Month: February 2018
The last time I featured a Lifetime movie on my website, it was only to rail against it. In fact, plenty of Lifetime movies in the past few years have seen their fair share of online hate. But there are a few that skate by–films about Gabby Douglas and the friendship between Betty Shabazz and Coretta Scott King have been all right, and Queen Latifah-starrer Flint was, by Lifetime standards, well-received. But I think Lifetime might have hit it out of the park, at least casting-wise, with their upcoming film about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance. The actress playing Markle is a dead ringer for the future princess.
Parisa Fitz-Henley, best known for her roles on Luke Cage and Midnight, Texas, has posted several behind the scenes photos on her Twitter page, and the likeness is astounding. Below you can see what she and the actor playing Prince Harry, Murray Fraser (The Loch, Victoria), look like on set.
✨Sweet Dreams to you✨ Love, #HarryandMeghan #ARoyalRomance ??✨ @Lifetimetv @MurrayfraserA ? pic.twitter.com/xoowbJyJLF
— Parisa Fitz-Henley (@ParisaFH) February 9, 2018
In honor of #FamilyDay here in BC, bts pics of some of the Harry and Meghan: A Royal Romance @lifetimetv ✨Fam✨ — Dad, li’l Meghan, Will, Kate, The Queen and Harry. ??#HarryandMeghan #ARoyalRomance pic.twitter.com/JMhRGUcpvy
— Parisa Fitz-Henley (@ParisaFH) February 12, 2018
In the above pictures, you can see the actors playing little Meghan, Queen Elizabeth, Kate Middleton, Prince William, and Meghan’s dad Tom (Trevor Lerner). I don’t know what Daddy Markle looks like, but the rest of the casting is on-point; I mean, the actress for Queen Elizabeth looks exactly like the real queen. So if the casting is this good for everyone else, we can only assume Daddy Markle’s casting is beyond correct.
I’ve written before on The Huffington Post how I’m an undercover royal watcher, and as such, I’m already preparing for my all-day viewing of the wedding. According to Vanity Fair, the Lifetime movie, directed by Menhaj Huda, will be out this spring, probably around the time of Prince Harry and Markle’s May 19 wedding date. Whenever it goes down, I’m going to carve out time to sit down with a good bowl of popcorn and watch the Lifetime movie event of the year.
Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!
It’s Valentine’s Day, everybody. Everyone’s got their obligatory Valentine’s Day post, but I’m going to do things a little differently. You might say, I’m going to hack Cupid’s Day and inject a conversation about one of the breakout couples from Mr. Robot, Whiterose (BD Wong) and her loyal assistant/lover Grant (Grant Chang).
I finally had a chance to catch up on Mr. Robot a few months ago, and I realized how it slyly stacks its deck full of characters on the sexual spectrum. Tyrell (Martin Wallström) fell into the fanatical side of love with Mr. Robot, and while the show never portrayed Mr. Robot as purposefully leading Tyrell on, fanfiction writers could certainly find moments within the show to insert an alternate narrative of Mr. Robot using Tyrell’s fanaticism to Mr. Robot’s advantage. Darlene (Carly Chaikin) slept with FBI agent Dom(Grace Gummer) to try to help Elliot reverse the damage Mr. Robot’s caused. In previous seasons, Trenton (Sunita Mani) showed feelings toward Darlene and Angela (Portia Doubleday) has an intense makeout session with Shayla (Frankie Shaw).
All of those portrayals of sexual representation are cool in my book. But my favorite coupling out of everyone is Whiterose and Grant. Their time together evolved in this recent third season, culminating in Grant having to make the ultimate sacrifice. Technically, though, Whiterose decided his fate for him, citing Grant’s unchecked jealousy surrounding Whiterose’s interest in Elliot as an element that would get in the way of future plans.
Season 3 was basically a vehicle for Whiterose and Grant’s storylines. One of the consistent parts of the season was that it was literally not about Elliot; every other main character rose up to compete for the title of main character, and honestly, any character on the show could easily have their own spinoff. Whiterose and Grant certainly took this season and ran with it, and I was ready to go on their ride towards world domination. There large chunks of the show where I was actively rooting for them to win, to be honest.
I wanted to see what a world would be like under Whiterose’s thumb. Technically, if the season’s allusions to Whiterose’s influence in our presidential election are any indication, we already are living in Whiterose’s America. But while it’s hell living in it, it’s fun to see society from her lofty, expensive perch, where she’s outfitted in the finest of Rich Aunt fashions, drinking her champagne in the fluted glass handed to her by her one and only Grant, who’s dressed in the finest suit Tom Ford can muster. It’s a dream world of excess and financial debauchery, and in these times, which resemble the 1980s in terms of the juxtaposition of wealth in the media (like Dynasty and Dallas) amid rising costs and and an impending deficit, it’s a relief from our economically poor lives to watch how the other half lives (and makes life terrible for the rest of us). It’s a perverse fantasy, but it’s a fantasy nonetheless, and Whiterose and Grant sold it in spades.
It’s also a great character touch to show how devoted and in love Grant actually is with Whiterose, and the show makes our voyeristic time as viewers even better by showing that Grant’s love is not one-sided. Despite Whiterose’s ultimate dispatching of Grant, we do see how she does truly care about him. In Whiterose’s world, a world in which she gets rid of anyone in her way regardless of their station or their worth as a person, it means something to see her shedding tears and saying her final goodbyes (albeit while relaxing in her bubble bath with champagne) to a man who has meant so much to her. She has narcissistic tendencies, sure. But no one can say she didn’t actually love Grant. The only wedge between them is her greater love for her ultimate mission; to take power from Evil Corp’s Phillip Price (Michael Cristofer) and destroy him where he stands.
As far as character development goes, Whiterose and Grant are about as enigmatic, engaging and fun to watch as you can get. Again, you really want a show just about them and their machinations. But of course, just because I love their characters, that doesn’t mean I’m not without awareness of the thornier aspects of their representation, Whiterose in particular. Whiterose is probably a cause for contention among trans viewers, since Whiterose is identified as transgender, yet she’s played by a cisgender man.
Wong himself said to Vulture’s Matthew Giles how he initially resisted taking the role, not wanting to take the role from trans actors. He also didn’t want the character to be another stereotype of an “evil trans person.” According to Wong, he was told creator Sam Esmail did meet with trans actors, but didn’t hire any of them, wanting Wong instead. As Esmail himself told Buzzfeed’s Ariane Lange, Wong was his first choice for the role.
For Esmail, stated Wong, the character opportunity Whiterose presents is a chance for Esmail to show the dynamics of the gender power struggle in business.
“There’s a great challenge in being a powerful woman in a powerful white man’s world,” said Wong to The Hollywood Reporter‘s Chris Gardner. “I think that it’s part of his choice to make her a person who needs to be gender fluid to get what she wants.”
To his credit, Wong doesn’t give himself a break when it comes to the type of role he’s playing. “There’s a lot of things we can discuss that are connected to it. There’s also the casting of me in this part, which is not cool to trans people,” he said. “Like Asians, trans actors don’t get a lot of opportunities. There are arguably mitigating factors in this particular role because there is gender fluidity and she has to interface as a man and as a woman.”
Pajiba’s Riley Silverman rightly takes Wong and Esmail to task for utilizing a cis male actor for a transgender part. For Silverman, the role of Whiterose smacks of cis-privileged hubris and appeals primarily to cisgender viewers, like Silverman’s friend.
“I no longer blame my friend for being so excited about the character. Or for applauding. I feel like that was exactly what creator Sam Esmail was going for,” wrote Silverman. “He wrote Whiterose as the kind of character who with-it cis viewers would pump their fists at and say yeah, just like I imagine he did himself when he was writing her.”
But while citing the holes in both Wong and Esmail’s rationalization of a cis male playing a trans woman, Silverman still has sympathy for Wong and the real reason he took the role, which he explained in Vulture.
“I feel kind of like, as a minority with limited opportunities, I did not have the luxury of being able to turn down this role based on my wish that in an ideal world a trans actor could illuminate this part with ‘authentic trans insight.'” he said. “I will also add for whatever it’s worth that Whiterose does have both female and male personae. So I did basically cash in that chip I got as a minority at the beginning of the game, decided to accept the role, and I also accept the responsibility and consequences of that.”
“In this, I do legitimately feel empathy for BD Wong,” wrote Silverman. “He’s not Scarlett Johansson, who could have simply turned down Ghost in the Shell. He’s an actor who is successful but still likely needs to take most jobs that come his way, aware that even if he’s working steadily now that tap could be turned off at any time. But I also legitimately wonder whether he would accept that same excuse from someone like me if I were cast as a radical reimagining of Song Liling in a new adaptation of M. Butterfly. And I wonder, if that happened, if I would take that part.”
It’s an interesting conundrum when the actor knows their presence as the character is problematic. But it’s equally problematic that there aren’t enough complex roles for everyone in Hollywood. The drought of meaningful roles forces some actors to take roles they’d rather not, such as Wong taking on this role. I’m sure he saw it as a once-in-a lifetime opportunity; there aren’t too many times you can play a character on a critically-acclaimed show that premiered at SXSW of all places. But, as Wong well knows, accepting the role takes an opportunity away from a trans actor. What could a trans actor have added to the role if given the chance? Why didn’t Esmail reconsider the ramifications of casting a cis male in the role, especially after he saw trans actors for the part? I don’t have the answers; we need to ask Esmail these questions. Thankfully, the character of Grant is devoid of these serious representation discussions, seeing how he’s played by a cis male.
While Chang doesn’t say much as Grant, he emotes through his body and especially his eyes, giving Grant a quiet sturdiness, a sense of patience that–while worn thin sometimes from Whiterose’s deliberate nature–is built from his trust in Whiterose. He also commands the presence of a leading man from midcentury leading men like James Shigeta as well as an undercover machismo that he sublimates for the sake of Whiterose’s dominant personality. But on occasion, it comes through, like when he wants Whiterose to just act instead of monologue and plot, or when he convinces Whiterose to finally let him take the reins of a mission, asserting his more traditionally masculine personality when it comes to romantic societal norms. However, despite his simmering frustration at not being able to assert his masculinity the way he’d like due to Whiterose’s position as the mastermind, he still finds power in letting her lead. He’s a man’s man in some ways, but he’s also highly attracted to strong, take charge women.
When it’s all said and done, Whiterose and Grant were, for me, the most engaging part of Mr. Robot Season 3. It was the first time I could have done without Elliot’s storyline, since in some ways, he was actually slowing things down. For the latest season, the drama was centered around Whiterose’s next move, and how she’d employ her best guy to carry out her deeds. But that doesn’t mean I’m avoiding the conversation to be had about Wong playing a transgender character, something he feels quite uncomfortable about, despite agreeing to take the role. As Wong said to Vulture, Whiterose acts as an opportunity to open dialogue on transgender characters and trans representation in the media. However, one element of that conversation should include if the conversation can be advanced if cisgender actors keep shutting trans actors out of roles, effectively shutting them out from their seat at the table.
What do you think about Whiterose and Grant? What do you love about them and how do you feel about Wong taking the role of Whiterose? Give your comments below!♦
Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!
What to know about The Rainbow Chorus of the Center for Multicultural Korea, South Korea’s symbol of diversity during the Winter Olympics
The 2018 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony has come and gone, and one of the biggest moments from the ceremony was North and South Korea walking into the arena together, united under one flag made specially for the Winter Olympics. But, apart from that historic sight, there was one other moment that caught my eye, a moment I still haven’t gotten over, and no, it’s not the appearance of Tongan flag bearer Pita Taufatofua. The moment that warmed my heart was when the Rainbow Chorus of the Center for Multicultural Korea (CMCK) sang the South Korean anthem.
If you were like me and wondered who these precious kids were, they are members of the Rainbow Chorus of the Center for Multicultural Korea. The chorus is, according to a 2012 article from Korea Magazine, reposted to Korea.net, “the first-ever multicultural children’s chorus in South Korea and comprises children from families with ten different nationalities including Japanese, Filipino, Russian, Iraqi, and Thai.” Professional musicians train the kids for free, and the chorus is often invited to perform for dignitaries, like the world leaders at the 2010 G-20 Seoul Summit, and at other special occasions.
These kids aren’t just fantastic singers; they are also ambassadors for South Korea’s growing multiculturalism. “The chorus is vitally important to its members—such innocent children who freely mix with one another regardless of nationality and physical features—and provides valuable opportunities for its audiences to better understand what a multicultural society is like,” states the magazine.
Clutching at multiculturalism
Getting a grasp on multiculturalism is one of South Korea’s biggest policy projects. The country is steadily becoming a nation of immigrants; as Korea Magazine wrote in 2012:
“More than 45 million people left and entered South Korea in 2011 alone, and the number of foreigners staying in Korea topped 1.4 million. Yes, Korean society is rapidly going multicultural. Of these 1.4 million, 1.1 million are long-term immigrants, representing 2.2 percent of the Korean population. Nearly 49 percent of them are Korean Chinese who moved back to their ancestral fatherland, followed by Americans at 9.5 percent, Vietnamese at 8.3 percent, and Japanese at 4.2 percent. This surge in foreign settlers in Korea can be attributed to increases in the numbers of migrant workers, marriage immigrants, children born to multicultural families, Korean nationals returning from abroad, and North Korean defectors to South Korea. As South Korea becomes racially and culturally more diverse, the national, local, and municipal governments have been devising new policies to embrace them as members of Korean society.”
The chorus is just one part of South Korea’s arts and culture strategy for welcoming in immigrant families. The Sejong Cultural Center created the Sejong Youth Harmony Orchestra in 2011, offering children from multicultural and low-income families the chance to gain orchestral experience.
South Korea is among a group of Asian countries that are seeing a dramatic decrease in their population; fewer and fewer people are marrying and having children for a host of reasons. However, unlike its neighbors, South Korea is actively welcoming immigrants to help fix their population problem.
“There is real immigration going on that is supported, facilitated, advocated by the South Korean government,” Katharine Moon, chair of Korean Studies at the Brookings Institution, said to NPR’s Elise Hu. As such, South Korea is working overtime to bring the country together on multiculturalism.
Honestly, many Asian nations are coming to terms with the realities of multiculturalism in their populations whether they endorse multiculturalism or not. There have been mixed results, to put it mildly; China, for instance, is becoming more insular and nativist, with racist agendas launched against its African immigrants. South Korea has its share of racism to contend with, too–because South Korea has no anti-discrimination laws in place (measures to pass laws have failed three different times due to outcries from far-right Christian groups, who cite sexual differences as reasons for discrimination), there is no recourse a foreigner can take if they are discriminated against. Indeed, several bars and other recreational spots have denied foreigners entry based on a host of xenophobic and/or racial reasons.
Also, diversity in the political sphere has been met with animosity. Jasmine Lee, an actress from the Philippines who found success in South Korea in entertainment, launched a successful political career and was elected into the Korean National Assembly in 2012. As the first naturalized South Korean and first non-ethnic Korean to be elected, she served until 2016, and throughout her tenure, she received tons of racist comments, despite the swell of support from citizens propelling her to her assembly seat. Even with the hardships she’s faced, she is certain South Korea will have to understand its place in a multicultural future.
“There’s a chance that they won’t reconsider me for my congressional post. But in 10 to 20 years, as long as the borders are not shut, Korea will definitely have become a multicultural society. However, there’s no law or regulation which addresses the imminent multiculturalism,” she told Huffington Post Korea’s Dohoon Kim in 2015. So my goal is to establish within the next 10 years a sort of congressional department that can oversee such a development from a legal and policy standpoint.”
Taking multiculturalism seriously
South Korea has a long way to go with their project of creating a country welcoming and hospitable to all of its citizens, both native and immigrant. But the country has put itself on the fast track towards a unified South Korea, and multiculturalism is something the government sees as one of the top priorities.
“Few countries take multiculturalism as seriously as Korea does. While most countries have vague and ambiguous multicultural policies consisting of either forcing immigrants to assimilate to the local culture or allowing immigrants to integrate while keeping their traditions, Korea has come up with a new concept: tamunhwa,” wrote The Diplomat in 2014. “Tamunhwa means multiculturalism in Korean, and the basic idea is for Koreans to learn as much as they can about immigrants’ original culture while setting up as many cultural immersion programs as possible for immigrants. With foreign residents now accounting for nearly 3 percent of the population of a country that long defined itself as homogeneous, Koreans are taking multiculturalism seriously.”
Along with 2008’s passing of the Multicultural Families Support Act and the creation of centers for multicultural families and global centers that cater to foreign spouses, tourists, migrant workers, and foreign investors, citizens are holding meetings at these centers, asking foreign residents how they feel about their lives in Korea and what could be done to make their time more beneficial. “Meetings are held at global centers where foreigners are asked their opinions on what should change in Korea. Korean language and culture classes are offered free of charge,” wrote the site. “Many Koreans are volunteering to teach Korean or to help migrants. Speech contests are organized where foreigners are encouraged to voice their concerns about Korea.”
However, while meetings and centers are increasing multicultural interest, coupled with more and more non-Koreans appearing on popular television shows, Korea still faces an uphill battle towards being equally and consistently hospitable to its immigrant and multicultural populations.
The increase in foreign workers, particularly foreign English teachers, plus pressure from the U.N. and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, forced South Korea to end a decade-long practice of requiring mandatory HIV tests for teachers in 2017. The test, initially advertised in 2007 as a way to “ease the anxiety of citizens” and “assure the parents” of children taught by foreign English teachers, was, obviously, a sly way to create a catch-all situation for any and all types of discrimination. The test’s popularity was bolstered by the arrest of an English teacher in Thailand for sexually abusing his young students. The teacher in question didn’t have HIV and his crimes weren’t committed in Korea, but because the teacher worked in Seoul before leaving for Thailand, the test was able to garner support.
Teachers, in fact, are one of the biggest drivers of the multiculturalism conversation in Korea. “In a bid to respond to globalization, Korea decided to increase its emphasis on English in curriculums, importing 30,000 teachers in the process. Such teachers often teach less than 30 hours a week and have free weekends, are often young and single, meaning they have a lot of time to spend on the internet,” wrote The Diplomat. “They were the first to draw attention to the issue of multiculturalism and to urge Korea to do something to promote a multicultural society, and they were not always polite about it. Still, they can claim credit to be the first to bring the multiculturalism debate to Korea.”
Some headway is being made with regard to establishments who refuse to serve foreigners. In 2017, Indian student Kislay Kumar received a letter of apology from the owner of The Fountain, a bar in Seoul after video of Kumar being turned away went viral. The letter came after Kumar partnered with the Indian Embassy, who raised Kumar’s case to a department of the South Korean government, and the National Human Rights Commission.
“The letter, from The Fountain’s owner Yoo Seung-woo, reads, ‘First I’d like to apologize for what happened last June. I know nothing I can say can address the hardship you experienced, but nevertheless I’d like to convey my regrets.'” wrote Korea Exposé. “Yoo’s letter goes on to apologize for the ‘immature’ handling of Kumar’s case; Yoo also writes that he has learned a lot from the incident and reflected on how to handle misunderstandings between Koreans and foreigners.”
Kumar, who has since found a job in Seoul in overseas sales and marketing for a laser company, said that while the apology encourages him, there’s still a matter of changing people’s hearts. He hopes his case can be a step towards the Korean government finally passing an anti-discrimination law.
“This one incident can make people cautious about their actions, but it can’t change their mentality,” he said. “It has to come in the textbooks. The mind has to be opened and that has to come through education.”
Spurts of multicultural acceptance amid shortcomings
In some ways to the outside eye (like mine), Korea seems like it’s taking one step forward and two steps back with their acceptance of multiculturalism. But Moon told Linda Poon of CityLab that the country is actually making fast strides to cram tons of multicultural knowledge into a society that has been culturally homogeneous for centuries.
“This is a huge social change for a society that has been homogeneous in so many ways for hundreds and hundreds of years,” said Moon, adding that the Korean national identity is partially founded on the belief that Koreans stem from a “thousand years of ‘pure’ ancestral bloodlines, common language, customs, and history,” and has more recently been founded on reclaiming sovereignty after 40 years of Japanese colonialism before World War II.
Moon wants people to remember Korea’s short history as a democracy. Moon, Poon wrote, “says Korea is still a very young democracy. And Korea’s immigration issues are complex, given its various categories of immigrants. They’re further complicated by an inflow [of] North Korean defectors, who face discrimination in South Korea, as well. And compared to its older and equally homogeneous neighbor, Japan, which also lacks broad anti-discrimination laws and whose prime minister has publicly rejected immigration despite a shrinking population, ‘South Korea is actually on an accelerated route,’ she said. After all, it took U.S. almost 200 years after declaring its independence to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
In short, Moon is asking us to be patient with South Korea as it figures out its place in a multicultural society. As a nation grappling with a changing social and national identity due to globalization, it shouldn’t be a surprise South Korea is going through what can generously be called a challenging growing phase. But for some, I’m sure, patience is wearing thin. However, with organizations like the Rainbow Chorus, Korea is determined to show itself and the world it’s determined to move in the right direction, regardless of how many mistakes are made along the way. One place where multiculturalism is succeeding is in the “borderless village” of Wongok, which is home to 17,000 residents, two-thirds of which are non-Korean.
While much of Korean multiculturalism is built upon complete assimilation into Korean culture, Moon told Hu that Wongok is actually employing “true multiculturalism…mixing and blending and fusing of different languages, cultures, customs.”
Kim Young-sook, a teacher and multicultural coordinator at Ansan West Elementary School, told Hu the school acts as a place where kids can learn more about each other and their respective cultures. “[In] places with multicultural kids, the kids can interact with each another and get into conflicts with one another and break prejudices.”
Kim also said her interactions with the kids have helped her break some of her own prejudices. “Multicultural people are people that Koreans have to work together with to make Korea into a better country,” she said. “Wongok Village is what Korea will look like in the future.” The lesson the children have taught her, Hu wrote, is that “they relate to one another as peers–not as different peoples.”
It’s this principle that Korea hopes the Rainbow Chorus represents to the world. The country still has tons of challenges to surmount in order to achieve true multiculturalism; even the entity of the Rainbow Chorus itself has been critiqued. In her Seoul Journal of Korean Studies paper “The Rainbow Chorus: Performing Cultural Identity in South Korea,” researcher (and mother of a Rainbow Chorus member) Hilary Finchum-Sung asserts the use of the chorus as proof of South Korea’s multiculturalism is part of the country’s mixed-messaging when it comes to multiculturalism; on the one hand, multiculturalism is becoming more and more discussed in South Korea’s popular media. However, stereotypes about multicultural children and families–that they’re poor and inferior to “real” Korean children–still remain. The Rainbow Chorus could be seen as a genuine outlet for growth and understanding; according to Finchum-Sung, the CMCK was founded by former broadcasting radio announcer Yi Hyonjong and her colleagues after realizing few programs in South Korea catered to children’s emotional and social welfare. But the chorus can also be seen as performative, a PR stunt to showcase a quick and easily digestible version of multiculturalism that plays on genuine empathy as much as it does existing harmful tropes.
However, regardless of South Korea’s failings when it comes to grappling with multiculturalism, a positive message can be taken from seeing a bunch of kids singing in harmony–that actual harmony can be achieved. Choruses have often been used as a way to show an idealized version of humanity; Sister Act 2, for instance, is a film based entirely on the idealistic notion of a group of kids coming together to change their lives and the lives of their community. Like most groups, the chorus is often used to prove people can learn from one another, forget prejudices, and work together to create something beautiful. As a novice to the Rainbow Choir, that’s the message I took from them as I watched them sing their country’s national anthem. After all of the research I’ve done while writing this article, that’s the message I still take away; I am an optimist at heart, after all. In their own way, these children are helping Korea get one step closer towards realizing a more equitable society for all who live within its borders. The message South Korea wanted to send has been heard loud and clear; now it’s on the country to fulfill their promises, especially to the kids who helped them achieve their Olympics goals.♦
Further reading: A snapshot of multiculturalism in South Korea | The Korea Herald
Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!
Diversity is a hot topic in all arenas, and that includes the world of forensic anthropology. This week, we’ve had two big revelations hit the anthropological news cycle, and while one finding cements what I’ve thought of as a truth long deferred, the other is a head-scratch.
1. Cheddar Man is revealed to be dark-skinned
In what can only be described as a shock to many who assumed England’s ancient peoples were fair-skinned and engaged in racial politics, the oldest complete skeleton in British history, Cheddar Man (named as such because of it being found in Cheddar Gorge), is actually a dark-skinned man with curly dark hair and blue eyes.
This is what scientists originally thought Cheddar Man looked like:
And this is what he actually looked like:
According to The Guardian, advanced DNA analysis has revealed that Cheddar Man and his ilk weren’t the light-skinned people science believed them to be. Instead, their skin was “dark to black,” which lends even more weight to the scientific fact that all people originated from Africa; Cheddar Man lived in England shortly after humans migrated to Britain from continental Europe at the end of the last ice age, and white Britons today are the ancestors of this group of migrants.
Cheddar Man’s skin color reveals that the genes for lighter skin “became widespread at a much in European populations far later than originally thought – and that skin colour was not always a proxy for geographic origin in the way it is often seen to be today,” wrote The Guardian’s Hannah Devlin.
According to scientists, this is what Britons looked like 10,000 years ago: pic.twitter.com/Em7T09ITbZ
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 8, 2018
I find this fascinating, not just because of the whole “everyone comes from Africa” thing, but because of how this discovery should change the way we view race and skin color. What should happen is that everyone–especially those with racially prejudicial ideas–take a good look at themselves and realize how meaningless skin color actually is. If tons of white Britons are descendants of this black man, how does this put anyone on a different pedestal from anyone else?
Cheddar Man’s skin revelations should also change the way we see history. Sites like Medieval POC exist to close the gaps in the West’s thought process about how race was conceptualized in the 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19th centuries. But, because of today’s current dialogue about race in history–a dialogue that is laced with stereotypes, racism, and traces of the same pseudo-science that made the Atlantic Slave Trade possible–it can seem hard to open people’s minds up to the fact that darker-skinned people not only lived in what are now white European spaces, but they thrived and, in many cases, accepted by the masses. Race as a construct did enter European society at some point, but our modern thoughts about race are relatively new in relation to the evolution of human society–and they’re erroneous.
As reported in The Guardian:
Tom Booth, an archaeologist at the Natural History Museum who worked on the project, said: “It really shows up that these imaginary racial categories that we have are really very modern constructions, or very recent constructions, that really are not applicable to the past at all.”
Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project’s team, agreed, saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change.”
What would be cool is if Cheddar Man changes how modern media depicts ancient Europeans and ancient people in general; will this allow for more diverse casting and more in depth storylines, or will Hollywood and British cinema ignore these findings? I hope they don’t, because how cool would it be to see Idris Elba as an ancient European in a period film?
2. Is this Nefertiti the actual Nefertiti?
Another reconstruction making waves is Nefertiti. The Nefertiti we know is the famous bust discovered in 1912, sculpted by the official royal sculptor Thutmose, whose style was decided naturalistic despite him being a part of the highly stylistic and androgynous Amarna Period of Egyptian art. As you can see in the photo below, Nefertiti’s look is defined by a graceful long neck, full lips, a straight, thin nose, and deep tan skin.
This isn’t the only Nefertiti sculpture Thutmose created; a granite statue of Nefertiti showcases the same facial features as the more popular bust.
So, when this new bust was revealed on Today, people naturally scratched their heads in disbelief. This new bust, which was created after scientists compared historical images of Nefertiti with the facial characteristics of the mummy rumored to be Nefertiti nicknamed “The Younger Lady.” But as you can see below, this bust looks nothing like what Thutmose sculpted eons ago.
Not every expert is on board with declaring the Younger Lady is actually Nefertiti. Raymond Johnson, director of the Epigraphic Survey project and Research Associate and Associate Professor at the University of Chicago in the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department, told WGN9 he disbelieves the claim and went into detail as to why the Younger Lady doesn’t line up with what Egyptologists know about Nefertiti’s life. He states a lot in his interview, which I suggest your read in full, but here are the main points.
• The Younger Lady, who was buried alongside other familial mummies in Amenhotep’s royal tomb, is actually the daughter of Amenhotep and Queen Tiye, and is also the mother of Tutankhamun. This connection was revealed through leading Egyptologist Zahi Hawass’ DNA testing of the mummies found in the tomb, including the Younger Lady. According to Johnson, there is “no text” where Nefertiti was identified as a royal daughter. “If she had been a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, it would have been clearly stated in her inscriptions, and there are hundreds of text that survive mentioning Nefertiti with no mention of her parents.”
• All of the sculptures of Nefertiti from the Amarna Period show the same facial characteristics–“a straight nose, heavy-lidded eyes, long graceful neck, and a strong square jaw.” As Johnson states, “The forensically reconstructed face with its narrow skull, deep-set eyes, and triangular jaw is beautiful but in no way resembles the portraits that survive of Nefertiti. That said, they could be relatives.” Johnson believes they could be cousins instead.
• As “the gateway out of the African continent,” Egypt has always had a racially diverse citizenry, and Amenhotep III had many wives who were both Egyptian and foreign, including Caucasian women. But, said Johnson, Nefertiti’s skintone would still be darker than how it’s presented in the recreation. “A brown skin color would have probably been more true to the individual represented, and to her times.”
So with all of this said, what do I think about this bust? I think that, while being expertly rendered, it doesn’t match up to what Thutmose sculpted, and he was actually there during her life. If anyone should know what she looked like, it should be him. Granted, there could be some artistic liberties; some of the characteristics of the Amarna Period include highly feminine features and royalty were usually depicted as youthful, regardless of their age. But Thutmose is notable in that he sculpted the middle aged and elderly as well as the young. He even sculpted an older Nefertiti, depicting the changes her body underwent from birthing children. To be fair, this could have been stylistic as well, to showcase fertility, but if that’s the case, why create the other sculptures, which look true to life?
Another caveat is that perhaps for royalty, Thutmose combined both reality and fantasy. Despite the realism present, there are still stylistic elements that can be found in the Nefertiti bust. The symmetry of the face, for one, could be read as a calculated artistic choice. The huge eyebrows, which might have been painted on the real Nefertiti (since ancient Eygptians filled in and exaggerated their real eyebrows with makeup) add to the symmetry and perfection of the sculpture. It could be that the bust we know and love is just an old-school version of FaceTune. That’s a theory that could be truer than we think, since sarcophogi, such as the sarcophagus of King Tutankhamun is also artistically stylized and doesn’t reflect all of what’s shown in the reconstructions of Tutankhamun, as pictured below.
I personally don’t want to believe everything from Thutmose’s workshop was a lie, though. Nefertiti’s beauty was heralded in her time as much as it is now, which leads me to believe there’s more truth to the iconic bust than fakery. If Thutmose captured beauty, then I’m sure she was actually beautiful in real life. The Younger Lady doesn’t look bad, though. I will say from looking at one of the reconstructions of King Tut that the Younger Lady is most definitely his mother. They have the same overbite, jaw structure, and eye socket structure.
To address the skin color issue: Ancient Egyptians’ skintones were clearly documented by artists contemporary to the times. Artists of the Coptic Period engaged in realism when painting subjects such as the subjects depicted in the Fayum mummy portraits, which showcased men and women with dark hair and tan skin.
There are also other reconstructions of ancient Egyptians. Here’s another reconstruction of Tutankhamun published in National Geographic in 2005–this one is a little more favorable to him in the looks department and more closely matches some of the sculptures made of him during his life. In this reconstruction, his skin tone is definitely a dark tan.
Here’s another reconstruction, this time of a woman nicknamed “Meritamun.” The reconstruction includes information gathered from modern day Egyptians, which you can assume includes skintone.
Based on the other reconstructions and mummy portraits, as well as a Google search of images of modern-day Egyptians, it seems like what’s throwing people off is the undertone used for the Younger Lady’s skintone reconstruction. Yes, there were olive-toned Egyptians; with a port empire like Egypt, leading to a cross-cultural mix, there had to have been a myriad of skintones among Egyptians. But the Younger Lady’s undertone is probably a smidge too pink, which lends the eye to read it as “European” or, like how some called it online, “white.” Meanwhile, the other reconstructions, statues, and paintings from ancient Egypt show people with yellow and neutral undertones. While the Younger Lady does have a touch of yellow in her undertone, the pink is affecting how the yellow would affect the overall skintone.
But I actually hesitate to call this reconstruction of the Younger Lady “white.” Again, there were a myriad of skintones in ancient Egypt, and while I have some issues with how much pink there is in the Younger Lady’s undertone, it’s still worth understanding that a woman this color wouldn’t necessarily be out of place in ancient Egypt. She might look “white,” but it doesn’t mean she’d be out of place. If it turns out her skintone was actually this color, undertones and all, her skin also wouldn’t make her any less African.
What do you think about these reconstructions? Give your opinions in the comments section below!
Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!
It took me a full day, but I’ve finally seen the music video for SZA and Kendrick Lamar’s Black Panther song, “All the Stars.” As someone who saw Michael Jackson’s “Remember the Time” music video when it premiered during primetime television back in the ’90s, I thought I’d never see a music video rival it as the most unapologetically black music video ever. While Beyonce might have won 2016 and 2017 with her Lemonade visuals and Southern Gothic aesthetic, I think “All the Stars” tops it and even “Remember the Time” as the most awe-inspiring music video I’ve seen in years. Marvel, you’ve completely undone yourself with this entire Black Panther franchise; I hope y’all at Marvel understand exactly why the outpouring of creativity and love is overflowing for this movie.
If you haven’t seen it yet, I implore you to drop everything you’re doing and watch it right now. Real talk: this music video just might make you cry.
If there’s a way to frame an entire music video and put it on my wall, I would. This music video is not only gorgeous, but it’s a love letter to Africa–a homage to the continent’s rich past, vibrant present, and a future filled with possibilities. It, like Wakanda, shows a glimpse into an Africa the West hasn’t seen; an Africa that is seen without the lens of colonialism and imperialism.
I might have had my DNA test done to reveal exactly what parts of Africa I come from, but at the end of the day, I’m still an African-American who is divorced from many of my ancestors’ cultures, so unfortunately a lot of the references in this video have gone over my head. Thankfully, my DNA test has allowed me to start researching my various peoples and their cultures and, particularly for this video, there are posts outlining many of the video’s cultural elements. But even with my limited knowledge, there were three moments out of the many that stood out the most to me.
1. The ocean of hands
There was something so eerie, haunting, and strangely calming about this opening scene featuring Lamar on a raft in the middle of a sea of black arms and hands. What I immediately thought of was the Atlantic Slave Trade, which trafficked at least 10 to 12 million Africans from their homelands to the New World. That stretch of sea is filled with the ghosts of my ancestors, and to see Lamar riding the waves of their hands reminded me how even in death, they made it possible for me to survive.
I also saw the haunting sea in reverse; it was as if those same souls that were lost centuries ago were able to find their way back home in the afterlife. Despite their tribulations on earth, they were able to find peace. From that point of view, it’s as if those same souls are guiding Lamar back to the lands of his ancestors. There was so much said in that scene without Lamar ever saying a word.
2. The Dandies
I’d written about the political importance of Africa’s dandies before in my Black Panther fashion post, but to keep it brief, the dandy movement is one that reclaims African pride by turning Western/colonial fashion inside out and repurposing it as both a form of wearable protest and a sign to the world of Africans’ humanity. To see the dandies put on display like this warmed my heart–the sartorial excellence of course is fun, but showcasing movement’s political relevance in this way has only made the dandy movement stronger, and as far as I’m concerned, that can only be a great thing.
3. The goddesses
The final shots of the music video have Lamar in what looks like an temple comprised of imagery and symbols of several African cultures standing in awe of giant women clad in gold. Clearly, these women are the goddesses of old, and Lamar is paying his respects to them. For me, these women represent the lost goddesses of African religions. When I say “lost,” I don’t mean they’re lost to the world; there are many who still worship the gods and goddesses of the Yoruba and Igbo people, for instance. What I mean is that they’re lost to me. The slave trade made us African-Americans lose everything, including our religions, and seeing these women act in place of those goddesses made me realize that the music video was, once again, bringing us black viewers–and Lamar–back in touch with our roots. These goddesses act as messengers to the rest of the world that Africa is the motherland; Africa is meant to nurture, to uplift, and be respected and honored. Lamar seemed like he got the message. But if it still wasn’t clear to some viewing, the music video cuts to SZA’s hairstyle, which is in the shape of the entire continent. It was a stylistic and elegant version of a mic drop.
Overall, the entire music video left me feeling hopeful and, honestly, a little misty-eyed. This is the Africa I’ve always wanted to see portrayed. This is affirming on a gutteral level, more than I thought a music video could ever be. I’ve come away from it feeling like I’ve retained a chunk of my cultural identity that had been lost. As much as it is a cliche to type, I can honestly say I feel seen. This music video is definitely 2018’s version of “I’m Black and I’m Proud.”
How did you feel after watching the music video? Give your opinions in the comments section below!
Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!