The Question
I originally answered this “question” on Quora:
Why is falsely representing Helen of Troy as a subsaharan African while the explicit historical evidence depicts her as a white blue eyed blonde a matter of civilizational importance? Does deliberately distorting history matter?
My Answer
Helen of Troy is a fictional character in a fictional narrative. She can be depicted any way the person crafting the tale chooses. “Distorting history” is not a moral failing in fiction. There is no “explicit historical evidence” that has any bearing here. Realism is only one school of art among many.
Your “question” is brief but riddled with lies and false assumptions. I would argue this isn’t a question at all. This is propaganda, dressed up as a question. Your effort here is to push a certain view, not to learn anything.
Homer never describes Helen’s hair or eyes color. The “white blue eyed blonde” Helen isn’t in Homer’s text. She’s in the work of European painters, filling in details the poet never included.
If you want to experience Homer’s version, you can read it, likely in translation, unless you read Ancient Greek. I recommend it. I’m not sure which translation I read in college. I currently have a copy of Stanley Lombardo’s translation, from 2000, of The Odyssey. What I’ve read of it I like very much.
The only “matter of civilizational importance” at issue here is the clearly racist agenda behind the question. You’re upset that Helen of Troy is depicted in Christopher Nolan’s film by Lupita Nyong’o, an Academy Award winning actress who is a citizen of Mexico (where she was born), Kenya, and the US. But you are not upset that Matt Damon, also an Academy Award winning actor, was cast as Odysseus, despite the fact that he’s not Greek. Your selective outrage tips your hand.
Some Additional Comments
What I didn’t say, but could have, is that Helen of Troy is the daughter of Zeus and, depending upon which myth you prefer, Leda or Nemesis. The fact that the realistic portrayal of a demigod is under discussion pushes this entire thing to an even higher level of absurdity.
I suspect fewer than 1% of the people outraged by the portrayal of this fictional woman in a fictional tale are aware of Helen’s origin story. They assume she was a real person and that “woke” Hollywood is casting actresses as a nod to racial inclusion quotas. Anyone who knows anything about Hollywood knows its motivations are primarily financial.
Directors like Noland, whom I admire, want to make good, memorable art. And talented actors want to be part of that same collaboration. But everybody also wants to get paid. This is not some off-off-Broadway play where edgy casting decisions are made to shake up the social order. Noland’s movie is a big-budget Hollywood film, intended for mainstream success.
I did a little sleuthing on the author of the question, who turns out to be, not surprisingly, a total nutjob, though an admirably prolific one.
Connections
You can find my original answer here, on Quora.