Vikings: Valhalla - May the controversy begin

[airiefairie]

With its release on Netflix in late February, the series Vikings: Valhalla has caused a lot of interest. And that's to be expected: it is something like a sequel to one of the most popular titles in recent years, Vikings.

The original series has largely provoked a wave of interest in the Vikings and the Norse in general, presenting to the modern world a look at the Northern sagas and history. So when the show's creators unveiled its sequel, many fans felt entitled to weigh in.

But while Vikings: Valhalla quickly became one of the most watched series on Netflix, it has also caused quite a few negative or at least annoying reactions, focused mostly on one character - Earl Haakon - the black ruler of the central location that we've learned to know and love from the previous series, the (admittedly fictional) port city of Kattegat.

Yes, the idea of ​​a black Viking managing one of the most important ports in the Kingdom of Norway may sound strange, and the series explains that Haakon took power after the death of her husband, and she herself is the daughter of a famous Viking who traveled to Africa, and an African princess he married.

In the series, she rules wisely and firmly, balancing between the interests of pagans and Christians and preventing their enmity from erupting in full force. She also entrusted the defense of the city to an elite guard of female fighters.

Officially, Earl Haakon is a fictional character, but based on a real historical figure - Haakon Eriksson, ruler of Norway and vassal of the Danish King Canute the Great (also portrayed in the series).

So in the end it turns out that we have a character who in historical reality was a white man, and in the series he was replaced by a black woman, who is repeatedly emphasised how wise and capable she is.

In addition, she, as the governor of an extremely important port city and a sort of trade center, relies on the protection of female fighters, who are supposed to be superior to most men in combat capabilities.

Yes, it sounds strange and crazy, and more importantly, it doesn't sound very appropriate, especially given the fact that the action takes place at the very beginning of the 11th century, a time that has historically been strongly dominated by men.

Accordingly, a number of articles, publications and videos have already appeared online addressing this issue - how once again an American series sacrifices historical authenticity in an attempt to promote modern identity policies and left-wing liberalism.

To be honest, no one here is talking about history. Earl Haakon is the smallest problem of the Vikings and Vikings: Valhalla in terms of historical authenticity.

Because these two series are everything else, but not historical. Disney's adaptations of famous tales have more to do with the original stories than the Vikings from the two series have to do with historical reality.

From the very beginning of the first series, the formula is clear - the only historical thing is the names and a the occasional event here and there.

One of the series that is most often compared to the Vikings, for example, is The Last Kingdom, which looks at an identical period in history. But the difference between the two shows why The Last Kingdom is a historical series and Vikings is not.

The Last Kingdom is based on the novels of Bernard Cornwell from the Saxon Chronicles series. Cornwell himself has stated in his interviews that looking at these moments from the past, we know only some of the facts and events, but not exactly how they happened, because there are relatively few records and chronicles left.

So he decides to "fill in the gaps" by inserting his fictional characters into them, intertwining them with real people. He does not change the events, but gives an artistic explanation for them - how things happened. And he is doing very well in that regard.

Vikings, on the other hand, are taking a different path. They just take a bunch of famous names from history or from the sagas, gather them in one place, have a good time and weave them into their own plot, often without caring about things like age differences or any real family ties.

A cult example in this case is the "brothers" Ragnar and Rollo, who were in fact historically separated by several decades (assuming that Ragnar was a real person at all), and at the time of Ragnar's death Rollo must have been somewhere in his early 20s.

Another funny example is that although in the series Bjorn Ironside is the son of Lagertha (who is Ragnar's first wife), according to the sagas, his mother is actually Aslaug (in the show - his stepmother and mother of his half-brothers).

As for Vikings: Valhalla, the massacre of St. Bryce's Day was chosen as the main driver for the events in the plot, where King Aethelred decides to kill all the Norse in England in response to frequent Viking raids. In response, a large coalition of Viking chiefs and kings is formed, who go on to conquer London with their longboats.

Although the series is led by King Canute at the head of this colorful group of Vikings, in reality the revenge raid is led by his father, King Sweyn I, with historians debating whether Canute was old enough to join the army at the time. And if he did, he had a much smaller role than the one attributed to him.

Thus, if the massacre itself was in 1002, Canute in fact took power from his father around 1013, when his father left him to control England while he himself returned to Scandinavia to consolidate his power over the territories there.

As for one of the main characters - Harald Hardrada, according to the chronicles he was born around 1015. The other leading character - the Greenlandic navigator Leif Erickson was born around 970, and at the time of the massacre he discovered the New World - today's Newfoundland, Canada. And there is no indication that he met Harold or even King Canute, ever.

Of course, more and more examples of why the Vikings series has little to do with history can be given. What's more, the two shows are so detached from the real events that even the Braveheart team, led by Mel Gibson, would say that's too much.

Then why are some people so offended by a black Viking noblewoman? In an obviously fictional story, she is the ruler of a fictional city, and she herself has a fictional biography that is not so incredible (it sounds possible - not likely, but possible).

The answer here is simple - because putting Earl Haakon in that form seems like a rape of history. It seems self-serving and too elaborate and designed only to make a political point.

The irritation of such elements in the modern entertainment industry is not so much the product of racism (although this may be part of the equation too) as it is of the fatigue from these purposeful, regularly repeated pursuits of political ideas that do not enrich history in any way.

Against the background of all this bacchanalia of joking and poking fun at history, Earl Haakon still manages to stand out as a bad patch and a quota imposed by the local party secretary.

If this were just a separate case, it would probably be overlooked by grumbling and rolling one's eyes, or it would be seen as a strange and exotic decision.

But this is not the case. In recent years, there has been a serious pushing of black characters into historical films and series, with no real room for such. Like the black Anne Boleyn or that ill-fated Trojan War project with the black Achilles and Zeus.

Or the desire to bring black characters into the world of The Lord of the Rings or other fantasy stories that once again represent a medieval, Eurocentric world:



In today's US society (which is a major producer and consumer of pop culture), the need to represent the various minorities in popular culture is significant.

After decades of stars being predominantly white and heterosexual, members of other ethnic and racial groups have the desire and are significant enough consumer groups to identify themselves with various characters and protagonists.

This is a market - there is a niche in demand, and there is supply. And the emergence of a number of productions where black and Latino actors are the leading characters is more than logical. Examples of such titles are becoming more and more.

The castes are becoming more and more "colorful" and include a number of different characters with "unconventional" background. Supply and demand.

However, the problem emerges when it comes to historical productions, where (logically in our European-centric world) the focus is most often on the European Middle Ages or the Victorian era in England - two extremely racially homogeneous periods for Europe.

Therefore, in series concerning these periods, screenwriters must either adapt their characters to the time in which the plot unfolds, or be creative in order to insert one colored character or another.

And the latter is quite difficult to implement, leading mostly to Vikings-like "Valhalla" patches - characters who are black, just to have a black actor in the production.

Their presence does not develop the plot at all, and the color of their skin, apart from being atypical for the specific story, is strange and ridiculous. It stands as if it's forced, as if showing disrespect for the source material, be it the story itself or a fantasy book with its own rules.

And it is this disrespect, for the sake of making of a political message, that is what fans are annoyed with.

Is there a solution to this problem? Probably yes, but we are talking about the entertainment industry, not political conflict or war.

One possible solution is to look for stories that make sense to have black characters - whether it be the rule of Shaka Zulu, the story of the black samurai Yasuke, the Ethiopian Empire or even the story of Constantinople - the most cosmopolitan city in the Middle Ages. People of many ethnicities and races could be seen in those stories and that would be natural.

Or just if you are going to put a black character in the story, at least let it make real sense to have them there.

Two things are really important - to approach the source material with enough respect - and to create a really good story. If both are followed, everything will be fine, even if you have a black Viking leader.

As for Vikings: Valhalla, the series is enjoyable, as long as you don't look for any historical truth in it.