'Blackwashing': The Absurdity of Historical Revisionism and The Weaponisation of Culture
Culture is more than just an abstract concept that fades in and out of view when we choose to perceive it, complimenting the background of our daily lives when we log in to Netflix or switch on the TV. It is the physical manifestation of the living society it is nurtured by, articulating the parameters of debate a society engages with. This has never been more pertinent in the age of rapid information, where our perception of history, of demographics and reality itself, are distorted by the messaging of modern culture. We are – at least, society as a collective – vulnerable to subtle persuasion. And because of that it is also a powerful social engineering tool that can and has been weaponised to manufacture consent for certain ideas and beliefs.
To better represent this development, a new term has entered the lexicon: ‘Blackwashing’. A juxtaposition to ‘Whitewashing,’ it refers to the practice of replacing a traditionally White fictional character or historical figure with a Black actor. It is a fairly new phenomenon that traces its origins to the progressive movement of the 2010s, where cultural institutions sought to deflect accusations of racism and institutional bias by changing the race of the characters in a desperate bid to seem more racially accepting. This definition has since expanded to include anyone from an ethnic minority background (Black, Latino or Asian) that has been substituted in for a traditionally White role.
At the root of this is the notion that art is inherently political, and hence that every mainstream entertainment property must necessarily double as either a morality play, or a salvo in the ongoing culture wars. Take advertising, for example.
Advertising doesn’t exist solely to promote specific products or services. It also exists to shape the culture and to change social norms. This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a view openly held by advertisers. Back in 1938, an American trade journal described the role of business in creating not only new forms of merchandise but also new forms of culture. After learning how to manufacture products and bring them to market, “the future of business lay in its ability to manufacture customers as well as products” (Printers’ Ink, 1938, p. 397). Much of what we call “propaganda” began with techniques originally developed to market goods and services.
The sheer over-representation of Blacks in commercials, despite their minority status, is a recent indicator of this. We are seeing the same pattern in Western countries where Blacks are a small fraction of the population. In the UK, a study of a thousand advertisements shown over two months found that 37% of them featured Black people, who nonetheless make up only 4% of the British population. A more recent study found even higher non-White over-representation in British (59%) French (55%) and German (47%) advertisements, so much so that if a foreigner had nothing to go on but our ads, he might reasonably conclude that Europe is a racial melting pot rather than homogeneous societies.
It’s not just limited to advertisements either.
The study of history is particularly vulnerable. Most historical scholarship involves judicious selection from a vast and usually incomplete body of material. It is possible to create an entirely false narrative without actually lying, by exaggeration and tendentious selection. The major threat to historical integrity comes when the criteria of selection are derived from a modern ideological agenda. We have been witnessing the reshaping of the history of the past four centuries to serve as a weapon in current political disputes. Objectivity and truth have been the main casualties.
Powerful groups control the intellectual framework within which ideas are discussed and determines what constitutes knowledge. In the modern age, historical truth is not discovered. It is made by historians, in accordance with unconscious prejudices moulded by the power structures of society. The new task of the historian is now not to present historical sources in an objective way, but rather to deconstruct the hegemonist West and substitute a different power structure in which other people’s truth could be acknowledged.
This includes the elimination of historical accuracy to incorporate and over-represent minority races. The blackwashing of Cleopatra on Netflix is an example where a historical figure is replaced by a minority race actor. In fact, the historical revisionism in this case was so egregious that Egyptian lawyers initiated legal action against Netflix to ban the streaming service of the movie in Egypt to preserve the historical accuracy and integrity of their country’s rich history. How many impressionable minds will watch this Netflix version of Cleopatra and think that she was African, not Greek?
Both Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII of England, and Queen Charlotte of England were depicted as a black women in two Netflix-produced shows. No one genuinely believes any of these historical figures were black. No historian would claim they were, and anyone seriously interested in history would deride the idea as ludicrous, let alone ahistorical, yet, these properties exist and continue to forment.
It’s easy to wave all of this away as nothing more than a cheap tactic from studios, who hope that by stirring controversy they can promote their products, but in a culture where more and more people are outsourcing their information to the media they consume, it poses legitimate questions as to how detrimental this will be to the broader perceptions of history, race and demographics. Intentionally distorting history will lead to long-term cultural consequences, acclimating a new generation to tolerate or, even, accept this new fabricated world.
The repudiation of Europe’s past in the name of a modern political agenda is currently a minority position. But there is a serious risk that it will become the orthodoxy of the next generation. It is strong in some important groups, notably the young and politically active, and a vocal contingent in the academic world. It may not be a passing phase. The habit of reinforcing one’s political instincts by adopting whatever facts suit them is too deeply ingrained in human nature. Today, it is intensified by the social media. They are a major source of information, especially for the young. But they are curated by algorithms which amplify views that already exist, suppressing nuance, balance or doubt and giving a misleading impression of a great tide of opinion when the material is often generated by a handful of fanatics.
Films and TV shows are engaging in the practice as well, swapping traditionally White characters for ethnic minority representation.
In Snow White (2025), Disney’s latest live-action bastardisation of a beloved classic, the eponymous character, known for her pale skin, is played by Rachel Zegler, a Latino actress with dark brown skin. Zegler bears no physical resemblance to the character, save for her iconic yellow and blue motley dress. The same is true of The Little Mermaid (2023). Ariel, a White, red-haired princess, was, once again, substituted for an African-American actress. Now there are growing calls online to cast a South East Asian actress as Rapunzel for the inevitable live-action adapation that is no doubt imminent.
If Disney and other movie studios are so intent on diversifying their porfolios, why not adapt pre-existing stories featuring diverse characters? Why hasn’t The Princess and the Frog, the first Disney animation to feature a black woman as its lead, still not been translated to the big screen? Why do other existing stories need to be corrupted in the pursuit of these goals?
Admittedly, this is a very adult complaint about a film that is ostensibly for children — but then, I’m not sure children are Snow White or The Little Mermaid‘s intended audience. Like so many of Disney’s live-action remakes, this movie is for the now-middle aged millennial women who grew up watching (and loving) the 1989 original — only to become scandalised, as adults, by their heterocentrism, their whiteness, their phobias and all the other isms. A sort of proxy war for the soul of the nation — the Disney content mill is plagued by the same anxieties as much of its adult audience.
Many of its newer offerings are meant to be part of that future, explicitly catering to progressive sensibilities — and, perhaps equally important, sparking consternation among conservatives. The Little Mermaid — with its vague handwaving in the direction of consent culture, its dutiful nods to the environmental damage wrought by humans on the undersea world, and a black actress bringing the house down in a traditionally white role — is clearly intended to be part of that “more inclusive future”.
In fact, that heady mix of liberal millennial guilt and Nineties-era nostalgia is an animating force behind much of today’s most controversial entertainment.
While the characters may be fictitious, they’re still heavily inspired by European mythology and are a reflection of those - predominantly White - cultures. Snow White was inspired by classic German folktales while Rapunzel was developed from the French literary tale of Persinette, which itself is an alternative version of the Italian tale of Petrosinella. None of them featured non-White characters. They were intertwined with the culture and heritage of those countries. In a way, they were authentic ways for parents to teach their children moral lessons. They weren’t some globalised artificial slop designed to push a hidden message of forced diversity.
Black-washing them in this way isn’t just a refutation of the source materials but an explicit attack on European and, by extension, White identity in general. It is almost an admission that White or European culture is inherrently wrong and can only be improved once their defining traits have been stripped away and replaced with something deemed acceptable to the new cultural zeitgeist.
This is an industry-wide epidemic that encompasses television commercials, print ads, television shows, documentaries, and movies. White replacement is at a rate disproportionate to demographic realities, proving this is a deliberate, ideologically driven effort. This is a neo-Marxist strategy to undermine the accomplishments and history of the European people and redefine Western history and culture on terms benefitting their worldview. The point is to humiliate, to desecrate beloved properties people hold dear as a pseudo-form of reparations for the guilt of their ancestors.
Perhaps, the Trump administration’s recent moves to roll back D.E.I schemes and apply pressure on entertainment companies to comply with their anti-Woke crusade will yield results in this regard, bringing a welcome end to the Left’s weaponisation of culture. Or, perhaps, like his many other promises, it will amount to nothing. Regardless, the backlash agains this blatant absurdity is growing and will soon reach a breaking point, if it hasn’t already, hopefully spelling the end to this ignominious chapter.