Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59293
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:10 pm

:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:21 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:If you make a film about an event it must be accurate. Dont you agree. It does not stop it from being a good film in itself.
Meh. Films and shows are never accurate. The Tudors. Vikings. Rome. Hacksaw Ridge. American Sniper. Saving Private Ryan. All were good. None was accurate. All had aspects which were accurate, but none was historically accurate in the sense of a documentary attempting to communicate events with precision.

As infuriating The Tudors, Vikings and Rome were with their seemingly pointless diversions from historical accuracy, overall they are good dramatic representations of the times they seek to portray. I haven't seen Dunkirk, but it is likely along the same lines, I suspect.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:22 pm

Rum wrote:Let's leave the Dutchman on the fucking beach!
The Dutch were pretty much rooting for the Krauts anyway. The Dutch are Diet Kraut. :leave:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Animavore » Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:05 am

And..... There it is.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -attitudes

He's wrong when he says there were no black people, because, as I mentioned, there was definitely at least one.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:42 pm

Animavore wrote:And..... There it is.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -attitudes

He's wrong when he says there were no black people, because, as I mentioned, there was definitely at least one.
She writes that it's a "thinly veiled Brexiteer fantasy in which plucky Britons heroically retreat from the dangerous shores of Europe." Umm... there was a heroic retreat from the dangerous shores of Europe, involving hundreds of thousands of plucky Brits. So?

Look the articles on this "they ignored the Indians" issue rather short on details as to how many were actually at Dunkirk or France in general. There were four mule companies and their handlers. A company has about 100 to 250 men, generally speaking, so unless someone has a more specific number, we're talking 1,000 Indians and 2500 mules. There were 338,226 men that escaped, including 139,997 French, Polish, and Belgian troops, together with a small number of Dutch soldiers, aboard 861 vessels (of which 243 were sunk during the operation). Almost all of the remainder were British. It was a large chunk of the British army.

There were, of course, other troops stationed in France, but this is small number.

If you click through a few articles on this topic, you'll notice one thing. They all talk about how the Indians or whoever were ignored at Dunkirk, and then they'll quote the statistic that so many millions of "Commonwealth" soldiers fought in WW2. But what they don't specify is how many were stationed in France and were part of the evacuation at Dunkirk. My suspicion is that the numbers are in the few thousand Indian, African and Caribbean troops, and that while the contribution of Commonwealth forces to World War 2 was material and significant, their involvement in Dunkirk, specifically, was fairly limited.

What one might expect to find in an article like the Guardian piece is "Nolan ignored the contribution of Indians, where the Indian army had stationed 50,000 troops, some of which died and some of which were evacuated at Dunkirk...." -- but, instead they say to the effect of "Nolan ignored the contribution of Indians at Dunkirk, because millions of Commonwealth soldiers fought all over the world throughout WW2."

Let's face it. It was mainly a British miracle. Secondarily a French miracle. The rest of the numbers descend in significance. The article talks about certain groups who must have participated significantly in Dunkirk, but that does not mean they were among the troops being evacuated. The numbers are out there, and the vast majority of the British troops evacuated were white. The vast majority of the French troops were white. I think the reason the articles don't provide very much specificity in numbers is that the numbers of Indians and Africans are fairly small, in relation to the total number of participants.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Animavore » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:46 pm

Saw Dunkirk today. There were 3 black, French soldiers.

Actually enjoyed it more the second time. I was free up from having to follow the movie and was just able to admire the craft of the movie. From the clever editing to the amazing sound design.

If Nolan doesn't win an Oscar this time I'd be gobsmacked.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Rum » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:23 pm

I agree. It is on in Imax in Gateshead - a 70 mile trip, but I'm tempted to see it a second time there.

As to the Oscars - the only problem is it is a very British oriented film. Hope they see past that and fuck 'em either way!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:49 pm

Rum wrote:I agree. It is on in Imax in Gateshead - a 70 mile trip, but I'm tempted to see it a second time there.

As to the Oscars - the only problem is it is a very British oriented film. Hope they see past that and fuck 'em either way!
They are already queuing up the outrage over the mostly white Academy handing out a gold colored statue of a white man to white people involved in whitewashing the Miracle at Dunkirk, which as we all know was really a rainbow coalition of all races, sexes, genders and species. Heck, it's been erased from the history books that British General Viscount Gort was gender non-binary trans person whose preferred pronouns were the German dich, inh, es and sie. The patriarchy tries to make us think that people of an imaginary "sex" called "male" actually exist and were the bulk of the participants in the Dunkirk evacuation, and that most of them were sexually attracted to the opposite sex and were varying shades of pinkish white!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 8950
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by NineBerry » Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:43 pm

Well, it seems to be that a huge part of the French Soldiers evacuated at Dunkirk were actually Africans. So one has to ask why this was not made part of the film. I overheard some people discuss the movie (not this issue, but the movie in general) and one said that the people in this movie do not have names. And this was intended by the producers so that every viewer could more easily identify with the characters in the movie, saying "This could be my grandparent". When it is so important for the producers to allow people to identify with the characters, then why leave out one demographic that was involved (so wouldn't constitute introducing a-historic elements)?

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:12 pm

NineBerry wrote:Well, it seems to be that a huge part of the French Soldiers evacuated at Dunkirk were actually Africans.
A "huge" part of the 123,000 French soldiers evacuated at Dunkirk were Africans? What percentage or number is "huge?" Citation needed.
NineBerry wrote: So one has to ask why this was not made part of the film.
Because, like the concern over the lack of representation of Indians among the 240,000 or so Brits evacuated is that there was like 1,000 Indian and Pakistani "donkey/horse soldiers" who helped care for the donkeys and horses used at the time, and they generally were not among the front line soldier ranks. Sure, they were there, but something like 0.2% or 0.3% of the population in question really does not make up a significant part of what went on. It might have been cool to add a scene where some Indians are in the images along with their donkeys and horses making their way out of the soon to be Fortress Europe, but their involvement was, plainly, not particularly historically significant.

NineBerry wrote: I overheard some people discuss the movie (not this issue, but the movie in general) and one said that the people in this movie do not have names. And this was intended by the producers so that every viewer could more easily identify with the characters in the movie, saying "This could be my grandparent". When it is so important for the producers to allow people to identify with the characters, then why leave out one demographic that was involved (so wouldn't constitute introducing a-historic elements)?
It's a movie, not a history book, and when we're talking about rather small portions of the population, it's not really necessary to include them all. How many of the 123,000 French evacuees were African? I we talking half? 40%? 25%? 10%? 5%? The number is not jumping out of the articles on the topic. And, that's what's really weird about the whole conversation. They never really present the numbers. They say in a bunch of articles I read on the topic accusing the movie of whitewashing the event - they say "millions of non-whites fought on the side of the Allies (or in the French Army, depending on the article) in WW2!" But, that's a different number, of course, than the number of such person serving on French soil...in 1940 [not 1942 or 1944] ...and who were actually part of the Dunkirk operation, isn't it? Why are the articles not coming right out and saying "Of the 123,000 French soldiers evacuated at Dunkirk, X% were African and southeast Asian," or some such specificity? Is the number not known? Are there no estimates available?

Now, granted, I haven't gone to the library yet, to try to find this number, but I have done quite a bit of internet research on it, and it's not coming up. Article after article on it, and there is simply nothing but vagueness on the part of those saying that non-whites have been erased by the movie.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:25 pm

Also, remember, when we're talking about soldiers in the French army "from Africa," it's not as if they were all that likely to be black or even Arabic-ish. For example the 8th Zouaves Regiment which was annihilated defending Dunkirk was populated, you can say, by Africans, but the Africans were Frenchmen, settlers from France to North Africa in France's colonies there.

Also, if this really is a whitewashing of known and established history, then why aren't there any images being posted with the plethora of complaining articles that show the "huge" number or even large number of non-whites in and among the evacuees at Dunkirk? Did the white racist patriarchy edit the images, like Stalin and his "friends" over the years, to eliminate the bevy of Nigerians or whatever who boarded the boats at Dunkirk?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59293
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:45 pm

Imagine the cheek of these people suggesting that there were non-white soldiers in WWII!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Rum » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:48 pm

Yeah - there were all then yellow Nips too! (with apologies for the racism..)

However it does remind me that history can be pretty subjective or flexible depending on the culture.

When I was a hippy type many moons ago one of the 'trails' I did was to Morocco as one did. Being a hippy and it being a rather peaceful and safe period in that part of the world I hitch hiked mostly and slept in a tent a lot of the time. I traveled along the beautiful north coast for a couple of weeks. It is a stunning coast - now probably infested with tourism hotels, but then just a few villages, many of them with a field of cannabis on the hillside nearby..those were the days.

At one of the larger villages I was sipping tea at a cafe with a corrugated iron roof with swarms of huge wasps after the sugar in the tea (the locals didn't seem remotely bothered by them) when I struck up a conversation with a group of young guys my sort of age - early 20s. Some of them spoke French - or a version of it and I get by with it.

One thing led to another and they started talking about what a great man Churchill was. I didn't argue. As they went in it seems that the reason they thought he was great was because he....joined up with Hitler to defeat the Jews. It seems.

Yep.

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 8950
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by NineBerry » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:13 pm

Animavore wrote:Saw Dunkirk today. There were 3 black, French soldiers.
Missed that the first time. Seems enough for me.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Dunkirk: History is racist!

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:25 pm

Rum wrote:Yeah - there were all then yellow Nips too! (with apologies for the racism..)

However it does remind me that history can be pretty subjective or flexible depending on the culture.

When I was a hippy type many moons ago one of the 'trails' I did was to Morocco as one did. Being a hippy and it being a rather peaceful and safe period in that part of the world I hitch hiked mostly and slept in a tent a lot of the time. I traveled along the beautiful north coast for a couple of weeks. It is a stunning coast - now probably infested with tourism hotels, but then just a few villages, many of them with a field of cannabis on the hillside nearby..those were the days.
That sounds like a wonderful experience to have had. It would be great to learn of your experiences, whether here or on another thread.
Rum wrote: At one of the larger villages I was sipping tea at a cafe with a corrugated iron roof with swarms of huge wasps after the sugar in the tea (the locals didn't seem remotely bothered by them) when I struck up a conversation with a group of young guys my sort of age - early 20s. Some of them spoke French - or a version of it and I get by with it.

One thing led to another and they started talking about what a great man Churchill was. I didn't argue. As they went in it seems that the reason they thought he was great was because he....joined up with Hitler to defeat the Jews. It seems.

Yep.
Churchill was a very interesting character, and I find it hard to argue that he wasn't a "great" man. After all, even Hitler and Stalin were "great" men. Great, of course, does not by a long shot mean "good" or "kind" etc. It is odd that they thought he joined with Hitler, though.

Churchill was a child of the late 19th century, and from that era was born the kind of scientific racism that we find horrifying and incomprehensible today. And, Churchill was a part of it. He did not think of the darker races as equal to the Anglo-Saxon, because hardly anybody did, even good, kind, educated people. Most people thought it inarguable in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that WASPs were the top of the racial stack, which was Nordic/Anglo/Saxon/Germanic/Alpine/Mediterrenean/African, generally speaking. Being Scandinavian myself, I can definitely see some overall logic to the placement, but I digress...
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests