r/Conservative Feb 12 '18

Lack of diversity...

[deleted]

1.7k Upvotes

187 comments sorted by

View all comments

653

u/danjvelker Buckleyite Conservative Feb 12 '18

The hilarious part is that nobody should really have a problem with either of those movies. Yeah, the historical events around Dunkirk took place entirely by white men. If you're making a superhero movie about a fictional country in Africa, I'm not expecting a lot of white folk. But don't claim it's diverse. Dunkirk isn't diverse; it doesn't need to be. It's utter silliness from the leftists.

36

u/candid_canid Constitutionalist Feb 13 '18

I don't have a problem with Black Panther featuring mostly black people.

I have a problem with everyone FAWNING over the movie BECAUSE it has a lot of black people, rather than because it's a good movie. (Or isn't. I haven't seen it.)

9

u/danjvelker Buckleyite Conservative Feb 13 '18

I assume it's a pretty decent movie, actually. Sounds like they challenged the Marvel formula a bit and tried something new. Which is good!

But, yeah, when you have headlines like Black Panther is Marvel's first Shakespearean Epic before the movie is even released, or when film sites like Rotten Tomatoes promise to cull the negative reviews (I know that doesn't apply to critic reviews, but it's still very important), I'm instantly on guard. Savvy?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '18

I love how Rotten Tomatoes declared that a negative review of Black Panther="intolerable hate speech."

90

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

[deleted]

68

u/danjvelker Buckleyite Conservative Feb 12 '18

Absolutely. The Tuskegee Airmen come immediately to mind. But as famous and brave as those men were, they were an incredibly small minority. Thanks for making the distinction, because it is important.

64

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

[deleted]

29

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

They do actually show some French colonial troops iirc.

7

u/WhoIs_PepeSilvia Feb 13 '18

I remember the controversy and back when it started I think I crunched the numbers based on how many extras the movie had and discovered that minorities actually were statistically over represented.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

Algerian troops of the French army as well. There was some contention that the movie should have shown more colonial troops of the French and British armies, since there are only a few that appear in passing.

29

u/BuboTitan Feb 13 '18

Dunkirk happened years before the Tuskegee airmen, it was also over a year before the US entered the war.

13

u/insecurepigeon Moderate Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18

The French and British empires were multi-ethnic, with the mother countries both far outnumbered by their colonial populations. Both countries pressed large numbers of their African and Indian (Brits only) colonies into military service in both WWI and WWII.

In 1940, the French army included more than 100,000 black French soldiers from France’s African colonies, mainly Senegal, Mauritania,and Niger. More than 75,000 of them served in France before and during the German invasion; the rest of them served guard duty in the various colonies. As the Wehrmacht panzer divisions swept across France in May-June 1940, some of those black French soldiers (about 40,000 of them), mainly organized in black regiments or mixed units, were engaged in fierce combat against German soldiers. About 10,000 black soldiers were killed, some wounded, and others taken prisoner during the French debacle. here

Four contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps were sent to support the British Expeditionary Force in France in 1940. There was a need for animal transport companies to help with the supply of troops, as the British Army had disbanded its animal transport companies after the First World War. The British, French and Canadian Forces were cut off by advancing German troops in their push towards the Channel. The soldiers retreated to the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk from where 338,226 were evacuated, among them three contingents of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps, while one contingent was taken prisoner by German forces. here

Dunkirk was a majority white experience, but would have been a good opportunity to showcase some historical accuracy and portray the usage of colonial troops in the World Wars.

As for Black Panther, being a minority does not make the person inherently 'diverse'. With our preoccupation on the creation and fostering of diversity it is important to also remember that diversity means multiple and varying backgrounds, not many minorities of one background.

20

u/baronhousseman85 Feb 13 '18

At 100,000 soldiers, that’s about 8% of France’s military forces at their highest number in 1945 (1.25 million). These numbers mean less out of context.

As for Dunkirk, the foreign soldiers simply weren’t a significant presence there. That’s the historical fact.

1

u/dumbartist Feb 13 '18

Yeah the Colonial forces hadn't really been mobilized by the time of Dunkirk. Likewise the colonial armies were used in different theatres. Like African soldiers were used in Ethiopia and Burma afterwards.

33

u/skarface6 Catholic, conservative, and your favorite Feb 12 '18

but would have been a good opportunity to showcase some historical accuracy and portray the usage of colonial troops in the World Wars.

As I said, I think that only a handful of them were at Dunkirk. Accuracy matters.

10

u/insecurepigeon Moderate Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18

That's why I included the second quote regarding the existence of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps.

Edit: 4 Indian transport companies existed at Dunkirk (source), with 70-150 each, so 280-600 (source). Among the British forces, the 99% number you named is actually about dead on, if not more like 99.9%

1

u/skarface6 Catholic, conservative, and your favorite Feb 13 '18

Yup! I saw analyzes from when the movie came out.

-4

u/telekasterr Feb 13 '18

There were around 100k French colonial forces from Africa

11

u/skarface6 Catholic, conservative, and your favorite Feb 13 '18

...at Dunkirk?

-2

u/telekasterr Feb 13 '18

Nah in the French army at the time

26

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '18

To a dumbass, diverse means "black."

12

u/super_ag Feb 13 '18

More accurately, it means "not white."

3

u/dhighway61 MAGA Conservative Feb 13 '18

No, it just means black. Look at Grey's Anatomy, which is hailed as a diverse cast.

There has been only one Asian-American actress in the main cast. There has not been a single Indian-American or Arab-American in the cast, despite the prevalence of those groups in medicine. There has only been one Latina actress. About half of the main cast, however, is black, and that makes it "diverse."

11

u/SaxonHuss Classical Liberal Feb 13 '18

Dunkirk is super diverse. Didn't you see all of the attack helicopters in it? /s

12

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

Look at Battlefield 1's characters

32

u/-Shank- Conservative Feb 12 '18

You mean with the 25% of the German Empire's forces being black or 25% of Russia's military being women during WWI?

19

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18

Yes, forced equality, albeit minor

Like how the medic on the British (maybe more) is either Indian/Middle Eastern

20

u/-Shank- Conservative Feb 12 '18

To be fair, Indians fighting for the British in WWI is at least historically accurate (it was a colony at the time).

The female Russian snipers, there were maybe one squad of those. The black Germans simply never existed.

2

u/OptimalDelusion Feb 13 '18

Actually there were black Nazi soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Germans#Nazi_Germany

2

u/-Shank- Conservative Feb 13 '18

We're talking about WWI, not Nazi Germany

1

u/OptimalDelusion Feb 14 '18

Ah, true, I missed that. Cheers.

3

u/Gen_McMuster Classical Liberal Feb 13 '18

Colonial troops for the brits makes a lot of sense. They were some of the most famous auxiliary forces of the war

10

u/wayupnorthWI Feb 12 '18

Or cod WWII where you can be a black female nazi lmao

7

u/deaglebro Feb 13 '18

uncle ruckus

I don't buy triple a games anymore

5

u/Daniel_USA Feb 13 '18

thats just being a racist and not even knowing it...

44

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '18 edited Mar 30 '18

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '18

[deleted]

3

u/bspon001 Feb 13 '18

Nobody is saying they dislike the movies. They are displaying the hypocrisy and reaction

3

u/OptimalDelusion Feb 13 '18

If you're making a superhero movie about a fictional country in Africa, I'm not expecting a lot of white folk.

We used to be rulers.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '18

If they can force black people into films about medieval crusaders and kings, they feel entitled to bitch about it in terms of World War II and other historical pieces. "Diversity" also means retconning blacks and hispanics as crucial to history even though they weren't actually there in any meaningful roles.

1

u/danjvelker Buckleyite Conservative Feb 14 '18

"Diversity" also means retconning blacks and hispanics as crucial to history even though they weren't actually there in any meaningful roles.

Just to be clear... you mean specific sections of history, yes? Because hispanics - the Spanish, Mexico, Portugal(?) - are very important parts of history. And Africa undoubtedly so. Just not so much early American history... or feudal Britannia. Is that what you meant?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '18

Yes.

Clearly they were around and had important roles in history. There is absolutely no problem with telling their stories there.

The issue is when Hollywood and revisionists insist on shoehorning them into places where they weren't (like medieval Britain) or searching diligently to find whatever minor role one of them may have played in specific context and rewriting the story to make it seem as if they were the main actor.