A) it obviously takes some historical liberties since I don’t think everyone in medeival scotland would actually be like “oh ok don’t get married reject the suitors and go run into the wilderness, chill.  Do your thing, gurl”

B) go re-read history as in you’re making assumptions because of an overwhelming white tendency to whitewash history and assume that the only possible narrative of POC in any place other than Africa, in past history, is in the role of “slave,” and POC have indeed continually been a part of Europe, past and present

C) it’s laughable in a ha-you’re-subconsciously-racist way that people wouldn’t object to the obvious “unrealistic and ridiculous” elements of having people turn into bears and all the other magic that happens in movies like this.   Things like this are always seen as “okay” and are really strange contradictions of the critiquer’s hardcore “HISTORICAL ACCURACY ONLY” stance.    Historical accuracy is only important to them when it involves including black people etc., basically.  Everything else can slide.

D) Who even cares, honestly?  Even if your history wasn’t incorrect, would it be doing anyone any real harm to have even just one POC character in your tenth century Scotland?  Will kids suddenly lose all ability to understand history lessons because of that?  Will their extensive knowledge (joking) about old Scotland be forever tainted because of a single appearance of one POC in an animated, magical children’s movie?  Really now.   What’s the harm other than- you’re afraid of people re-writing history to not be white washed in your favor?

Overall, yeah, it really does say something about your perspective on things when people aren’t bothered by giant historical inaccuracies, but assume that they themselves would be unhappy if movies were “unrealistic” and added in POC characters where they might not have been historically plentiful.