Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Has Hollywood been throttled into submission by political correctness?


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a PC example from 3:10 to Yuma

 

In the original, Ben Wade's Gang rides into town heads for the saloon and everyone breaks out their tobacco pouches and rolls a smoke, in the remake hardly a smoker in the film.

 

But here is a nice essay on the difference between the two.

 

The original 3:10 TO YUMA (Columbia, 1957) is a plaintive outlaw ballad that unfolds like a chamber play. I like its simplicity, the time it takes to layer a story and flesh out characters. The motivations are personal. It's about real things that can make or break a man -- like saving your livestock from dying in a drought, being a good role model to your kids, living up to your wife's expectations, putting food on the table, paying the bills, persevering through adversity, taking a risk, and doing the right thing in the face of all the temptations to do wrong. If the rancher Dan Evans stumbles just once, if he takes the easier path, he'll be no different than the killer Ben Wade he's escorting to prison. Evans is really tempted, too, because Wade knows how to tempt him. These two men are opposite sides of the same coin, and they recognize each other as such. The moral dilemma and temptation to sell out is carefully sustained right up to the closing moments giving the film a depth and emotional resonance few westerns can match.
 
There are many understated moments that draw us into the film and involve us in the characters. When Alice Evans looks at her husband, her expression is an accusation and a disappointment, even though her words deny it. When the sheriff organizes a posse, one woman refuses to wake up her husband, who is sleeping off a drunk, knowing that he's foolish enough to join the posse and get himself killed. Watch how Ben Wade seduces the achingly lonely saloon girl, stuck in a dusty old town for the rest of her life if someone doesn't take her away from there. She'd follow Ben Wade anywhere, even though he gets the color of her eyes wrong. Instead, she opens the coach door that will take him to the train, her head nodding in agreement to his hollow promises while her expression is one of profound resignation.
 
3:10 TO YUMA represents the best that the American western can achieve in the hands of film makers who know how. It is Delmar Daves best film, and one of the great westerns of the 1950s (that's saying a lot). No silly premise, no slap-happy gunfights, no trick shooting, no contrivance or artifice, just down-to-earth grit. The two leads -- Van Heflin and Glen Ford -- play off each other's similarities, sounding out weaknesses and strengths in quiet competition. Heflin seems to inhabit his worried rancher like a tailored suit of clothes, a simple man who works hard, hopes for the best, and has a lot to prove to his family. Glen Ford's ingratiating performance as the killer outlaw is as much a revelation as Henry Fonda's villain in Once Upon A Time In the West.
 
A remake has to find new avenues within the story so it won't be a carbon copy. I understand that, and I welcome a fresh approach, but I had hoped for a more disciplined and insightful script. The new version throws in a kitchen sink's worth of political correctness masquerading as subtext. The scenes it has in common with the original shrivel in comparison, especially in the interaction with women characters who are marginalized before dropping out of the film completely. Unfortunately, the new material is no improvement. While the journey from Contention to Bisbee is prolonged, with two camping scenes and altercations first with bloodthirsty Indians and then with bloodthirsty miners, seems like one irrelevant distraction after another has been substituted for the main conflict between the posses and the outlaws. There's is no logical reason for every supporting and background character to be a vicious opportunist eager to kill the posse for money. They are well-matched to Ben Wade gang of outlaws, who are extreme sadists more in the tradition of spaghetti westerns than the American western. Worse, the twists and turns in the last few minutes violate the story's own logic and are not believable.
 
Whoever is responsible for deconstructing Dan Evans did not think through all the neurotic changes made to the character. Instead of being a stoic rancher, Evans is a chronic whiner who lost a leg in the Civil War, shifting the emphasis from a morality dilemma to a plea for sympathy. He thinks of himself as a failure because the war never gave him the chance to be a hero. How believable is it for a man who is missing one leg to jump off buildings, run, fall, roll and get up as easily as if he had two legs? At first we are asked to sympathize and excuse his failings because of his handicap, and then he performs like an acrobat. In his last moments, Dan Evans is pathetic, a beggar, and a failure whom the outlaw feels sorry for. In making the male lead politically correct to appease the skirts in Hollywood and the men who wear them, the remake dumbs down the story and diminishes its poignancy. This is my strongest objection, and it's a big one.
 
The original film provides romance that can be eroticized, suspense that can be intensified, action that can be prolonged, and internal tensions that can be probed by ensemble acting. But the remake is badly misdirected by James Mangold who blows every opportunity to improve and elaborate. His errors in judgment begin with the tone and attitude of the piece. There are no highs and lows here. Every moment is played at full throttle, proclaiming its self-importance. There are no gentle or amiable people: even the smallest part is played for aggression. There are no quiet interludes: when the action lets up, there is still plenty of noise. The original doesn't seem dated because of its dramatic minimalism. The audience is allowed to participate in those pregnant silences. In the remake, Mangold makes certain there are no pregnant silences.
 
One of the great pleasures of the western genre is its attention to portraiture and landscape. But don't look for horsemen riding across pictorial vistas to establish a sense of how men relate to the landscape. There are no wide angles in this western. The Bonanza Creek Ranch is one of the prettiest locations in New Mexico, but Mangold relegates scenery to a blurry backdrop for talking heads -- or cussing, threatening heads. How can the western landscape be a presence in a film assembled almost entirely in mediums and tights? With the camera that close, there is no reason to be racking focus in the middle of a shot all the time. I've never seen a feature film with so many shallow depth and rack-focus shots. There's a way to group people so that the eye is led into the frame toward what's important, but Mangold's crowd shots are just chaotic, and sometimes, so are his groupings of twos and threes. Although the cutting is faster and the angles are closer, there is considerably less going on in the remake than in the original.
 
I expected costumes, props, and accoutrements to be accurate to the period and sensible to the circumstances. Forget it. Ben Wade and his sidekick wear outfits on the silly side of historical inaccuracy. There are many similar offenses. After the high standard for accuracy established by TOMBSTONE (1993) and subsequent westerns, the remake of 3:10 TO YUMA is a regression.
 
The American west was full of immigrants, so I welcome foreign actors with foreign accents playing westerners. But I do wish these new versions of the characters were not so one-dimensional and neurotic. Female characters are dismissed as quickly as possible. Russell Crowe was a good choice for Ben Wade. He has the sneaky charm that the character requires. Christian Bale is one of the most talented actors working today, but his Dan Evans shrivels up compared to Van Heflin's. It is partly the writing and partly the actor that undermines the emotional center of this remake. Bale gives his all, but he is miscast. The part demands an American actor whose stoic presence reflects a feel for the period and the life, the time and the place, someone like Tommy Lee Jones or Kevin Costner or Sam Elliott or Powers Boothe or Chris Cooper or even the excellent Thomas Haden Church (star of the recent BROKEN TRAIL). With a different actor, this remake would be a much better film, and its flaws would be easier to overlook.
 
Perhaps 3:10 TO YUMA was the wrong classic to remake for today's audience. The original is a character driven suspense drama that achieves eloquence through dramatic minimalism. The remake cuts to another angle every 3 seconds, stepping on its own beats and never allowing the audience to feel the moment. Nevertheless, Mangold was wise to keep the story, such as it is, up close, fast, and bombastic. The audience had a good time with the over-the-top spaghetti western violence and non-stop action. Audiences are not critical if they are exposed to a lot of action, and this remake has action.
 
If the box-office success of this slovenly mess helps to get more westerns financed and distributed in cinemas, it will serve a good purpose. Personally, I could not be more disappointed. Let's hope the next western gets a better script and a director who comprehends the genre he's working in.
 
Richard W
(who lived 18 years in southern Arizona situated between Contention and Yuma)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like CigarJoe,  I don't like remakes that ruin the original in attempts  to pander to a different audience.  I particularly don't like classics distorted beyond what I think the original writer had in mind.  I don't want to see Jane Austen's young ladies turned into wild harridans or the quiet, mild Jane Eyre shouting at Rochester.  I hated the book, "March," that took, "Little Women" 's Marme and made her a wild sexy young woman who wasn't really very nice. 

 

I would have a problem with revisionist history that made Mrs. Patton the real brains behind the general, but I think it's great when they make movies about the real  powerful women in history who we haven't heard much about before.

 

I don't have any more of a problem with the,  "Kill Bill" series  than I do with the "Taken"  movies.  I just don't like any violent, revenge movies

 

What I do have a problem with is people talking about political correctness as though it's a bad thing.  It means unbiased, unprejudiced, or sensitive. Why doesn't everyone want those things?  Do some people miss the days when every black American in every movie was a stupid, frightened, eye-rolling servant?  When every Japanese had buck teeth and thick glasses?   Do they long for a return to the days when the rat-pack movies had men slapping women on the rear as they walked by?  Do they miss the old horror films where all the actresses had to do was  throw their heads back and scream?  I don't.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like CigarJoe,  I don't like remakes that ruin the original in attempts  to pander to a different audience.  I particularly don't like classics distorted beyond what I think the original writer had in mind.  I don't want to see Jane Austen's young ladies turned into wild harridans or the quiet, mild Jane Eyre shouting at Rochester.  I hated the book, "March," that took, "Little Women" 's Marme and made her a wild sexy young woman who wasn't really very nice. 

 

I would have a problem with revisionist history that made Mrs. Patton the real brains behind the general, but I think it's great when they make movies about the real  powerful women in history who we haven't heard much about before.

 

I don't have any more of a problem with the,  "Kill Bill" series  than I do with the "Taken"  movies.  I just don't like any violent, revenge movies

 

What I do have a problem with is people talking about political correctness as though it's a bad thing.  It means unbiased, unprejudiced, or sensitive. Why doesn't everyone want those things?  Do some people miss the days when every black American in every movie was a stupid, frightened, eye-rolling servant?  When every Japanese had buck teeth and thick glasses?   Do they long for a return to the days when the rat-pack movies had men slapping women on the rear as they walked by?  Do they miss the old horror films where all the actresses had to do was  throw their heads back and scream?  I don't.

 

While I generally agree with your take here I do take issues with any content (especially historical content)  that is modified or censored to ensure it is sensitive to what is currently 'PC'. 

 

My mom is Japanese and she understands that a film that reflects the American perspective of the Japanese during the 40s will have many insensitive things to say about the Japanese as well as offensive slang terms.  The views and feeling behind these lines \ cracks are historically accurate so in my view they needed to be used as well as retained for future audiences.     

 

Even when a NON PC line \ crack isn't necessary from a plot standpoint it still provides a historical perspective of the times.  Funny you mention the buck teeth stereotype since I watched Lady On A Train for the first time 2 weeks ago and that sweet and innocent gal Deana Durbin says that;  something along the lines of 'he looked like a buck toothed JXX'    (rhythms with map).        

 

This surprised me since the plot wasn't related to the war but since it was made in the mid-40s the line does reflect how most of American felt about the people from a country that were responsible for the deaths of many Americans.  

 

I'm glad TCM doesn't censor out that type on NON PC content in a quest to be sensitive.   (or NOT show certain movies because of similar content).

 

When making a movie today that reflects the feelings of a historical period the screenwriter and director shouldn't have to worry about being PC.    Instead the film should be as historically accurate as possible as it relates to how people spoke or treated each other,  warts and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks will have to excuse ND here. He's been a little more upset lately than normal.

 

It seems he was all set to attend his annual local performance of The Nutcracker this Christmas season until he recently heard that Tchaikovsky was gay!

 

(...and so, "standing on his Christian principles" and thus refusing to attend anything written by some gay guy, his Christmas was ruined this year!!!)

 

LOL 

I didn't know Tchaikovsky was gay. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat, and for the last time, as this is getting repetitive, this is not true, and is the product of your politically correct mytho-history.  

english guy William Harvey didn't discover the circulation system of the human body and Robert Goddard wasn't werner von braun's hero? white heterosexual guys like fermi didn't split the atom and achieve critical mass at chicago pile 1?

white heterosexual guys aren't responsible for big man and little boy and reaching the moon?

 

of course we are. our record of moving the world stands bold and unmatched.

 

that's just the way it is.

 

reality cannot be changed by the fiat of imagination

 

that's just the way it is. :D

 

the doctor is out. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

english guy William Harvey didn't discover the circulation system of the human body and Robert Goddard wasn't werner von braun's hero? white heterosexual guys like fermi didn't split the atom and achieve critical mass at chicago pile 1?

white heterosexual guys aren't responsible for big man and little boy and reaching the moon?

 

of course we are. our record of moving the world stands bold and unmatched.

 

that's just the way it is.

 

reality cannot be changed by the fiat.of imagination

 

that's just the way it is. :D

 

the doctor is out. :lol:

all together now...

 

clowns never laughed before, beanstalks never grew... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a PC example from 3:10 to Yuma

 

In the original, Ben Wade's Gang rides into town heads for the saloon and everyone breaks out their tobacco pouches and rolls a smoke, in the remake hardly a smoker in the film.

 

But here is a nice essay on the difference between the two.

 

The original 3:10 TO YUMA (Columbia, 1957) is a plaintive outlaw ballad that unfolds like a chamber play. I like its simplicity, the time it takes to layer a story and flesh out characters. The motivations are personal. It's about real things that can make or break a man -- like saving your livestock from dying in a drought, being a good role model to your kids, living up to your wife's expectations, putting food on the table, paying the bills, persevering through adversity, taking a risk, and doing the right thing in the face of all the temptations to do wrong. If the rancher Dan Evans stumbles just once, if he takes the easier path, he'll be no different than the killer Ben Wade he's escorting to prison. Evans is really tempted, too, because Wade knows how to tempt him. These two men are opposite sides of the same coin, and they recognize each other as such. The moral dilemma and temptation to sell out is carefully sustained right up to the closing moments giving the film a depth and emotional resonance few westerns can match.
 
There are many understated moments that draw us into the film and involve us in the characters. When Alice Evans looks at her husband, her expression is an accusation and a disappointment, even though her words deny it. When the sheriff organizes a posse, one woman refuses to wake up her husband, who is sleeping off a drunk, knowing that he's foolish enough to join the posse and get himself killed. Watch how Ben Wade seduces the achingly lonely saloon girl, stuck in a dusty old town for the rest of her life if someone doesn't take her away from there. She'd follow Ben Wade anywhere, even though he gets the color of her eyes wrong. Instead, she opens the coach door that will take him to the train, her head nodding in agreement to his hollow promises while her expression is one of profound resignation.
 
3:10 TO YUMA represents the best that the American western can achieve in the hands of film makers who know how. It is Delmar Daves best film, and one of the great westerns of the 1950s (that's saying a lot). No silly premise, no slap-happy gunfights, no trick shooting, no contrivance or artifice, just down-to-earth grit. The two leads -- Van Heflin and Glen Ford -- play off each other's similarities, sounding out weaknesses and strengths in quiet competition. Heflin seems to inhabit his worried rancher like a tailored suit of clothes, a simple man who works hard, hopes for the best, and has a lot to prove to his family. Glen Ford's ingratiating performance as the killer outlaw is as much a revelation as Henry Fonda's villain in Once Upon A Time In the West.
 
A remake has to find new avenues within the story so it won't be a carbon copy. I understand that, and I welcome a fresh approach, but I had hoped for a more disciplined and insightful script. The new version throws in a kitchen sink's worth of political correctness masquerading as subtext. The scenes it has in common with the original shrivel in comparison, especially in the interaction with women characters who are marginalized before dropping out of the film completely. Unfortunately, the new material is no improvement. While the journey from Contention to Bisbee is prolonged, with two camping scenes and altercations first with bloodthirsty Indians and then with bloodthirsty miners, seems like one irrelevant distraction after another has been substituted for the main conflict between the posses and the outlaws. There's is no logical reason for every supporting and background character to be a vicious opportunist eager to kill the posse for money. They are well-matched to Ben Wade gang of outlaws, who are extreme sadists more in the tradition of spaghetti westerns than the American western. Worse, the twists and turns in the last few minutes violate the story's own logic and are not believable.
 
Whoever is responsible for deconstructing Dan Evans did not think through all the neurotic changes made to the character. Instead of being a stoic rancher, Evans is a chronic whiner who lost a leg in the Civil War, shifting the emphasis from a morality dilemma to a plea for sympathy. He thinks of himself as a failure because the war never gave him the chance to be a hero. How believable is it for a man who is missing one leg to jump off buildings, run, fall, roll and get up as easily as if he had two legs? At first we are asked to sympathize and excuse his failings because of his handicap, and then he performs like an acrobat. In his last moments, Dan Evans is pathetic, a beggar, and a failure whom the outlaw feels sorry for. In making the male lead politically correct to appease the skirts in Hollywood and the men who wear them, the remake dumbs down the story and diminishes its poignancy. This is my strongest objection, and it's a big one.
 
The original film provides romance that can be eroticized, suspense that can be intensified, action that can be prolonged, and internal tensions that can be probed by ensemble acting. But the remake is badly misdirected by James Mangold who blows every opportunity to improve and elaborate. His errors in judgment begin with the tone and attitude of the piece. There are no highs and lows here. Every moment is played at full throttle, proclaiming its self-importance. There are no gentle or amiable people: even the smallest part is played for aggression. There are no quiet interludes: when the action lets up, there is still plenty of noise. The original doesn't seem dated because of its dramatic minimalism. The audience is allowed to participate in those pregnant silences. In the remake, Mangold makes certain there are no pregnant silences.
 
One of the great pleasures of the western genre is its attention to portraiture and landscape. But don't look for horsemen riding across pictorial vistas to establish a sense of how men relate to the landscape. There are no wide angles in this western. The Bonanza Creek Ranch is one of the prettiest locations in New Mexico, but Mangold relegates scenery to a blurry backdrop for talking heads -- or cussing, threatening heads. How can the western landscape be a presence in a film assembled almost entirely in mediums and tights? With the camera that close, there is no reason to be racking focus in the middle of a shot all the time. I've never seen a feature film with so many shallow depth and rack-focus shots. There's a way to group people so that the eye is led into the frame toward what's important, but Mangold's crowd shots are just chaotic, and sometimes, so are his groupings of twos and threes. Although the cutting is faster and the angles are closer, there is considerably less going on in the remake than in the original.
 
I expected costumes, props, and accoutrements to be accurate to the period and sensible to the circumstances. Forget it. Ben Wade and his sidekick wear outfits on the silly side of historical inaccuracy. There are many similar offenses. After the high standard for accuracy established by TOMBSTONE (1993) and subsequent westerns, the remake of 3:10 TO YUMA is a regression.
 
The American west was full of immigrants, so I welcome foreign actors with foreign accents playing westerners. But I do wish these new versions of the characters were not so one-dimensional and neurotic. Female characters are dismissed as quickly as possible. Russell Crowe was a good choice for Ben Wade. He has the sneaky charm that the character requires. Christian Bale is one of the most talented actors working today, but his Dan Evans shrivels up compared to Van Heflin's. It is partly the writing and partly the actor that undermines the emotional center of this remake. Bale gives his all, but he is miscast. The part demands an American actor whose stoic presence reflects a feel for the period and the life, the time and the place, someone like Tommy Lee Jones or Kevin Costner or Sam Elliott or Powers Boothe or Chris Cooper or even the excellent Thomas Haden Church (star of the recent BROKEN TRAIL). With a different actor, this remake would be a much better film, and its flaws would be easier to overlook.
 
Perhaps 3:10 TO YUMA was the wrong classic to remake for today's audience. The original is a character driven suspense drama that achieves eloquence through dramatic minimalism. The remake cuts to another angle every 3 seconds, stepping on its own beats and never allowing the audience to feel the moment. Nevertheless, Mangold was wise to keep the story, such as it is, up close, fast, and bombastic. The audience had a good time with the over-the-top spaghetti western violence and non-stop action. Audiences are not critical if they are exposed to a lot of action, and this remake has action.
 
If the box-office success of this slovenly mess helps to get more westerns financed and distributed in cinemas, it will serve a good purpose. Personally, I could not be more disappointed. Let's hope the next western gets a better script and a director who comprehends the genre he's working in.
 
Richard W
(who lived 18 years in southern Arizona situated between Contention and Yuma)

 

the original is a product of a pre-politically correct Hollywood with A-1 talented guys as directors, writers and cinemaphotographers.

 

"to appease the skirts and the men who wear them."

 

my whole argument in a nut. :D

 

those who now control hollywood are immasculated and they doan even know it.

 

they're all knocking themselves out tailoring what decades ago was subject matter for men now recreated for women.

 

it is not about whether women can or can't but rather how viable today's hollywood male/female distorted re-inventings are in the real world.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Throttled into submission" may overstate the intensity of what's going on.

 

Well, you have to remember here DGF that ND is often enthralled by overstatements.

 

(...I mean, why do you think he's such a big fan of a certain presidential candidate?...it's ain't 'cause THAT guy is so understated and reserved, ya know...ND seems to think that this sort of M/O deems someone as being a "real truth teller" somehow...yeah, I know, go figure, huh!)

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

white heterosexual guys like fermi didn't split the atom and achieve critical mass at chicago pile 1?

 

Of course during most of Fermi's life he was not considered "white" by the U.S. gov't. He was considered "Italian" or "other". Only those of "Nordic blood " were classified as white in those days. 

 

But then, I would want to accuse you of revisionist history. Oh no, wouldn't want to do that ! :P  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course during most of Fermi's life he was not considered "white" by the U.S. gov't. He was considered "Italian" or "other". Only those of "Nordic blood " were classified as white in those days. 

 

But then, I would want to accuse you of revisionist history. Oh no, wouldn't want to do that ! :P  

 

OR, as old man Potter once called 'em while he was tryin' to shut down the Bailey Building and Loan..."a bunch of garlic eaters".

 

(...but then again not ONLY was old man Potter a real freakin' jerk who kept the 8,000 bucks, but THAT old SOB was REALLY "politically incorrect" TOO, huh!!!)

 

LOL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell yes. What happened to the good old days when you could

call people ***** or ***********or *******? Gone, gone with the

wind. :(

 

But if one is making a movie like GWTW one should use that term as well as show the actual treatment of the slaves.

 

In this regards GWTW is PC because of its phony presentation of slavery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if one is making a movie like GWTW one should use that term as well as show the actual treatment of the slaves.

 

In this regards GWTW is PC because of its phony presentation of slavery.

 

Ooooh...I hope you know JAKE is gonna be REAL sore to hear THIS, James!!!

 

LOL

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think PC is bad per se it's only when it goes way overboard to one side and borders on the ridiculous.

 

We need a balance, we just need to be in the middle.

 

The middle is good.

 

Been sayin' THAT all my life, Joe ol' boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the Invasion of Normandy scenes from The Longest Day (1962) with Saving Private Ryan (1998).

 

Tom Hanks is holding a man's hand one moment, the next, its a corpse. Mayhem and violence everywhere. I remember listening to a military consultant privately screening the film. He shouted to the projector to shut it off. The projector ran in and asked was there something wrong with the film ? The consultant said "No, give me a minute to recuperate !"

 

In The Longest Day you see hundreds run across that beach and maybe 5 to 10 fall down. Henry Fonda has a full on strategy meeting on the beach "while the bullets and flying all around them !!". Its as if they are somehow immune to gunfire. 

 

Hollywood has always been PC. It was PC not to show blood. Notice when a gangster gets shot, you see no evidence on his body ? There are many examples.  

 

 

And Hollywood has always pandered to make money. Pandered to the poor during the depression, pandered to the south during Jim Crow, pandered to WWII xenophobia, Now women are the majority and have their own money so they get pandered to.

 

During the depression, the rich guy was always evil. Scenes with black actors edited out of films shipped to southern theaters. Every film during WWII had to make fun of Germans and Japanese. And go rah rah for America !

 

Not sure what the difference is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR, as old man Potter once called 'em while he was tryin' to shut down the Bailey Building and Loan..."a bunch of garlic eaters".

 

(...but then again not ONLY was old man Potter a real freakin' jerk who kept the 8,000 bucks, but THAT old SOB was REALLY "politically incorrect" TOO, huh!!!)

 

LOL 

 

:D
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have to remember here DGF that ND is often enthralled by overstatements.

 

(...I mean, why do you think he's such a big fan of a certain presidential candidate?...it's ain't 'cause THAT guy is so understated and reserved, ya know...ND seems to think that this sort of M/O deems someone as being a "real truth teller" somehow...yeah, I know, go figure, huh!)

 

;)

I hope that Trump is throttled into submission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, but you can't be so resentful of all the glorious accomplishments of white christian heterosexual men that you proceed to rob them of their due. all of modern civilizations' greatest accomplishments of the last 500 years from the renaissance to the space age courtesy of the white european christian heterosexual man. for others to be so resentful of that to be inclined to revision as a means of diminishing it all speaks a great deal of from where the other side is coming from. :D

Well, I don't understand when women, people of color, GLBT, and people of various ability statuses have equally contributed to society throughout the ages, and when people with countless social privileges like yourself complain and whine about things that continually rewards them, well, it falls flat with me. You don't get a cookie for whining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't understand when women, people of color, GLBT, and people of various ability statuses have equally contributed to society throughout the ages, and when people with countless social privileges like yourself complain and whine about things that continually rewards them, well, it falls flat with me. You don't get a cookie for whining. 

I guess we're kinda like the evil galactic empire in star wars. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we're kinda like the evil galactic empire in star wars. :lol:

 

I do agree with you that it is a joke to say that "women, people of color, GLBT, and people of various ability statuses have equally contributed to society throughout the ages" as it relates to western civilization.  Total nonsense.   But the reason white males have contributed more historically to the development of western civilization is sexism, bigotry and discrimination towards non-whites and females.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...