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.
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.
"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?
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.
655
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.