Hot button topics, lack of civility, and generalizations.

[Iniquitous]

I forgot about The Ghost in the Shell.  Most likely because I think my son was the only person I heard actually complain about Johanson getting the role.

As for your question...

WHY do you disagree with a black Harfoot, or a black dwarf, or a black elf?  Because you believe Tolkien described the races on Celtic and Nordic mythology?  Absent a definitive answer from beyond the grave, we will never know Tolkein's thoughts on this matter.  What we do know is he was against the Aryan supremacy belief that the Nazis espoused and he was anti-racist.  Two things that go a-ways in saying he would not care if black people were cast in roles as his creations.  (I'll also point out that Mesolithic Britons were NOT pale-skinned - they were actually a LOT darker. Research Cheddar Man for reference.  Thus, I suspect that the mythologies of the Isles were not as purely white as many think. I'll also point out the mythical race of Brownies. Definitely NOT white.)

Now.  The actress you posted is NOT brown.  Not even close.  She would still be considered white in the US.  Whether she considers herself white I have no idea, but she would not be called brown in the US. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not know what it is like in Poland, but in my experience here in the US (and in my soon-to-be daughter-in-law's case) a lot of black people are actually brown-skinned.  There are varying shades of black people. From caramel-colored skin to the blackest of black.  Examples:





So, when a description is given as "browner in complexion", what I see is a black person because most of the black people I am around are actually varying shades of brown.

[Oniya]

So, I've spoken to my resident expert on Disney movies, and have been told that with the possible exception of Alice in Wonderland, and the definite exception of Maleficent (which took the story in a totally new direction), none of the live action remakes have really lived up to the hype.  In fact, the people going to any of them with the expectation of being 'transported back' to a childhood wonder - regardless of casting - have been sorely disappointed. 

Like Envious mentioned, the trailer shows a 'hyper-realistic' underwater scene.  The Lion King also went for 'hyper-realism', resulting in a lot of down-votes because what you saw as a kid wasn't hyper-realistic.  Real lions don't have facial expressions, real underwater is murky and dull - you get the point.  (I will say, that in my brief search for a possible 'closer to the original' Ariel look-alike, I found a stunning picture of Rhianna with bright red hair - then discovered it was 10 years old.  I don't keep up with Hollywood.)

[Lyron]

Trying to tell them that they should get their own characters in their own stories smacks of racism as well. It is othering them, telling them that they could never see themselves in these stories because of their ethnicity.

Thanks for this. Others were more or less saying the same thing, but I understand the perspective better.

(Also, I love the In This Moment reference in your sig!)

[Vekseid]

I didn't even mention the black Valyrians - I don't have a problem with them, personally.

A bunch of black folks have a bunch of non-albino but still very white children, not just from one generation but across many generations of interbreeding. It's hard to rectify when they have a lot of unique genetic traits they really could not maintain otherwise.

I referred strictly to ROP and how I wasn't sure that black elves, dwarves and hobbits work, considering Tolkien's influences. And how the one black hobbit in the Harfoot tribe wasn't believeable - because I felt it made no sense for a small, insular community to have this kind of ethnic variety. And I repeated: I had no problem with stuff like Death being black in Netflix's Sandman, or with some other characters in that show being played by black people. I just mentioned that ROP issues. And I even said that I understand the noble intentions for such casting choices, and that I wasn't terribly angry about it. I said *all* of this... and I *still* had complete strangers insist that I should reconsider my opinion, because I clearly have some racist attitudes in my head...

So yeah... I get what Azy is talking about.

Tolkein wrote the Harfoots as being of a darker complexion. His description makes them seem Iberian/Berber instead, at least to me, but if they are widely separated from the hobbits we know this isn't really a material concern.

In the case of House of the Dragon and the black Velaryons.  I’ll first point out that the creator of the world, George R.R. Martin, doesn’t seem to have an issue with the casting of a person of color.  I’ll then point out that while House Targaryen may have largely interbred, the same wasn’t true of other Houses. The Velaryons’ ships served as dragons of the sea, carrying them all over the known world, and Corlys’ mother isn’t described. It’s perfectly possible that she too was Black, and that Corlys inherited genetic traits from both his parents.

Authors often have to be very careful of criticizing adaptations. Le Guin was only able to unload on them after they claimed they were implementing her vision - which was a deliberate lie on its face.

To be clear, there were no small number of complaints about how thoroughly the racial representation of her work was butchered. People were even attacking Ursula for not saying anything.

Two decades ago. It was still wrong when Syfy did it.

I have no issue with black Velaryons because it is completely possible. 

They kept the eyes and hair, but not skin or facial structure, even through interbreeding?

Sure.

It doesn’t take me out of the setting, it doesn’t I mean, if I am okay with dragons then a black person isn’t going to bother me.

To anyone who does care about verisimilitude, saying you don't care about it isn't evidence for anything.

It tells people on the other side of this discussion you fundamentally do not understand their point of view. How do you expect to convince them?

No one in this thread is going to argue against racial representation for anyone of color. No one here is going to defend Sci-Fi's butchering of Le Guin's work, or any other such misrepresentation.

At least I hope not.

Similarly I am having troubles grasping Azy's point of view. Or at least, what I do see feels more like parasocial attachment, which is something I consider to be a plague on modern society, personally.

Now.  The actress you posted is NOT brown.  Not even close.  She would still be considered white in the US.  Whether she considers herself white I have no idea, but she would not be called brown in the US. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Beorning is not American.

An ex of mine had her complexion. She lived in Sweden and was discriminated against because she "wasn't white."

In the US, white used to mean 'protestant', so it excluded Slavs, Irish, Catholics, and Hispanics. The definition has expanded here over time, but Europe has been slower on that take.

[Thufir Hawat]

Now.  The actress you posted is NOT brown.  Not even close.  She would still be considered white in the US.  Whether she considers herself white I have no idea, but she would not be called brown in the US. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not know what it is like in Poland,

Yeah, but Beorning is Polish and is talking about how she is viewed in Poland. That you would see it differently is only natural, but also irrelevant.
Things like "brown" or "fair" simply mean different things in different countries. I'm white, and tend to pass for fair-skinned in some European countries, and for having a darker complexion in Northern countries (and probably in Poland, too, though I haven't been there yet).
Suffice it to say, JRRT wasn't living in the USA, either, so Beorning's reading is much more likely to align with his actual intentions.

But I don't really have a horse in this race. I have decided to simply not watch movies that take an existing work and change the races and/or genders and/or sexuality of characters, regardless of the direction of the change - and yes, that very much includes both Shyamalan's Avatar, and the Witcher (both of which I'd skipped anyway). But that's not because it offends me - though in some cases it is offensive, just as it would be if anyone was to cast a White, or even an Asian actor, for Martin Luther-King!
I simply find it lazy and attention-seeking, and suspect that it might be an attempt to distract from the (other) flaws of the movie. So I'm not giving them my time (which concerns me far more than the money )!
Shyamalan's Avatar is actually the perfect example, here. It wouldn't be a good movie even if the races of the characters were kept the same !
So, I've decided that this is going to be my very effort-efficient way to express my opinion on the "artistic merit" of said movies/series: I get to express it by doing less and getting more time for other stuff. Win-win!

[Iniquitous]

A bunch of black folks have a bunch of non-albino but still very white children, not just from one generation but across many generations of interbreeding. It's hard to rectify when they have a lot of unique genetic traits they really could not maintain otherwise.

Tolkein wrote the Harfoots as being of a darker complexion. His description makes them seem Iberian/Berber instead, at least to me, but if they are widely separated from the hobbits we know this isn't really a material concern.

Authors often have to be very careful of criticizing adaptations. Le Guin was only able to unload on them after they claimed they were implementing her vision - which was a deliberate lie on its face.

To be clear, there were no small number of complaints about how thoroughly the racial representation of her work was butchered. People were even attacking Ursula for not saying anything.

Two decades ago. It was still wrong when Syfy did it.

They kept the eyes and hair, but not skin or facial structure, even through interbreeding?

Sure.

To anyone who does care about verisimilitude, saying you don't care about it isn't evidence for anything.

It tells people on the other side of this discussion you fundamentally do not understand their point of view. How do you expect to convince them?

No one in this thread is going to argue against racial representation for anyone of color. No one here is going to defend Sci-Fi's butchering of Le Guin's work, or any other such misrepresentation.

At least I hope not.

Similarly I am having troubles grasping Azy's point of view. Or at least, what I do see feels more like parasocial attachment, which is something I consider to be a plague on modern society, personally.

Beorning is not American.

An ex of mine had her complexion. She lived in Sweden and was discriminated against because she "wasn't white."

In the US, white used to mean 'protestant', so it excluded Slavs, Irish, Catholics, and Hispanics. The definition has expanded here over time, but Europe has been slower on that take.

Thing is, not all houses of Valyria did the interbreeding, as I pointed out in my previous post,  Because the Velaryons were seafarers it IS possible to have bred with a black person and have features of both races.

[Beorning]

I forgot about The Ghost in the Shell.  Most likely because I think my son was the only person I heard actually complain about Johanson getting the role.

And that's surprising, because if there was an awful example of white-washing recently (aside from that failed Avatar TLA movie), then it was the live-action GITS. I have nothing against Scarlett Johansen, but they really should've had a Japanese actress playing this role.

WHY do you disagree with a black Harfoot, or a black dwarf, or a black elf?  Because you believe Tolkien described the races on Celtic and Nordic mythology?  Absent a definitive answer from beyond the grave, we will never know Tolkein's thoughts on this matter.

It's true. But there's a lot of material on Tolkien's influences. So, it's not that I simply "believe" that Tolkien was inspired by Norse mythology etc.

What we do know is he was against the Aryan supremacy belief that the Nazis espoused and he was anti-racist.  Two things that go a-ways in saying he would not care if black people were cast in roles as his creations.

Oh, I agree. But note that you're now actually arguing for a different thing than a moment ago. It's one matter whether Tolkien would've been dissatisfied with ROP casting. On that, I suspect he wouldn't. But the matter of whether there's any actual canon justification for such casting, is a different thing altogether.

(I'll also point out that Mesolithic Britons were NOT pale-skinned - they were actually a LOT darker. Research Cheddar Man for reference.  Thus, I suspect that the mythologies of the Isles were not as purely white as many think. I'll also point out the mythical race of Brownies. Definitely NOT white.)

True. But please note that dark-skinned or even brown doesn't equal black in the sense of "African black".

Now.  The actress you posted is NOT brown.  Not even close.  She would still be considered white in the US.  Whether she considers herself white I have no idea, but she would not be called brown in the US. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Okay, I admit I have a hard time believing that. As far as I know, people like Jessica Alba are considered non-white in the US. And Alba has way lighter skin that Kamila Ścibiorek...

More photos

And in the Polish context? Let's just say that, in the show she's is, her character occassionally cracks jokes related to her being "dark" or not having to work on her tan. Her skin colour does stand out. And if one was to quickly describe why her looks are unusual, a phrase of "darker / browner in complexion" could absolutely be used. So, how can we know that it's not what Tolkien was thinking regarding Harfoots?

I do not know what it is like in Poland, but in my experience here in the US (and in my soon-to-be daughter-in-law's case) a lot of black people are actually brown-skinned.  There are varying shades of black people. From caramel-colored skin to the blackest of black.

So, when a description is given as "browner in complexion", what I see is a black person because most of the black people I am around are actually varying shades of brown.

But see, that's you. For you, "browner in complexion" means "black person". Who knows what it meant to Tolkien, who was a British professor writing books in the first half of 20th century? Maybe, for him, "browner in complexion" meant "Romani-looking". Or "Spaniard-looking". Or just "a bit more swarthy in general". We don't know. So, when I hear people say "Tolkien stated Harfoot were black people, it's all canon!!!", then I object. Because it's not that obvious.

[Azy]

Okay, let me see if I can explain it this way..... 


There was recently a remake of Ghost Busters with an all female cast.  The bad reviews I heard aside, I have female pats.  Every single thing that all of you have said could also be said about this movie, and female representation in general.  For a long time, men were the heroes, and women were there for the men to sweep off their feet.  In this remake, the women are the heroes.  So by the logic here of everyone telling my why my feeling that a black Ariel is wrong being applied to female heroes, I should be so happy about this.  I'm not.

Maybe it is my feeling about remakes in general.  As some said, they very often don't live up to the hype.  I see it as lazy.  I don't want to see the exact same story over and over without at least some kind of perspective and/or twist change.  Everything Envious said.  And no, changing skin tone without changing the name, plot, or anything else is not meaningful change.  Neither would be changing height, hair color, eye color, any other physical attribute. 

Now, Iniquitous, you are putting words in my mouth, and yet another time proving my very point about knee-jerk reactions.  How exactly is wanting new content telling people of color they could never be a part of things that have already been done?  Seriously, I know it will be argued that I haven't been in this position because race, though in a way I have.  I'm short, I'm fat, I'm nothing like any leading lady has ever been.  I don't feel valued by society.  If you see anyone in a movie who remotely looks like me, they're the plucky comic relief.  No one ever falls in love with them. So imagine Disney says to me and everyone like me, well, we're doing this remake.  We'll make you feel better by making the princess fat!  To me, it's an insult.

I said I was glad to see that you want a better world for your grandchildren.  I said I want that too.  Did you acknowledge any of that?  Nope.  Your reply was yeah, well, you just keep sounding more racist, racist, racist, because x, y, and z.  I will say to you that if you put emotion and your protective instincts aside, and actually have a conversation with me, you would find that we probably agree on quite a bit when it comes to the topic of race.  But I've seen it said here once or twice, and a good friend of mine said it, and my mother said it, that people have become so used to race being a fight, that if there is even a tiny bit of push back on one idea, you fight.  You go into defensive mode. 

Aristotle said it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without fully accepting it.  Very few seem to be even entertaining my idea.  Most of what I'm getting, especially from you,  Iniquitous is SELFISH RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Exactly how well do you know me?  Did you know I have a mixed race cousin?  Yeah, you'll say every racist says they have black friends.  And actually, the two friends that I lost were because of another topic long before Ariel ever came up.  I tend to have unpopular opinions and I like to play devil's advocate.  I like to keep people thinking instead of accepting being spoon fed what public figures tell them.  Also, I will say it again, it's not that I don't think people of color don't have a place in the Little Mermaid, or any remake for that matter.  From where I'm standing, it's a placating insult.  That's not how you see it, and that's cool.  Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I'm just getting seriously pissed off that people keep making snap judgments about me.  I've tried to rephrase I don't know how many times.  I tried to identify with you, said maybe you're right about some people.  It makes no damned difference.  I should repeat it yet again because it seems that is the best way to get it in people's skulls.  I believe remakes are lazy placating insults.  I'm not saying to anyone they don't have a place there.  I'm saying why take a hand-me-down when you can have something brand new. 

I hate that this country is so fucking polarized.  You must believe x and y or you're a racist.  You must celebrate z or you're sexist.  If there are 10 principles to pick a platform, any platform at this point, and I completely agree with 8 of them, but have some reservations about 2, then automatically I am the scum sucking enemy who must be violently put back in my place in hell.  If you can't already tell I've been through this with a lot more than just a mermaid.  It is seriously fucking hilarious that some of you are quoting Beau to me.  I've been watching his videos.  He's an independent thinker.  I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I respect that he's not regurgitating some slogan and generic talking point.  I am an independent thinker.  I do not like to be told how to think and feel.  So people who have never met me in person have called me a racist, a sexist, pro pedophile, an elitist, a crazy religious cook.  You name it, I've been called it by random strangers, all because I didn't agree with them about one fricken thing.  I dared to have my own thought. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f04LwlshHM&list=PLBVNJo7nhINSjBZdNezW15PzOTCc-10m9

I stumbled on this while looking for something else, but it was interesting.  It was extremely interesting that one of the black men said exactly what I think about reparations.  Though the idea of investing in communities was good one.  I could get behind that.           

     

[Dice]

But see, that's you. For you, "browner in complexion" means "black person". Who knows what it meant to Tolkien, who was a British professor writing books in the first half of 20th century? Maybe, for him, "browner in complexion" meant "Romani-looking". Or "Spaniard-looking". Or just "a bit more swarthy in general". We don't know. So, when I hear people say "Tolkien stated Harfoot were black people, it's all canon!!!", then I object. Because it's not that obvious.

Let me jump in here. I did some Australian history in uni (I did a bunch of shit trying to find what I was really there for, been great for my lone repayments...) and we had a whole section about "The White Australia Policy." Basically, the short version, in the 1930's and 40's, being from Eastern Europe made you "Non White" here. Now I can not speak for a British person, but the views where pretty closely linked, UK and Aus, at the time. Black in a historical context here meant "Whoever the fuck we want it to mean so we can do what the fuck we want to do." Bluntly put. This included a bound of roads around our cities that are still called "Boundary Road" that meant "If you are black and we find you past this street after sunset woe be your ass." 

So, bluntly put, it is very very VERY likely that due to the much more common racism of the day, everyone from the woman your pointing out to an African dipped in tar would qualify as black. Because "Not White" was really all that mattered.

So when he says "Darker in Complexion" that is a big ass note for the time. Because that person, "Darker in complexion" here in Australia, they would not have been allowed in the city at night. He's saying, in so many words, "Someone that Lovecraft would hate, but in a way that will not piss off Lovecraft because I have plausible deniability on the matter."

[Dice]

Okay, let me see if I can explain it this way..... 

Maybe it is my feeling about remakes in general.  As some said, they very often don't live up to the hype.  I see it as lazy.  I don't want to see the exact same story over and over without at least some kind of perspective and/or twist change.  Everything Envious said.  And no, changing skin tone without changing the name, plot, or anything else is not meaningful change.  Neither would be changing height, hair color, eye color, any other physical attribute. 

But race is the bugbear you have... I don't get it. We have no idea what they are going to change and we have no idea what impact this movie is going to have on youth today. See here is the thing, this movie, its not actually for you. It's not for me either. I get it, I saw the OG when I was a kid, but Disney is not going to go back to the old classic's and release the cartoons to cinema again. Which is actually IMO a fucking smarter idea then these Live actions have been.

So if these movies are more for the kids of today and a large amount of them, more then when we were kids, are now POC. So then why does giving them a mirror on screen not qualify as a meaningful change? Because lets be honest, if they make it beat for beat the same, by your own admission they are making something you do not want to see. Its a clone of something you have seen and loved already. So leave it for the kids to enjoy and admit that for a large amount of them, this IS very meaningful. For you, who don't want to see a clone, go watch the one you like.

I really think your issues are solved by buying a DVD of a movie that is old enough to drink.

[Azy]

But race is the bugbear you have... I don't get it. We have no idea what they are going to change and we have no idea what impact this movie is going to have on youth today. See here is the thing, this movie, its not actually for you. It's not for me either. I get it, I saw the OG when I was a kid, but Disney is not going to go back to the old classic's and release the cartoons to cinema again. Which is actually IMO a fucking smarter idea then these Live actions have been.

So if these movies are more for the kids of today and a large amount of them, more then when we were kids, are now POC. So then why does giving them a mirror on screen not qualify as a meaningful change? Because lets be honest, if they make it beat for beat the same, by your own admission they are making something you do not want to see. Its a clone of something you have seen and loved already. So leave it for the kids to enjoy and admit that for a large amount of them, this IS very meaningful. For you, who don't want to see a clone, go watch the one you like.

I really think your issues are solved by buying a DVD of a movie that is old enough to drink.

I didn't mean meaningful change as in change that impacted society.  Like I get that most story themes have been done before.  The forbidden romance.  The looming threat the hero conquers.  I meant meaningful change in that it's not the same story word for word with the same characters.  I think there are new tales to be told.  I'm sick of looking at the local movie line up and seeing only sequels and remakes.  Where did all the creativity go?  Where did all the good plot lines go? 

It surprises me that I'm getting this attitude on a creative writing forum.  I've browsed through story idea threads and seen some that could make an awesome movie or TV series.  You're right, the remakes are obviously not for me.  I'm not gonna go out and protest or anything.  I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't watch them if they want to.  I'm disappointed that that's all they got.  All they could do was re do something that has been done before.  Like I said, I see it as lazy.  And if the underwater scenes look like crap that's extra lazy and adds another layer of insult.  Why even bother if you're only gonna half-ass it on top of it.  Even when I heard there was a Beauty and the Beast remake, which was the first as far as I know, they kept Belle white, and I was still like... for the love of all that is holy.... why?  I wasn't happy about that one either.  I did end up watching it with some friends on Netflx because they wanted to watch it.  It did suck.  The children of today are getting reheated crappy leftovers, and in my humble opinion, they deserve better.   

[Oniya]

The children of today are getting reheated crappy leftovers, and in my humble opinion, they deserve better.

This, I will absolutely support.  Disney isn't making this movie to be 'culturally progressive' - they're doing it for the cash, and so they don't have to bother coming up with something new.

[TheGlyphstone]

Thats kinda been their business model for decades. The whole 'Disney Vault' concept is designed specifically to drive up scarcity for the 'classics' and play on nostalgia.

[Azy]

Thats kinda been their business model for decades. The whole 'Disney Vault' concept is designed specifically to drive up scarcity for the 'classics' and play on nostalgia.

And that needs to change.  On Jimmy Kimmel the other night Viola Davis was on to promote her latest movie.  The Woman King I think it's called.  All black female cast based on a true story.  So not only is that representation, but it's honoring a badass African woman who really existed.  That I can get behind.  Of course it makes sense that it's an all black cast since the setting is Africa if I'm remembering right.  Still, I think it's cool. 

When there's a history month, which it's not just black history month anymore, The View does a daily feature of a person from that group who did something amazing.  Sometimes it's people alive today.  Sometimes it's people who lived a hundred years ago.  It's so cool that so many people of different backgrounds did such amazing things.  Maybe schools should do that.  I learned about Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King Jr.  I've learned a lot more since high school. 

I'm against schools not teaching the true history of this country.  There's a lot of crap that makes our ancestors look bad.  Hell, if you get into world history there is thousands of years worth of humans treating humans who were different like dirt and doing horrible things cuz reasons.     

[GloomCookie]

School districts have only a finite amount of time to teach history, especially the history of the United States. Usually they'll cover the indigenous populations for a week or two at the start of the year (basically several hundreds of thousands of years of history before European colonization) and then they'll have almost an entire week dedicated to the Spanish rolling up in 1492 and from there history slows way down, but by that point they've already gotten part of the way through their material and there's still mid terms to consider, so by the time England makes an appearance they're already a quarter of the way through their limited time. There will be a major emphasis on how the English and Dutch and French shaped North America so that by the time Christmas rolls around and that big holiday it's iffy if they even get through the modules leading up to the American Revolution which gets a lot of air time because that's kind of a big deal in American history. By the time they get back from Christmas you've lost half your year and now you have everything post-Revolution to cram in, which you'd think at the blitz pace they've maintained so far that should be easy, right? Well no because next major milestone will likely be either the Civil War or just beyond meaning now you've got 100 years to cram into the final portion of the term which also needs a final that will take up your entire final week, so we're on fast forward through the major events of the late 19th and now I guess the entirety of the 20th century and maybe even up to 9/11.

My point is that while we do a criminal job teaching history, there's only so many hours a day and so many days in a term to do everything. Where I went to school you spent the first 5 minutes just getting attendance and you had ~50 minutes total, so you lost a chunk just making sure butts were in seats. Plus there's all the times a teacher is out for various reasons (sickness, family issues, mandatory training, etc.) and reasons students aren't there (school-wide assemblies, field-trips, etc.) that just eats into the time a teacher has to enact a lesson plan just to hit the highlights. It's almost impossible to fit all the highlights in with any real detail and there's just nothing left for the really cool or fascinating things that deserve their time to shine, especially if they must also try and time particular themes of history around times of the year like Black History Month and slavery.

I've learned way more about American history since I left high school, and I think that's probably better anyway. Instead of an institutionalized textbook that's going to gloss over certain events based on the biases of the author that some school district somewhere agrees with, I can do a lot of my own digging and discover how deep the rabbit hole goes. For example, I am 100% certain unless a history teacher brings it up, no student in history class knows about the various badass women who served in wars throughout American history by dressing as men, and maybe only get a brief blurb about the various black men who tore open a can of whoop ass with their teeth and didn't stop. Given how most people who graduate from American schools can't recall a damn thing isn't really surprising though. How many videos do we see Americans not knowing basics like how many stars are on the US flag, or what's the capital of France, or what year the Declaration of Independence was signed?

US schools are focused on metrics that show they're teaching the material based on what some bureaucrat in Washington DC says must be taught so they can get Department of Education funding. That's it. There's no emphasis on interesting or uniquely cool facts about history, it's all about filling out scantrons so they can get money so they can buy new football helmets because the ones they bought last year are slightly scuffed while ignoring the programs that could be genuinely interesting like robotics club no I'm not still bitter about that stop asking!

[TheGlyphstone]

Very true. I took as many history electives as I could in college mainly because I love history and I know HS history curriculum puts Cliff Notes to shame in its brevity. One of my favorite series growing up was the Horrible Histories books.

This is also one of the reasons why I'm both baffled, amused, and annoyed by the Satanic PanicCritical Race Theory nonsense. Even if it actually existed in any format close to their shrieking histrionics, when would schools actually have the time to teach this stuff?

[Thufir Hawat]

And that needs to change.  On Jimmy Kimmel the other night Viola Davis was on to promote her latest movie.  The Woman King I think it's called.  All black female cast based on a true story.  So not only is that representation, but it's honoring a badass African woman who really existed.  That I can get behind.  Of course it makes sense that it's an all black cast since the setting is Africa if I'm remembering right.  Still, I think it's cool. 

I just googled it (the site is at https://www.thewomanking.movie/ ) and it looks very cool! So I wanted to thank you for mentioning it!

Now I just need to find how to order it, but such movies are right up my alley...so, quite unexpectedly, something good came from this thread !

[Keelan]

I just googled it (the site is at https://www.thewomanking.movie/ ) and it looks very cool! So I wanted to thank you for mentioning it!

Now I just need to find how to order it, but such movies are right up my alley...so, quite unexpectedly, something good came from this thread !

Yeah, I'll pass; If I wanted to watch a movie glorifying a bunch of slave-raiders fighting for their rights (their rights to what?) and way of life (their way of life doing what?) while sanitizing them so that they were 'blades of freedom' and 'totally against slavery' while actively participating in it, I'm pretty sure I can find a 'Lost Cause' film somewhere to scratch that itch.

[Azy]

Yeah, I'll pass; If I wanted to watch a movie glorifying a bunch of slave-raiders fighting for their rights (their rights to what?) and way of life (their way of life doing what?) while sanitizing them so that they were 'blades of freedom' and 'totally against slavery' while actively participating in it, I'm pretty sure I can find a 'Lost Cause' film somewhere to scratch that itch.

Um, where did you get all that from?  Unless you found different information somewhere, the hero is an African woman, and the slave raiders are the enemy. 

[Keelan]

Um, where did you get all that from?  Unless you found different information somewhere, the hero is an African woman, and the slave raiders are the enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

The film takes place in 1823, for time reference btw, when they're about to win their war against the Oyo Empire.

[Keelan]

Oh, here's this too, if we don't like Wikipedia:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/real-warriors-woman-king-dahomey-agojie-amazons-180980750/

[Azy]

Okay, but your own source says the movie itself is not pro slavery.  They took a little creative license with that.  If you get further into it, even before Europeans left their own shores, taking captives and making them slaves was a pretty standard practice.  It just so happened that when Europeans arrived, they started selling their captives.  Mayans sacrificed their captives to their god of war by cutting out their hearts while they were still alive.  So are you going to say the same thing about any movie based on Mayan culture? 

The Greeks took captives as slaves.  The Romans took captives as slaves.  The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew people.  The Middle East was hard to keep up with in World History.  The Tower of Babble may not be a true story, but I'm pretty sure Babylon existed, and enslaved the people they conquered.  The trade route between Europe and Asia was a very contested area that everyone wanted to control. 

Horrible atrocities are still being committed in Africa.  One summer when my mom and I were visiting that part of our family, my cousin introduced me to friends of hers, sisters who were refugees from Sierra Leon.  I was like 12, and hadn't heard of that country before, but they had stories that children their age should never have to see. 

Humans have been horrible to other humans different from them all throughout history.  Yeah, Europeans did the colonization thing while using the bible and God as justification, which was taking it a step further, but they are far from the only culture to act that way.  It wasn't that long ago that China decided Tibet was theirs.  Hong Kong is theirs.  I'm pretty sure Taiwan is theirs.  Another one of my cousins married a Taiwanese girl like three years ago.  But they spoke the Chinese language, and it was the first reception I had ever been to with a Chinese buffet.  I finally found out what bubble tea was.  But there were references to both China and Taiwan.     

So if you're gonna let the past ruin things for you, prepare to not like much of anything.  It's yet another unpopular opinion of mine, but learn what you can from the past, and move on.  Don't repeat the same mistakes and you're cool.     

[Beorning]

Mayans sacrificed their captives to their god of war by cutting out their hearts while they were still alive.  So are you going to say the same thing about any movie based on Mayan culture?

Well, to be honest, human sacrifice *was* a horrible practice. A movie about Mayans (or Aztecs, or any other Mesoamerican culture that practiced it) that would omit it, might be considered a little... dishonest I know that there was much more to these cultures than human sacrifice, but... heck, Aztecs went as far as sacrificing thousands of people during one ceremony. That's horror movie stuff.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie about Aztecs, though... :)

The Greeks took captives as slaves.  The Romans took captives as slaves.  The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew people.  The Middle East was hard to keep up with in World History.  The Tower of Babble may not be a true story, but I'm pretty sure Babylon existed, and enslaved the people they conquered.

Also, Vikings kept slaves, too. We still can enjoy stories about Vikings, though. So you're right :)

[GloomCookie]

Humans have been horrible to other humans different from them all throughout history.  Yeah, Europeans did the colonization thing while using the bible and God as justification, which was taking it a step further, but they are far from the only culture to act that way.  It wasn't that long ago that China decided Tibet was theirs.  Hong Kong is theirs.  I'm pretty sure Taiwan is theirs.  Another one of my cousins married a Taiwanese girl like three years ago.  But they spoke the Chinese language, and it was the first reception I had ever been to with a Chinese buffet.  I finally found out what bubble tea was.  But there were references to both China and Taiwan.     

China wants to claim it owns Taiwan but that's been going on since 1947 when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Mao let the Chinese Republic bleed itself dry fighting off the Japanese invasion and then took over, forcing what was left of the Republic to the province of Taiwan and controlling the mainland. The government of Taiwan officially calls itself the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China claims they still officially own Taiwan, they just, uh, shut up about it, they'll get that rogue territory to comply eventually. It just sucks for them the United States parks an aircraft carrier between them and they don't want to risk a shooting war with the US over it.

The two basically act like they own the other, they just don't have direct control right now but will, give them enough time. It's a weird political situation where the PROC get super pissed if anyone says Taiwan is a separate entity, like a few years ago when Japan publicly thanked Taiwan for aid after a disaster. It's basically a sore spot for them since China wants to control the narrative and can't stand when another nation doesn't recognize them as the supreme authority over all that they claim is theirs, regardless of actual reality.

So no, Taiwan does not belong to the PROC, and that's why Taiwan 'feels' like China, because they are... they're the Republic of China.

[Thufir Hawat]

Yeah, I'll pass; If I wanted to watch a movie glorifying a bunch of slave-raiders fighting for their rights (their rights to what?) and way of life (their way of life doing what?) while sanitizing them so that they were 'blades of freedom' and 'totally against slavery' while actively participating in it, I'm pretty sure I can find a 'Lost Cause' film somewhere to scratch that itch.

At the time, people in Dahomey were fighting against the domination of another political organisation, the Oyo empire...which wasn't exactly against slave trading, either. In fact, tribute to it was often paid in slaves.
AFAICT (haven't watched it yet) it's that struggle that is pictured, and yes, that counts as fighting for freedom in my book - even if it was mostly political and cultural freedom.
That neither side was against the slave trade is totally irrelevant to that kind of conflict.

Also, Dahomey's leadership reportedly considered switching from selling slaves to selling palm oil, but found it non-viable economically. Talk about "buyers driving the market" !