Who says history has to be boring?
If it was, nobody would want to read about it. And they certainly wouldn’t want to stream it. However, In recent years, I observed a renewed interest in period pieces. You can thank shows like Bridgerton that enjoyed rave reviews and high ratings on the popular streaming service, Netflix. The TV adaption of the book series written by Julia Quinn has been so popular that Netflix renewed the show for a 3rd season. Then there are also miniseries like Catherine the Great inspired by the Russian empress on Hulu.
While I admire Hollywood’s attempt to appear inclusive and market to different demographics to make history more engaging and relevant, it hasn’t been without controversy. The latest dispute involves the casting of a biracial woman named Adele James to play the iconic historical figure, Cleopatra, in the Netflix docuseries, Queen Cleopatra. Critics have been very vocal against the casting online. The docuseries even prompted a lawsuit from an Egyptian lawyer to block Netflix from airing in Egypt due to the production team’s attempt to “blackwash” Egypt’s history by falsely presenting Egyptian civilization as black. There’s even an online petition to cancel the show with almost 100,000 signatures although it has recently been taken down.
Behind the backlash is a very complicated and contentious view on race and an underlying fear that history is being rewritten. However, is history being rewritten when writers and producers take creative licenses to reimagine historical figures? Is there any valid basis for the strong criticism of reinterpreting historical events and figures?
Let’s start with the case study of Cleopatra. Without knowing very little about Cleopatra, you may be of the opinion that sees absolutely nothing wrong with Cleopatra being portrayed as a black woman. In fact, some readers may even think Netflix’s latest depiction of Cleopatra is more accurate than portrayals of Cleopatra shown in older Hollywood films. Elizabeth Taylor’s portrayal of Cleopatra in the 1963 film is regarded as a classic. Even though Elizabeth Taylor is a white, pale woman, many hold her portrayal of this woman as the standard. However, some may wonder: isn’t Cleopatra, Egyptian. And if so, wouldn’t she have a darker complexion?
There is much debate about what the ancient Egyptians looked like. Some say the ancient Egyptians favored modern Egyptians who tend to have lighter, olive/tanned skin, and a looser, wavier curl pattern. This admixture is very similar across much of North Africa, which is strikingly different from the features found in sub-Saharan Africa, with the majority of the population having darker skin and tighter curl patterns. The latter features are associated with “blackness.” In the online photos for the upcoming docuseries, the actress has a medium skin complexion with her black Afro framing her crown into a textured halo. This is a big departure from the braided or sleek bobs the Egyptians were notorious for. There’s no denying by her styling that the producers meant for her to portray Cleopatra as a black woman.
Aren’t all Egyptians black? If you asked modern Egyptians what they identify as you would likely get a very different answer! People forget Africa is a diverse continent, not a country. Within the 54 countries that make up Africa are thousands of distinct languages/dialects, tribes, and ethnicities. Let’s not forget colonization, which brought several different European nations to the continent. With that history comes a wide range of looks. If you’ve been to Africa or studied about the different groups spread across the continent, you will learn that Africans range in skin color, hair type, and height just to name a few. With those differences, it’s naïve to think that everyone would identify as black just because they came from Africa.
This view of Egyptians being closer to the look of North Africans is no doubt a similar view shared by some Egyptians including the lawyer that is trying to sue the Netflix show for its inaccurate portrayal of Egyptians. While some with a more Afrocentric leaning strongly believe that the true Egyptians looked black, critics feel that the Egyptians were distinct from surrounding nations, including the Nubians who were often depicted as having darker skin. As a Nigerian-American, I have no desire to claim Egypt as part of my “African heritage” nor can I assert with certainty what the Egyptians looked like. The best we can go off on is the clues left behind in relief drawings and preserved mummies which often depicted them with reddish/bronze skin and straight bobbed hair or bald.
Regardless of the hue the Egyptians came in, people have to remember that Cleopatra was not fully Egyptian (at least not on the paternal side). To really be able to understand the other side of the debate, I had to brush up on my knowledge of Cleopatra’s background. When doing some research, it’s important to note that Cleopatra was the queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. The Ptolemaic kingdom originally was from Macedonia. During the height of the Greek empire, Greece extended its influence to much of the known world, including Egypt, from around 305 B.C. According to historians, this ruling family of Greek/Macedonian descent ruled Egypt for 275 years. Cleopatra’s rule came at the tail end of the Ptolemaic dynasty lasting from 51 BC to 30 BC. While she lived in Egypt and even spoke the language, her origins were primarily Greek. With Greek influence present in ancient Greek cities, not to mention other groups that lived and interacted with the Egyptians, it’s not unlikely that intermarriages occurred. Even people within the same racial/ethnic group can vary in skin tones, so it’s not far-fetched to believe that some Egyptians had a similar complexion to the actress set to play Cleopatra.
Representation
As a fiction writer of historical fiction, my stake in the example with Cleopatra is not so much to argue what race she’s supposed to be (that’s a slippery slope I would rather not dwell on) but rather the perception we have about history and the figures that we read about.
As I mentioned earlier, history doesn’t have to be boring. Those with a love of history like myself want history to come alive. We want to know how reading about a bunch of “dead guys” affects us.
Fiction writing has been one way of making history come alive and helping us connect to history in a way that makes it more relevant. For many people, representation plays a crucial role in being able to relate to the characters whether it be fictional or real-life figures. But would these newer time pieces be as popular if they stuck to the script and cast people that fit the image most people imagine them to look like?
For some the only reason they would even be interested in the latest time period shows or movies is because they feel represented seeing the lead characters played by people of color. It’s natural to gravitate to ones with a similar racial or cultural background. That shared identity gives at least one tangible thing to connect with a character whether real or fictional. However, I wonder if shows like Bridgerton would be less popular had it not cast Rege Jean to play the leading man that Daphne falls for. It may have still captured the hearts of millions of viewers regardless but would it have the same appeal to other demographics like younger Millenials, Gen Z, or even African-Americans? Probably not. While the book never claimed to be based on true accounts, the producer of the show took a risk of deviating from the source material. And by the general reception it received, it paid off!
Way before the film adaptions and the documentaries springing up for historical fiction and nonfiction, I still enjoyed learning about different cultures and history (especially ancient Rome). Even though historical figures may have acted or looked different than us, doesn’t mean we can’t relate to them. For thousands of years, human nature has remained largely unchanged. They still had to deal with the awkward stages of puberty, falling in love, marriage, raising children, sickness, growing old, and death. They experienced strong human emotions like love, envy, excitement, fear, or anger. They desired companionship. Making a living or maintaining the lifestyle they had. Finding purpose in life. Those feelings and human experiences are timeless. It’s why book-to-movie adaptions like Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret still remains relevant over 50 years since the book’s debut—it speaks to the growing pains of growing up.
Those human experiences are what can connect us to the characters and make us invested in their story. The more you learn about their lives the more real those figures become. Drawing from those basic human experiences is what made writing historical fiction enjoyable. Even though my African background is vastly different from the Greco-Roman world I get inspiration from, I can still relate to the struggles of adolescence and identity which are themes in my coming-of-age novel, Roman Identity.
Authenticity
In the example of my story series, it’s easier to take liberties when you made up the characters or market your book as historical fantasy or alternate history. It’s quite another story to try to take liberties based on actual events or people. Do writers and Hollywood execs have the right to retell history? Yes, there is no law against them taking creative licenses to tell stories they want to see. But on the other side of the coin, I can understand why people may see those retellings as attempts to change history to suit a certain narrative. But one thing about history is that it can’t be changed. What happened in the past, happened even if it’s not acceptable by today’s standards. As much as modern society wants to be politically correct, history has its good and ugly moments.
One of the reasons why people turn to historical documentaries or books is to learn more about the time period. And if it’s a fiction book, that fan is reading it because they want to relive that time period. The way the characters look, talked, acted, and even thought should align with the time period the book is written in. Nothing is more jarring than hearing modern slang or reading about an invention that wasn’t invented yet! Yet as I mentioned earlier history isn’t always pretty. A real teaching moment for newer generations is to allow them to have a more objective view of history that captures the triumphs and failures of history. After all, those that fail to learn history are doomed to repeat. And sadly the world keeps repeating the same mistakes from the past!
So, going back to the original question, can you rewrite history? Unless you live in an Orwellian world of 1984, a Hollywood retelling isn’t going to rewrite what already happened. We live in an information world where you can look up anything at your fingertips to fact-check what you’re told. While articles on Wikipedia can be altered, we have other books, scholarly articles, vintage photos, and surviving artifacts that remind us of our past. Not saying that the holders of information: the media, Tech giants, and the government can’t distort or withhold information (that’s a whole other discussion) the fact of the matter is that enough of the historical facts are still preserved for us to come to a reasonable conclusion of what the past looked like.
The beauty of fiction is to create stories we want to tell. I think taking a thoughtful approach to inclusion is sharing true stories from different marginalized groups that feel authentic and believable. There are stories to be shared and more important lessons we can learn from history that can shape our present and help us build a better future.
***
Missed me? Never planned to be away from my blog this long but of course life happens. Finally settled into a new place and the creative juices are flowing. If you want to be the first to get alerts on new blog posts or new content don’t forget to subscribe.
Writer's Nook 