Jump to content
Myshkin

Authors Behaving Like A**holes

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again, the point wasn’t that it couldn’t have happened, it was that it suddenly seemed to take me out of the movie because it seemed to be making a political point.   

So the filmmakers should stick to white characters to pander to the ignorant?

If seeing an asian man took you out if the movie, sounds like the problem is with you, not the movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

So the filmmakers should stick to white characters to pander to the ignorant?

If seeing an asian man took you out if the movie, sounds like the problem is with you, not the movie

No, not the point and I’m sure you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No, not the point and I’m sure you know it.

No, what is your point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

And I refuted your point, pointing out in turn that the problem is you, not the film. It depicted a non-white character whose presence is historically justified.

And here is the problem. Here you go, turning the issue onto me. Somehow there must be something wrong with someone who notices something that looks a little contrived in a historical movie.. 'oh you racist! How dare you even think about it!' WRONGTHINK!

It is pretty reasonable for anyone who knows anything about WW1 to second glance when a character like this turns up in a movie, because even though it was technically possible for him to be there, statistically it was unlikely that a lone Sikh would be in such a situation, and the situation was clearly contrived to allow it to happen. THAT took me out of the movie, a movie which btw is probably my favourite of the year, but the reason it is so good is because it does such a good job of transporting the viewer into the action and grabbing your attention by the balls. By creating these little moments yeah it took me out of the moment and into my head.

And I have no doubt his inclusion was an attempt highlight the contribution of Indian and colonial troops to the British WW1 effort (which btw, I'm quite sure some of my distant relatives would be included in). I'm not unhappy about that, its an admirable thing to do, bit it is clearly motivated as a political statement, which seemed incongruent at the time.  I brushed it off and got on with enjoying the movie. 

The difference being that Fox gets pilloried and labeled as arch villain for thinking the same thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The difference being that Fox gets pilloried and labeled as arch villain for thinking the same thing.

Fox:

It is kind of racist – if you talk about institutional racism, which is what everyone loves to go on about, which I’m not a believer in, there is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way. You don’t want to think about [that].’

 

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/21/laurence-fox-claims-sikh-soldier-sam-mendes-war-epic-1917-forcing-diversity-viewers-12093965/?ito=cbshare

If you want to show outrage at someone flippantly accusing others of racism with no substance maybe direct some of it to his way? 

Like could at least concede Fox’s  was wrong here?

That this call ”instinctually racism” was ridiculous, and immoral?

57 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not unhappy about that, its an admirable thing to do, bit it is clearly motivated as a political statement, which seemed incongruent at the time.  I brushed it off and got on with enjoying the movie. 

And Fox said he took it as a literal instance of racism. 

57 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It is pretty reasonable for anyone who knows anything about WW1 to second glance when a character like this turns up in a movie, because even though it was technically possible for him to be there, statistically it was unlikely that a lone Sikh would be in such a situation, and the situation was clearly contrived to allow it to happen.

Meh ok you're partially right. It would probably would  have been more Sikhs as well as some other soldiers from Indian there as well instead of just one.

They after all extremely important to the war-effort.

Also, glad to see you drop the claim of Sikhs more than likely not fighting in Europe at all during the war. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, john said:

As for Lawrence Fox, he’s promoting his new album and his ridiculous career switch to singer songwriter.

I was going to say he'll probably struggle with that, but actually when has a total lack of talent ever held someone back from a musical career if they had the right connections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

And here is the problem. Here you go, turning the issue onto me. Somehow there must be something wrong with someone who notices something that looks a little contrived in a historical movie.. 'oh you racist! How dare you even think about it!' WRONGTHINK!

It is pretty reasonable for anyone who knows anything about WW1 to second glance when a character like this turns up in a movie, because even though it was technically possible for him to be there, statistically it was unlikely that a lone Sikh would be in such a situation, and the situation was clearly contrived to allow it to happen. THAT took me out of the movie, a movie which btw is probably my favourite of the year, but the reason it is so good is because it does such a good job of transporting the viewer into the action and grabbing your attention by the balls. By creating these little moments yeah it took me out of the moment and into my head.
 

Have you considered the possibility that actually seeing a single Sikh soldier in a crowd is more historically accurate (as Derfel Cadarn pointed out), and that previous all-white renditions of armies of this time made equally "political" decisions?

And for Fox to then call it "forced diversity" and an example of racism itself is pretty ridiculous and worthy of criticism. I thought you were very much against over-use of the racism accusation. Maybe depicting a single non-white soldier in a military force that had non-trivial representation from South Asia doesn't deserve accusations of racism?

You've also decried outrage culture, but I think raising a fuss over that single Sikh soldier is a pretty fine example of performative outrage.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Fox:

It is kind of racist – if you talk about institutional racism, which is what everyone loves to go on about, which I’m not a believer in, there is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way. You don’t want to think about [that].’

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/21/laurence-fox-claims-sikh-soldier-sam-mendes-war-epic-1917-forcing-diversity-viewers-12093965/?ito=cbshare

If you want to show outrage at someone flippantly accusing others of racism with no substance maybe direct some of it to his way? 

Not really, if you actually go in and listen to everything he's talking about here, his point is that 'forced diversity', by that I suppose he means casting actors that probably aren't historically accurate to a situation, has little effect other than to make everyone become incredibly aware of race, which in itself is really unhelpful in combating racism (something I wholly agree with, especially in the UK where race is far less political an issue). I think his use of the term is over the top and he could tone it down a bit , but I think he's on the whole pretty correct. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And Fox said he took it as a literal instance of racism. 

Actually he said he was fine with it, and he was really good in it. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh ok you're partially right. It would probably would  have been more Sikhs as well as some other soldiers from Indian there as well instead of just one.

They after all extremely important to the war-effort.

Well the point being, as I mentioned, that it seemed odd to see a Sikh on his own. They would have more than likely been fighting with other Sikhs. In terms of numbers I think it might be a couple of thousand at most in Europe? 
 

Men from United Kingdom in army in August 1914:
733,514
 
plus recruited from England :
4,006,158
 
plus recruited from Scotland:
557,618
 
plus recruited from Wales and Monmouth:
272,924
 
plus recruited from Ireland:
134,202

So there were probably about 5 million British troops recruited who fought at some point in Europe... vs maybe 2000 sikhs. So the chances of you actually seeing a lone Sikh were pretty small. Where most of the indian soldiers were deployed was outside of Europe. Which was what I was thinking about as I was watching the movie. Hence why I was taken out of the movie.

Quote

Also, glad to see you drop the claim of Sikhs more than likely not fighting in Europe at all during the war. 

Again, never claimed that, it's another one of your happy misrepresentations of my posts. II assumed most Sikhs would be more likely to be fighting outside of Europe... which is pretty correct. 

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really, if you actually go in and listen to everything he's talking about here, his point is that 'forced diversity', by that I suppose he means casting actors that probably aren't historically accurate to a situation, has little effect other than to make everyone become incredibly aware of race, which in itself is really unhelpful in combating racism (something I wholly agree with, especially in the UK where race is far less political an issue). I think his use of the term is over the top and he could tone it down a bit , but I think he's on the whole pretty correct. 

Actually he said he was fine with it, and he was really good in it. 

Well the point being, as I mentioned, that it seemed odd to see a Sikh on his own. They would have more than likely been fighting with other Sikhs. In terms of numbers I think it might be a couple of thousand at most in Europe? 
 

Men from United Kingdom in army in August 1914:
733,514
 
plus recruited from England :
4,006,158
 
plus recruited from Scotland:
557,618
 
plus recruited from Wales and Monmouth:
272,924
 
plus recruited from Ireland:
134,202

So there were probably about 5 million British troops recruited who fought at some point in Europe... vs maybe 2000 sikhs. So the chances of you actually seeing a lone Sikh were pretty small. Where most of the indian soldiers were deployed was outside of Europe. Which was what I was thinking about as I was watching the movie. Hence why I was taken out of the movie.

Again, never claimed that, it's another one of your happy misrepresentations of my posts. II assumed most Sikhs would be more likely to be fighting outside of Europe... which is pretty correct. 

Your stats are incomplete. Where are the Canadians? Until the Canadian government stood up and demanded that Canadians serve in their own Canadian Corp, they were subsumed into the British army. And then there were the Newfoundlanders who were not part of Canada and served in the British army. Stupid as the British High Command was, I doubt that they would not make  heavy use of the Indian Army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really, if you actually go in and listen to everything he's talking about here, his point is that 'forced diversity', by that I suppose he means casting actors that probably aren't historically accurate to a situation, has little effect other than to make everyone become incredibly aware of race, which in itself is really unhelpful in combating racism (something I wholly agree with, especially in the UK where race is far less political an issue). I think his use of the term is over the top and he could tone it down a bit , but I think he's on the whole pretty correct. 

Actually he said he was fine with it, and he was really good in it. 

Well the point being, as I mentioned, that it seemed odd to see a Sikh on his own. They would have more than likely been fighting with other Sikhs. In terms of numbers I think it might be a couple of thousand at most in Europe? 
 

Men from United Kingdom in army in August 1914:
733,514
 
plus recruited from England :
4,006,158
 
plus recruited from Scotland:
557,618
 
plus recruited from Wales and Monmouth:
272,924
 
plus recruited from Ireland:
134,202

So there were probably about 5 million British troops recruited who fought at some point in Europe... vs maybe 2000 sikhs. So the chances of you actually seeing a lone Sikh were pretty small. Where most of the indian soldiers were deployed was outside of Europe. Which was what I was thinking about as I was watching the movie. Hence why I was taken out of the movie.

Again, never claimed that, it's another one of your happy misrepresentations of my posts. II assumed most Sikhs would be more likely to be fighting outside of Europe... which is pretty correct. 

Those figures are from a month into ww1; the film is 1917, 3 years after horrendous casualties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Those figures are from a month into ww1; the film is 1917, 3 years after horrendous casualties. 

No as far as I'm aware. And not sure that changes anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some historically informed context from that liberal rag, the Daily Mail:

Quote

In 1915, Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and alongside British, Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli.

Some 1.27million Indians voluntarily served as combatants and labourers, also helping Allied forces occupy former enemy territory in East Africa and the Balkans.

Dr Simon Walker, a military historian at the University of Strathclyde, said: 'The remarks by Fox are very much ill informed.'

He said more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in service in the First World War, and claimed they were of 'paramount importance' at key battles including Ypres in 1914, Neuve Chappelle and Gallipoli.

The expert said soldiers from different races were mainly separate at the start of the war, but this changed as huge losses meant men were transferred around the various battle grounds.

Dr Walker added: 'Therefore by the middle of the war it would not be unusual for sikh soldiers to serve side by side with their British comrades, as was necessitated by the demands of the war and losses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911347/Soldiers-Empire-DID-fight-regiments-British-WWI.html

You might want to ready your fainting couch, @Heartofice, because that linked article has a picture of THREE Sikh soldiers in a group photo with British soldiers on the Western front in 1916.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is has become a point of broader interest in the American Dirt situation is this difference between those lining up in repudiation of the book.  Unlike with the YA overt accusation of racism and appropriation, the critics of this book are tending to be more and more 'high level publishing / writing / critical professionals,' i.e. those who are accustomed to working closely with professional editors (a good professional editor is a gift from the gods for a writer, and it seems more and more that Flatiron's editor(s?) really failed at their profession) -- and getting paid, even if poorly.  Meaning they have paid venues for their opinions that aren't unpaid twitter.

Here is another one, as with the review I linked to in the NY Times yesterday -- who also is latinx, and hails from the area where much of American Dirt is supposedly located.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/american-dirt-book.html?

Quote

 

....That “brown mass” includes the people in my Mexican-American community here in South Texas.

The white saviorism is tough for me to swallow, and not just because I’m a Chicano writer critical of “American Dirt.” My hometown library was chosen in late 2019 to be part of a pilot partnership between Oprah’s Book Club, the American Library Association and local library book groups. The libraries would receive several boxes of books to use with patrons in their book club, as well as other discussion and promotional materials.

Last week I was in touch with Kate Horan, the director of the McAllen Public Library here, via phone and email. She told me she felt “excited and honored” by the news, “proud that our library on the border with Mexico was recognized and selected to be part of a new initiative.”

No one at the library knew which book had been selected: Ms. Winfrey keeps titles a tightly guarded secret. But Ms. Horan was told that it would be “the most talked about book of the year.” Instructions were given: Upon arrival of the shipment, the library should film an “unboxing” video and submit it to Ms. Winfrey.

The boxes arrived on Jan. 17. Upon opening them, Ms. Horan said,  her “heart sank,” and she immediately recoiled at this “deliberate assumption that libraries on the border, who were selected to receive the books, would be automatic endorsers, given the subject matter.”

She sent the unboxing video off, and after two agonizing days consulting with her predominantly Latinx staff and others, she decided to send the books back, and politely declined to participate in the pilot program.

What Ms. Horan did is a rare thing to see from a person in power within the literary world — a world where it’s much more likely that the gatekeepers and institutional systems in place will fashion books out of fraught manuscripts simply because they are practically guaranteed to stir up buzz....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Not really, if you actually go in and listen to everything he's talking about here, his point is that 'forced diversity', by that I suppose he means casting actors that probably aren't historically accurate to a situation, has little effect other than to make everyone become incredibly aware of race, which in itself is really unhelpful in combating racism (something I wholly agree with, especially in the UK where race is far less political an issue).

It's not a matter of the casting not probably being  ”historically accurate”

We’re not talking women being shown as serving as generals in WW1. 

Or Transwomen openly walking around in a dress and not being immediately imprisoned or murdered because of it. 

We’re talking about one Sikh being shown in a company stragglers. 

Many Indian soldiers, from all denominations from the country did serve serve in Europe and it was not an exceptionally rare thing towards the end of the war towards the end of the war to show them serving along side whites.

It's not ”technically” possible for a Sikh t to be positioned amongst white. 

It did happen.

If anything more ”diversity”(having more Indians and Africans), would be have far more ”Historically accurate.” 

In a way I could see you’re point that there should have been an entire regiment of soldiers from Indian depicted, or just more Indian soldiers in general. It would have been more racially diverse and thus more historically accurate in this context. 

 I do not honestly think you’d have any hesitation calabout an actor(let’s make it a liberal actor)  who says a Historical war movie was “Institutionally racist” by virtue of never showing any black or brown people in it doing anything—which wouldn’t be completely   “historically accurate.” because they’re were millions as being completely absurd.

Here you seem more pussyfooting around Fox’s accusation-where instead a moral outrage deserving mockery,  he’s just slightly being hyperbolic and going slightly overboard.

Also nope. Even if the casting put the Sikh in a rare situation themselves it certainly isn't unhelpful in combating racism by showing hey these guys were fighting dying for your country too. Even along side whites because the war-effort demanded 

And yes it does make more people did pay attention to his race. That's a result of media in general not showcasing various ethnic groups contributions in the World wars.

The best way to stop that is having more none-whites being featured in these types of films.

After all it plenty could feel odd seeing a none-white be cast as a significant  role in a major Hollywood movie in let's say the Early 70s. 

Also, I’m not sure what're you using for your comparison in terms of British Racism.

But I would still say racism is still a big problem an your country just looking at your prime-minister and the racist stuff he’s said over the years and the back he's still managed to get his position-it hints to me that either much of Britain are apathetic towards his racism, or approve of it.  I know you’ll fully deny  anything  he’s said is really racist because well he's...humorous? I can’t help but see arguing colonialism was good and would be good for the people Britain firmly oppressed is evidence of him being racism or him using ethnic slurs against blacks kinda does sound as just a little bit racist.

 

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Actually he said he was fine with it, and he was really good in it. 

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I literally quoted him saying it was an example of institutional racism. He was evidently not fine with it. Else he wouldn't have called it racist and bitched about it being ”forced” on people. People generally don’t call something racist if they’re really fine with it.

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

Your stats are incomplete. Where are the Canadians? Until the Canadian government stood up and demanded that Canadians serve in their own Canadian Corp, they were subsumed into the British army. And then there were the Newfoundlanders who were not part of Canada and served in the British army. Stupid as the British High Command was, I doubt that they would not make  heavy use of the Indian Army

He got it from here:https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/some-british-army-statistics-of-the-great-war/

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is stupid, really. If someone's ignorance of the minutia of a historical event pulls them out of a story, well, they're pulled out of the story, but it ain't the fault of history or a depiction of history. It's just a thing that happened. Move the fuck on, lesson learned.

This is also wildly off topic. Fox isn't an author. Move over to Entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ran said:

This is stupid, really. If someone's ignorance of the minutia of a historical event pulls them out of a story, well, they're pulled out of the story, but it ain't the fault of history or a depiction of history. It's just a thing that happened. Move the fuck on, lesson learned.

This is also wildly off topic. Fox isn't an author. Move over to Entertainment.

You know, what fair enough. Apologies Ran. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sorta funny in a black humor sorta way that those who are determined to convince us there is no racism in any sector of the UK -- unless created by SJW and wimminz -- is determined that when something to do with UK shows situations that definitely display diversity that is honest, he objects!  Vociferously!  And is historically and factually incorrect!   Political Correctness clashes with Factual Incorrectness! :D :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK uh, you guys get up to some weird stuff when I'm not here.

Not to continue the derail too much but when you said the daily mail was a liberal rag..that was a joke right? Or am I thinking of a different web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×