|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 20, 2022 7:56:06 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with her argument--though I think she was being a bit facetious because she was ticked off--but he was being a chump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 30, 2022 11:38:16 GMT -5
Progressive seem to be in denial of historical reality when it comes to the slave trade and the fact that African tribal leaders were major drivers of it. The English, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, etc. and other African countries didn't just sail to Africa and kidnap slaves. They bought them from African slavers. Just look at the recent kerfuffle over the movie "Woman King," which depicts a group of warriors from a tribe that: 1) got its ass completely kicked in a battle that killed most of them, and; 2) were huge brokers in the slave trade. Funny also that Viola Davis was likely completely ignorant of this or decided to be in complete denial so she could finally pretend that she's an A-list movie actress (she's still not), and has claimed that if people don't go see it they're racist. Also funny in a pathetically predictable kind of way that the movie's director, producers, etc. are trying to claim that the history books are totes wrong about the history of this tribe and that they're the only ones who know the "real" history because they found some random dude that nobody's ever heard of who told them the tribe were actually the heroes and he knows because he claims to have descended from that tribe. And, of course, the LA Times is shilling that bullshit "totally not revisionist revisionist-history" story for them too. I know that movie example might seem random but it and the Don Lemon clip just kind of reinforce a prevailing delusion among some far-leftists who put narrative over statistical, scientific, and historical facts. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 30, 2022 12:05:06 GMT -5
Lol, yeah that's some top drawer hair-splitting going on in the LA Times piece. I could make the same sort of argument about the American South: "Well sure it practiced slavery, but it was so much more than that, so it's unfair to criticize slavery as if it were fundamental to the South or defining. It gets a raw deal in the history books because the North won." I'd like to see if the slaver-apologists would be okay with that argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 30, 2022 12:10:21 GMT -5
Also, there's a great flick about an Indian warrior-queen--Rani of Jhansi---called "Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi" that is quite good. It's in Hindi. There's also a British one, "The Warrior Queen of Jhansi" that's not too bad, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 30, 2022 13:40:28 GMT -5
Lol, yeah that's some top drawer hair-splitting going on in the LA Times piece. I could make the same sort of argument about the American South: "Well sure it practiced slavery, but it was so much more than that, so it's unfair to criticize slavery as if it were fundamental to the South or defining. It gets a raw deal in the history books because the North won." I'd like to see if the slaver-apologists would be okay with that argument. The argument made in the LA Times piece by the Woman King executives takes it even further in absurdity because if they did the same with American South, they'd be citing the work of a "Southern historian who directly descended from the last Confederate soldier." |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 30, 2022 15:40:59 GMT -5
Lol, true.
|
|
