Spartans refused to participate), and Athens asking Sparta for aid. This is markedly different than the way the movie tells the story, which seems to indicate that Sparta is the only Greek city-state that has the courage and balls to face the Persians
    • The Greeks were fighting, including the Spartans for their own liberty as they interpreted it, not that of their slaves or their neighbors. Just like a cat who runs from a dog desires her own "freedom from predation" and not the mouse's. Ancients, while they didn't exactly believe in might is right (especially when someone else had the might) often did, and assuming they had universalist standards is ahistorical.
    • Let's not forget some facts about the actual comparison of Persia and Greece vis-a-vis "democracy." While some of the Greek city states (notably Athens) were something akin to what we would call democracy, the city-state of Sparta was little more than monarchy and, in modern times, what we would call militaristic fascists. While the Persians hardly had a better system (it was pretty far back in the ol' BC after all), its entirely fair to say that women had a much better standard of living and a higher status in Persia than they did anywhere in Greece. As related to the pederasty note, Greek women were considered insufferable, traitorous creatures by those in power (read: Men) and most were forbidden to even leave the home.
      • Spartan women, however, had it relatively better than other Greek women (particularly Athenian women, given that misogyny was possibly worse in Athens than in any other city-state). In contrast to their Athenian peers, Spartan women were typically educated and encouraged to compete in athletic competitions, and had relatively high levels of freedom. This is partly because Spartan women were expected to be strong in order to be able to bear strong children and partly because it was often their job to keep an eye on the helot class while their men were off waging war. Oh, and Spartan women were also considered to be the hottest women in Greece.
      • This Troper, watching the movie with several friends of hers, was annoyed at the portrayal of Leonides' wife when she is effectively cowed by the guy who's part of the council. The four of us were saying things like, "that's not how a Spartan woman acts!" When she stabbed him through the gut, there was a loud exclaimation of, "THAT is a Spartan woman!"
      • Sparta was only a monarchy in name, the two Kings (yes they had two kings, no not for the reason you're thinking), whose politacal power was very limited and they served mainly as high priests and generals. The state was run mainly by the five Ephors (controlled civil trials, taxation, the calendar, foreign policy, and military training for young men. Could imprision the Kings for misconduct. Were the only ones who did not have to kneel to the Kings) If I'm not mistaken, the leper priests looking after the oracle in the movie, were meant to be them *sigh*. The democratic aspect comes in with the apella, assembly of of male citizans over 30, who voted in the Ephors and Gerousia (council of 28 elders, plus the Kings to made 30), and could vote yes/no on laws (couln't debate/alter them), however, if they made a decision that the Ephors didn't like, it could be vetoed. Then there's the perioikoi, who were niether slaves nor citizens, who ran the economy and trades (all Spartan citizens were meant to be part of the army/navy and not work in trades), they could also be part of the army as hoplites.

Rissa: Cutting this until someone who's read/seen it can clarify that it's actually an example.

  • This Troper turned off a made-for-TV movie of Mansfield Park shortly before Fanny Price (for context: she's a young girl in Regency England) started telling Sir Thomas, her wealthy uncle, about how very wrong slavery was. It was not the first example of this in that film, but it was the most obvious.
    • Isn't that actually in the novel? I admit to not reading it, but there's a comment in The Friendly Jane Austen about how Fanny Price is clearly an evangelical Soapbox Sadie who would be against the slave trade, so it wouldn't be out of character for her to express that sentiment. Austen herself certainly expressed anti-slavery sentiments.
    • Mansfield Park was written right around the time the slave trade was banned in Britain.
    • Fanny was absolutely terrified of her uncle, the most she ever dared to say against him was when he thought it would be too much for her to get up early to see her brother off and she REALLY wanted to see him before he left for the next few years. She presumably did believe slavery was wrong, but it is only mentioned once when, as evidence of her improving relationship with her uncle, she dared ask him a few questions about the slave trade. Bear in mind there is no evidence that Sir Thomas owned slaves, perhaps his failing income was because he had less lucrative investments, or, if he did have slaves, perhaps he used them in a less heartless manner.

Maso Tey: Now that we have Deliberate Values Dissonance, many of the aversions to Politically Correct History might better go there. Would anybody object if I moved them?

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Go right ahead. I hate seeing "aversions" in trope lists, because that's an invitation to non sequitor. So if there's a place those non-examples can go, use it!
alliterator: I removed this:
  • Not from actual history, but rather historical themes from literature: the movie Lord of the Rings is rife with political correctness, order to "correct" Tolkein's various intended themes— which likewise largely corrupted the ovrall story. The movie's tone was largely anti-hero, amoral and misanthropic, rather than heroic and moral: Arwen becomes a poltically-correct warrior-princess who upstage every male character at every turn, despite that this was a gross desecration of her culture and station, as well as her part in the overall story. Furthermore, Eowyn also becomes openly accepted as a female warrior, despite this being also probhited even among the more primitive Riders of Rohan; she also goes to battle only seeking death from quiet desperation, but the movie features her simply as "one of the guys—" except when killing the Witch-king, of course (who can't be killed by any man). Likewise, class-lines are erased, or made ridiculous rather than noble: hobbits became a classless society of white Euroepans, while the book showed a feudal society of white overlord "Fallowhides" (including the gentry-members of Bilbo Frodo, Merry and Pippin) ruling over a peasant-class of shorter, dark-skinned "Stoors" (which included Sam and the Gaffer); in contrast, royalty are portrayed mostly as over-rated fools— and their races are likewise changed from being "very tall, fair," and having "skin like ivory," to generic actors. Even Aragorn, supposedly the greatest warrior and Ranger in the world, is schooled by both the female leads (as well as both supporting-hobbits), and is made to look like a slacker who simply reforms. Finally, orcs are made to look simply hideously inhuman, while in the book they were more "mongoloid human" in appearance.
Mainly because it doesn't have anything to do with history (it's Middle-Earth, geez). Also, sounds more like the filmmakers were trying for a Pragmatic Adaption, rather than, say, having a 22 hour movie.

Matthew The Raven: Anyone else disturbed that s/he describes the movie as "anti-hero[ic], amoral and misanthropic" and proceeds to describe only the removal of racism, classism, and sexism, and making one character more heroic?

Doktor von Eurotrash: Yes. Also, wrong. Yes, Frodo's Hobbit tribe was a bit lighter-pigmented than the others, but I don't remember anything about them being some sort of "natural rulers" over the "shorter, dark-skinned" tribes. Frodo just happened to belong to one of the upper-class families. The Orcs were clearly described as inhuman in the book. Éowyn doesn't ride out as "one of the guys" in the film, it's pretty clear that she's riding incognito. I was annoyed by Arwen the Warrior Princess, too, but she doesn't "upstage every male character at every turn": her heroics don't take over 10 minutes out of a three-hour movie, and the only male characters she can be said to "upstage" are Aragorn (by sneaking up on him) and Frodo (by saving him). Gee.
Removed this:
  • Charlotte, in a painting said to be truer to life than others but which was rejected by Charlotte because she didn't look white enough in it. Much of women's fashion of the late 18th century derived from steps Charlotte took to make herself appear more European, including hair powder and the return of thick white makeup, which had gone out of style earlier.
  • This historian is obligated to call bullshit. While you conveniently link to wikipedia, you did not link to the refutations in that same article.

Because, while the points are valid, they're clogging the article with threadmode and refutation. And neither point cancels out or expands on the previous one.

Lee: I'm not sure if the examples given for BBC shows like Doctor Who, Robin Hood, and Merlin count. I'm pretty sure this is just blind-casting, casting the best actor for the role regardless of how the actor looks. The black aristocrats in the Court of Louis XV in Doctor Who are probably 21st century British black actors playing white French 18th century nobles.

Jordan: Not sure whether or not to revert the Wild Wild West example- the explanation given for striking it was that the president of the time, Andrew Jackson was quite racist. Presumably they were thinking of Andrew Johnson, although it's clear, since he appears in the film, that the President of the time was Grant.

Mac Phisto: Actually, while it's easy to assume Jackson was a racist because of his treatment of the Seminole  *, he recruited freed-blacks and Native Americans under his command in the War of 1812, and adopted several Native American orphans.

  • Subverted in Nobuhiro Watsuki's Gun Blaze West. The presence of Japanese Colice (Korisu) Satoh in 1880s America is commented on as unusual (she snuck in illegally) and she has racial slurs thrown at her at one point. Nobody comments on her short dress, though.
    • Gun Blaze West is an example of Did Not Do the Research, Japanese people were not barred from entering the United States in the 1880s, only most Chinese people were under 1881's Chinese Exclusion Act. Nor was there really much illegal immigration, people could legally immigrate by showing up at the borders.

    • The Hood legend has often introduced new characters to fit the political correctness of the day: Maid Marian and Friar Tuck were introduced several centuries after the first stories of the Merry Men circulated, to break perceptions of homosexuality and paganism amongst the band of thieves.
      • It's a bit more complicated, the two were pre-existing, associated characters from other stories which were folded into the Robin Hood mythos.
    • Nasir's presence in Robin of Sherwood has a logical setup, though. He was kidnapped by the devil-worshipping Baron De Belleme when he was fighting the Crusades. When Robin rescued Nasir, he ended up joining the outlaws.

    • Troy: Patroclus and Achilles were cousins. Achilles was totally in love with that minor slave chick. We swear.
      • Ahem! According to Homer (ie: the Source) Patroclus and Achilles were indeed cousins. And Achilles not only says he loves Briseis but calls her his wife. The Greek cult of Pederasty was a development of the Classical Age long after Homer and even longer after whatever historical event inspired him.
      • Telemachus quite clearly sleeps with another guy in The Odyssey, so Homer was clearly not averse to homosexual characters.
    • Heracles had more male lovers than female. Do not expect this to be mentioned, ever. Also, since the Greek pantheon is full of moral deities that are just like the Gods of Christianity, please ignore the bisexuality of Zeus and Apollo.
      • This troper once counted up and our Heracles had at least a hundred female love interests in the myths. I can remember one or two boys...but not that many.
      • Speaking of Heracles - no, wait, Hercules - he's the son of Zeus and Hera. Honest.
      • Who were most definatly not related.
      • On the topic of homosexuality, every culture has it glossed over. Conversely, in gay/lesbian studies classes, Crazy Horse's three wives are ignored in favor of a claim with little if any basis in history that he was gay, never mind that, even if true, he just did what other heterosexual men of his culture did.
      • To explain how bad the glossing-over can be, the article on Greek pederasty on The Other Wiki was repeatedly vandalized and proposed for deletion by a fine citizen of Greece who was infuriated that the article existed, because in his opinion no Greek in the history of the world has ever been gay. "Ask any Greek!" he shrieked. "They'll tell you this NEVER HAPPENED!!!! ASK ANY GREEK!!!" He then invented a ton of sockpuppets asked his friends to argue the matter.

      • This troper did not. Especially since in that case the people were mostly just living there and were mixed in faith and ethnicity. Also, the Muslims had come to conquer and kill them simply because they saw their claim as better. The trope still stands, though.
      • Incorrect, at least as far as faith is concerned. After the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered all of the resident Jews and Muslims. While Muslims were, at certain times, allowed to make pilgrimages (but not to live in the city), the Crusaders renewed a Roman decree forbidding Jews from even entering the city.
      • Hasn't Jerusalem always belonged to whoever was able to conquer it last? The Babylonians conquered it from the Jews, who were given it back by the Persians, then it was conquered by the Greco-Macedonian Hellenistics, then won back for the Jews by the Maccabees, conquered by the Romans, held by the Romans against two failed revolts, inherited by the Christianized Roman then Byzantium Empires, and then conquered by the Muslims. The Crusaders were just the next conquerers in line.
      • "held" is a fairly loose term in this context - The Jews won the city back for four years during the first revolt (66-70), and for three years during the second (132-135), before finally being crushed by Roman superior forces who regained control of the city.

    • Well, only "never, ever" if you ignore the loyalist colonials who appear at several points during the film.
    • The issue of American slavery is glossed over in the film, with Gibson's character presented as having freed his slaves, thus encouraging sympathy, which are then press-ganged by the evil British.
      • Hem-hem. On the subject of slavery, it is an accepted historical fact that Britain abolished slavery far earlier than America did and then took considerable and expensive steps towards wiping it out throughout the world. It is also an accepted fact that some patriotic American media gloss over this by portraying slavery as something Britain forced on its colonies. Now take the mud-slinging to the forum, chaps.
      • Hem-hem-hem. Britain "abolished" only slavery after losing the colonies— and with them, its overall interest in slavery. The Northern states did likewise when migrant labor proved slavery to be a negative-asset— at which point the majority of slaves were "abolished" by simply selling to southern states, where their services could turn a profit.
      • This troper wonders if his esteemed colleauge is aware of the Carribean?
      • Gibson does this in almost all his movies (See Gallipoli, Braveheart etc...), he is known to be very anti-British. Many people were surprised that he didn't have the Brits kill Christ in The Passion.
      • Gallipoli is, in fact, not an example of this, as the "English" officers are in fact Australians speaking in a manner typical of the highly Angliscised Australian upper class of the time.
      • In The Patriot, Gibson portrays the British committing crimes against humanity, including burning civilians, women and children alive in a church, including by an officer named "Col. Tarleton" who is portrayed like a Nazi. In reality, there was a real-life British "Col. Tarleton" durng the war, who is documented in history for his leniency, restraint, and mercy, but who was popularly known as "Bloody Ban" over a military error in judgement, which Gibson was quick to exploit.
      • Braveheart? The Scots (and Welsh) are British. Did you mean Gibson is very anti-English?
      • He's very anti-English only when the English are differentiated from the Scots. Otherwise he is very anti-British. He doesn't seem to know that the Welsh exist.
      • Given that, as a nation, their only significance outside of Wales itself was to provide archers for the English, this is perhaps understandable, especially given that said archers are referenced in Braveheart by King Edward himself.

      • Likewise absent from film, is the fact that virtually all African slaves were originally sold by the Kings of their respective native African countries, and that "slave-poachers" of any nationality would be either killed, or sold into slavery themselves.
      • A small percentage of slaves were knowingly traded. Actually, the slaves were trade as some form of indentured servitude or warfare. They were NOT sold to accommodate the slavery system as we know it. The vast majority were not.
      • Slave-dealers are likeise almost entirely portrayed as white, American, and typically "Southern;" in reality, however, only about FIVE PERCENT of the trans-Atlantic slave trade alone, came to the states.
      • Actually, that was six percent. Also, it seems that you are mistaken between overseers and actual slave-dealers, who were European, not American.

    • Apparently Saladin interviewed some captured women crusaders, but there's no mention of what class of society they were from. If anyone knows any further details...?
    • No idea on the Saladin interview, but it was expected that an upper class woman know something of siegecraft just in case one of her husband's enemies attacked while said husband was away.
    • This may have been Eleanor of Aquitaine's retinue, the French queen who went on crusade while pregnant.

  • In the alternate history novel The Guns of the South, time travelers from our era help the South win the U.S. Civil War. Once the Civil War era southerners read some "future" books. (Late 20st Century history books) that deplore slavery they suddenly decide it is wrong after all. This after having just fought and won a war for the right to keep slaves. Because them good ol' southern boys were just misguided.
    • No, it's because they realize people in the future are convinced that slavery is evil, and so their retaining it would alienate the world. In the novel they abolish it by compensating the slave owners, as had been done with other countries. It's the time travelers who don't tell them, because they're white racist South Africans who want a future ally of the apartheid regime, preferable with slavery. Worth to note is the famous Voor (long) Trek by the Boers into the interior was to escape British rule-because they abolished slavery.
    • Except that several times in the novel, Southern characters ranging from Robert E. Lee down to ground-level soldiers point out that the war was about states' rights until Lincoln made it about slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation. So Yeah.
    • States' rights to keep slavery, my friend. Many people on both sides couldn't have cared less about that of course, but were fighting for their states, like Robert E. Lee.
    • This is another example of Hollywood History as the Civil War was not about slaves but was in fact a nuanced conflict stemming from years of political anxiety.
    • Please-the states which seceded declared it to be an issue of property rights (slavery). It's fair to say this was also wrapped up in trade, culture, regional power struggles etc. but slavery was the core issue.
      • HELLO? The states seceded over the issue of slavery in the territories, not the states; however secession also surrendered all claim to the territories forever, therefore it couldn't have been over slavery, but simply taxation of slave-states through their constructive disenfranchisement from Congress. Hollywood History, meanwhile is all about claiming the opposite, i.e. that the war was about slavery, all slavery, and nothing BUT slavery. Likewise, Hollywood won't TOUCH the issue of each state's right to secede based on popular national sovereignty— i.e. the claim that the USA was never an actual nation, but simply a close association of many nations. Hollywood History is always about the simplistic, patriotic notion that the USA is one single nation— and that therefore any secession was an act of treason by evil slave-owners so continue their abominable practice.
      • They were afraid of slavery abolished nation-wide as well. Even so, if that was over slavery in the territories it still counts. It wasn't only about slavery, no, as I said. Their secession most definitely was to continue slavery as I said. If they believed in national sovereignty and states' rights, well, their support of slavery killed it through association, we can see.
      • The notion that the Civil War was fought principally over any other issue than slavery is revisionist garbage.
      • The American Civil War was in fact entirely about "states' rights". Northern States, notably New York, were trying to claim the right to declare any person on their soil permanantly free, and Southern States objected to this. (The Confederate Constitution is very specific: no Confederate State would ever have the right to ban slavery.)

Probably the most overlooked example of political incorrectness is The Taming of the Shrew, where a man "breaks an uppity woman" through first marrying her, and then using his legal power as her husband to "tame" her to his will- which he does by destroying her mental equilibrium though abusive mind-games, in conjunction with depriving her liberty and food, and otherwise torturing her in various cruel ways, until she finally submits to him in every way. Strangely, this is still considered a famous "comedy" which Women's Rights-groups never protests, despite being a prime cultural example of "male domination" or "Patriarchal society."
  • This is only one interpretation of the play, however; others portray Katherine as the hero of the play - a highly intelligent woman who shrewdly utilizes her seemingly "lowly" position in society to snag a husband (and thus, a higher status in said society) and ultimately reveal the hypocrisy of her family. Other productions, such as the one put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company in London in early 2009, portray Petrucchio as the ultimate villain and Kate as a woman who, while having nearly had her independent spirit broken, emerges triumphant in the end, rejecting Petruchio's attempts to conquer her with scorn and disgust. It's all in the interpretation.
    • Is it really an "interpretation" if you completely change the ending? Face it, the play is sexist.
  • Plus, this troper has seen and heard more than one feminist objection to the play.

  • During the Reconstruction era in the US (i.e. just after the American Civil War), there were two African-American Senators and quite a few Congressmen, all from Southern states, which were majority African-American then. "Jim Crow" had not yet been introduced. Today there is of course an African-American President, and only one African-American Senator, Roland Burris of Illinois.
    • Although the new head of the Republican National Comittee is also black. Of course, he got the post through bureaucratic skill, not having any significant political history.
    • It's a little bit more complicated than that - the Reconstruction state legislatures barred many former Confederates from voting and at least in the early years the African-American population (30% of the former CSA states) made up a rather disproportionate amount of the electorate (45%).
    • This extended to notary publics and public weighers who kept doing their jobs after the Confederacy took power in the Southern states.

  • The bicentennial celebrations of the Battle of Trafalgar (between the British and French navies in 1805) included a re-enactment of the battle between a Red team and a Blue team - presumably in a PC bid to avoid offending the French, who lost the real battle.
    • A similar situation is happening in Canada, with some separatist and sovereignist groups demanding that a re-enactment the battle of the Plains of Abraham (which the French lost, leading to the British conquest of Lower Canada) not be staged. This, despite the Americans and British and French nationals having no problem with the re-enactments of their own losses during the same war.
      • Re-enacting one battle among many others in your nation's history, even if you loss, is one thing. Re-enacting the moment your nation got conquered,never succeeding at freeing itself from the english domination in any way is something else. Ask native americans if they want to re-enact Conquistador Conquests or the Battle of Wounded Knee.
      • Take a breath there son. Unlike the Native Americans, you had repeated votes on the issue of "freeing yourself from English domination." You instead chose wangst. Empirical evidence would seem to indicate that you've made your peace with it, so why not commemorate?
      • Except for the fact that most historians now agree that the Battle for the Plains of Abraham was not actually all that important in the grand scheme of the war during that time. The battle was later upgraded to its current iconic status since it's merely the most memorable. The battle itself was no different from the losses suffered by Britain, and the war itself took place on several continents; it wasn't simply a "Conquest" attempt by the British aiming to annex New France. France itself ended up abandoning Quebec in favour of keeping Guadeloupe, a far more "profitable" colony. It really was "just good business" , as Voltaire famously stated that Canada was simply "A few acres of snow" and of no real value. On the other hand, The battle of Trafalgar was fought against a French Empire that was actively trying to conquer Europe, So Yeah...

    • I don’t understand – she was a disabilities advocate, a suffragist, a pacifist, and a birth control supporter. The only things that would really be remotely controversial today would be her radical Socialism and Swedenborgianism (some Christian group), but neither of those are enough to garner suppression.
      • Um...right. Many people do not like socialism. Ever watch Fox News? She was a radical Socialist and helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union. She, like other socialists, denounced racism and lynchings also. They and pacifists were persecuted in World War I for opposing US intervention. Keller was patronized as "taken advantage of" due to her disability, where as otherwise they praised her in rising above it-hypocrites.
      • Sometimes it's not realized in the rest of the world that to many Americans, advocating socialism is up there with advocating the legalization of child rape.
      • With all that in mind, the fact that the very-much conservative Alabama of all places decided to put her on their quarter is either this, or a case of Did Not Do The Research.

  • The Japanese government has decided that, in their textbooks, the Rape of Nanjing never happened. Therefore, when the Japanese meet Chinese people who are still really affected by the event (including some who lived through it), they tend to think that said Chinese are prejudiced bastards. The Chinese are not amused.
    • This isn't strictly true. There's actually been some very good scholarship done in Japan about the Nanjing Massacre and other Japanese atrocities during WWII, especially in recent years. On the other hand, there are some far right-wing groups that have threatened (and committed) violence for acknowledging Japanese crimes publicly, and some conservative politicians who refuse to admit culpability. Several of these were forced to step down after denying the Nanjing Massacre in public, but the result of all of it is that there hasn't been any public admission of culpability from the government up to this point, and there probably won't be.
      • The Rape of Nanking was only a tiny percentage of what Chinese now call "The Other Holocaust," i.e. the invasion during WWII in which the Japanese murdered over 10 million Chinese, including through torture, death-camps, medical experiments and other methods that were as bad as any tactics employed by the Third Reich. Naturally, Japanese textbooks omit this, as well as all other war-crimes.
      • To be fair... from a certain point of view... it's not like the Japanese just omit war crimes committed by the Japanese against foreigners. They're also rather keen to omit war crimes committed by the Japanese against... well, the Japanese. Just ask an Okinawan.

  • Just about every nation on Earth has their history textbooks show a Politically Correct History favoring that nation involved. An exception is Germany, for obvious reasons.
    • For a different look at U.S. history, which clues you in on what other history books never mention, read A People's History of the United States It can be read online for free here.
      • Zinn also is an acolyte of this trope.
      • And that article is just as biased in the other direction. Seriously, the Native Americans were just as invasive as the European settlers because they crossed the Baring land bridge and exterminated the native peoples of America (what)? Sigh Yeah, there were no people there before they came.
      • Speaking of this, most history villifies European settlers for "exterminating" Native Americans, when in reaity over 90% of Native American deaths resulted from natural causes due to European illnesses, against which Native Americans had no natural immunity. Instead, much is made of the "smallpox blankets" incident, despite that this was an incredibly minor incident during a siege involving a grand total of two blankets, which were ordered given by a low-ranking officer to Native enemy-forces during a seige.
      • Most native deaths were the result of disease unintentially brought by Europeans, but that doesn't change the fact that genocidal campaigns and mass-relocations were carried out against native populations by European settlers.
  • (I acknowledge I do not have enough reference material for this topic, but I think it fits anyway) An American came to my British school, having lived and learned in America all his life (he was 14) When he took history lessons, he was genuinely surprised to learn that America did not unequivocally win the Vietnamese War, the First and Second World Wars actually took place and were very serious before America joined them. He did not know that Britain had abolished slavey long before America. Either his school was woefully inadequate at history or there was something going on with his textbooks. (Or of course, he may just have not paid attention in class.)
    • A friend of this American troper grew up in the southern US, and says her history classes had a token section on the American Revolution and spent the rest of the year on the American Civil War. (And never got around to mentioning that the Confederates lost.) Unless that student from two steps up had family in either of the World Wars, he might not have known anything about them that didn't come from movies.
    • Fourteen would be high school freshman age. Up to that point, American elementary school history classes tend to spend an overwhelming part of their lessons on events up to our Revolutionary War, our Civil War and, if we're lucky, both World Wars. We're also lucky if our books don't start with the pilgrims and Mayflower story. The history of foreign countries tends to be a class in and of itself, and that actual history only gets touched upon as anecdotes to other American history lessons.
    • As a matter of fact, American individual states abolished slavery as early as 1777, while the importation of African slaves was abolished in 1806— only 30 years after America was founded; in contrast, Britain began the practice in 1617 against colonial protest, and abolished it only after the loss of the colonies rendered it no longer to be profitable, while buying cotton from them made by slaves-what hypocrisy.
      • This troper wonders if his colleague is aware that the British also held the Carribean, and that the South was really rather peripheral to the British slave trade in comparison.
    • The UK and France supported the Confederates, too, and contemplated entering the war on their side, fearing a united, powerful United States to overshadow them- which clearly happened.
    • They might not have taught it yet. This American troper's school district taught state history in fourth grade, American history through the Civil War in the fifth grade, then no history again until eighth grade, in which they teach American history though the Civil War again. They don't teach history again until tenth grade, when they finally move past the Civil War (in case you didn't know, most tenth graders are fifteen or sixteen). Of course, that was just my school district. Education is a matter left to the states and local levels, so it varies between districts. On another note, it's odd that any American student would not know that information about the World Wars or Vietnam, since both are regular topics of discussion in this country.
    • Additionally, American textbooks tend to portray the Vietnam War as unequivocably lost, not won. Views otherwise come from somewhere else. Overall it sounds more like he was just ignorant of history, having never had a thorough history course at all.
      • Um maybe because it was lost by the Americans. Look who is in control of Vietnam today. Notice how its called Ho Chi Minh City. Pretty soon you'll be saying that the United States had already won in Iraq.
      • South Vietnam was only conquered after we left and thus after our "Vietnam War" had ended. So technically we didn't lose.
      • The U.S. entered the war with the objective of preventing the communist North Vietnam from annexing South Vietnam. By withdrawing, they essentially surrendered and gave up trying to accomplish their objectives; that's a loss.
      • Most American textbooks don't mention anything regarding Vietnam after the American withdrawal, so the several years where South Vietnam was on its own (and when Congress decided to withdraw all aid from the nation) are therefore not mentioned.