View Full Version : BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?
Africa is also of Pangaean descent. I can't see any way out of this.
Indeed, we're all trapped on this planet together.
Montmorency
03-24-2018, 18:46
If everyone always got what their feelings want right away, most men would be married to 50+ women, I know I would... :sweatdrop:
You need 50 people to manage your day-to-day life? Well, they say it takes a village...
The normal state in acting is where one person pretends to be a different person - fictional or real. Giving klan hoods to people that did not wear them or turning people into cars is far beyond the normal (except for e.g. comedies).
The point is just that some casting choices cause incoherence where others do not. Do you need a 40-year old actor to portray someone who is 40-years old in the setting? No, but (leaving aside extensive makeup, costuming, or CGI) a visibly 5-year old actor couldn't do it without creating, let's call it, meta-plot holes (itself distinct from anachronism). If you immediately think of a story where a child is deceiving people into believing they are an adult, then you are admitting that explanation and context must discipline casting, and vice-versa.
You need 50 people to manage your day-to-day life? Well, they say it takes a village...
Yes, in younger men these kind of feelings are often a day-to-day thing. :sweatdrop:
The point is just that some casting choices cause incoherence where others do not. Do you need a 40-year old actor to portray someone who is 40-years old in the setting? No, but (leaving aside extensive makeup, costuming, or CGI) a visibly 5-year old actor couldn't do it without creating, let's call it, meta-plot holes (itself distinct from anachronism). If you immediately think of a story where a child is deceiving people into believing they are an adult, then you are admitting that explanation and context must discipline casting, and vice-versa.
A 5-year old is unlikely to be able to portray an adult person realistically; regardless of physical appearance. From an acting perspective, the challenge is a very different one.
All your recent examples are extreme; and of course many will think that casting an actor of a clearly different ethnicity is extreme, as with this casting of Achilles.
All your recent examples are extreme; and of course many will think that casting an actor of a clearly different ethnicity is extreme, as with this casting of Achilles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
People are angry because they're clueless about how we are all of African descent, it seems like a great opportunity for them to learn what you and I already know.
It's okay that they feel patronized after Africans have actuallybeen patronized for years, but strange feelings shouldn't trump reality for rational people.
If everyone always got what their feelings want right away, most men would be married to 50+ women, I know I would... :sweatdrop:
Sane people don't have to learn anything, the BBC thinks we do. If you make a series about Achilles I reckon you should stay close to classicl art (don't know of any classical art about Achilles, do know that in Hellenistic art some figures are black), in renaissance-art all Greeks are portrayed as white (they weren't all white), I think that you should stay close to that personally, there is simply no need to do it differently. The BBC thinks otherwise it seems. I doubt they didn't expect some raised eyebrows. Those who make a problem of it should really grow up and figure out why they are so upset imho but it remains an odd decision
Montmorency
03-25-2018, 01:44
A 5-year old is unlikely to be able to portray an adult person realistically; regardless of physical appearance. From an acting perspective, the challenge is a very different one.
All your recent examples are extreme; and of course many will think that casting an actor of a clearly different ethnicity is extreme, as with this casting of Achilles.
You're still focused on the physicality of the production, but I'm talking about the content of the product. Extreme examples are used to illustrate the principle, it's a general technique.
This isn't about whether you like the choice or not, that's a separate issue. Actors are often selected in part because of their appearance, but this is because the appearance will have some meaning in the context of the film. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have cut an intimidating figure. Rick Moranis was a dweebish type of persona. So different approaches have different meanings for a viewer - but they can all be consistent with underlying characteristics of the character that exists in the setting. For Neo in The Matrix, the movie is very different depending on if you cast Will Smith or Keanu Reeves, but the character itself doesn't rule out one or the other choice.
If you like, you can formulate a test, to determine the coherence of certain choices: Does varying X make this story internally contradictory? If so, does the story try to account for it?
The anime Fate/Stay Night for example does a kind of subversion of mythic tropes by having Hercules be a big grotesque monster, King Arthur a girl, and Gilgamesh... a blonde Japanese metrosexual badass? While retaining certain core character traits, like brute strength (for Hercules), valor and dutifulness (for King Arthur), and hubris (for Gilgamesh).
Gilrandir
03-25-2018, 12:03
People are angry because they're clueless about how we are all of African descent, it seems like a great opportunity for them to learn what you and I already know.
Descent =/= skin color
do know that in Hellenistic art some figures are black
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/vase/hd_vase.htm
If you were right we would see some black Greek sculptures. So one should speak here of the TECHNIQUE of painting/modelling (connected with the substance they painted on and with or sculpted of), not of describing actual skin color.
There aren't any as far as I know, they are on pottery though, got one here now actually, black figures. Friend knows a whole lot more about it than me she's into that. More later
Gilrandir
03-25-2018, 13:14
There aren't any as far as I know, they are on pottery though, got one here now actually, black figures.
That's right. There were two Greek techniques of painting on pottery - black-figured painting and red-figured painting. Or do you mean Greek were of two skin colors - red and black?
Descent =/= skin color
I was just going along with Viking's arguments.
Amazing, did you know that, Viking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
It's an observation.
Extreme examples are used to illustrate the principle, it's a general technique.
Quite, but my focus was not on the principle, but on a specific case to which the principle applies.
If so, does the story try to account for it?
In my example(s), I presume that the audience knows who the real MLK was, and that the movie itself does not need to account for the visual discrepancy anymore than a play must account for that its actors act as if an obvious tree prop is a real tree.
I was just going along with Viking's arguments.
Amazing, did you know that, Viking?
If we have to go all serious, then all humans are not of 'African descent' in the sense that far from all humans are (exclusively, at least) descendants of people of modern African ethnicities. The 'African descent' concerns geography rather than lineage. The first humans that migrated out of Africa might not have looked much like any modern ethnicity; Africans and Europeans included.
(likewise, humans have not descended from the (modern) apes, either, but share common ancestors with them..)
Seamus Fermanagh
03-25-2018, 16:10
As I said, all 'Refugees from the Olduvai Gorge.'
We all need to go back to our shared roots. Running from Sabertooths, digging for root vegetables with sticks, wondering if mammoth hair really made you more potent...
That's right. There were two Greek techniques of painting on pottery - black-figured painting and red-figured painting. Or do you mean Greek were of two skin colors - red and black?
Not my expertise my (lovely) friend is much more into it, it's just trade for me, red and black yes that's true. I don't have the red ones but I know they exist, all kinda hard to get
Montmorency
03-25-2018, 19:41
In my example(s), I presume that the audience knows who the real MLK was, and that the movie itself does not need to account for the visual discrepancy anymore than a play must account for that its actors act as if an obvious tree prop is a real tree.
There are some differences between film and theater as performative modes, and anyway the problem still holds in either one. Unless every character is randomized or detached from their racial background, you still have the contradiction. Notice how we've only been talking about black and white, but this contradiction still appears whether MLK is portrayed by a Chinese or an Arab. The only conceivable exception is if the actor looks much the part from the beginning regardless of background, but that's an unusual circumstance and by definition couldn't include "white" actors.
As I said, all 'Refugees from the Olduvai Gorge.'
We all need to go back to our shared roots. Running from Sabertooths, digging for root vegetables with sticks, wondering if mammoth hair really made you more potent...
That's exclusionary of our ancestors who didn't leave Africa, or who voyaged on through SE Asia and beyond.
It's an observation.
It was a pre-emptive link in case anyone considered making it an argument.
If we have to go all serious, then all humans are not of 'African descent' in the sense that far from all humans are (exclusively, at least) descendants of people of modern African ethnicities. The 'African descent' concerns geography rather than lineage. The first humans that migrated out of Africa might not have looked much like any modern ethnicity; Africans and Europeans included.
(likewise, humans have not descended from the (modern) apes, either, but share common ancestors with them..)
Ethnicity also concerns geography more than lineage.
As for the likewise, sharing common ancestors is lineage, no?
So if that's "likewise" to the other argument, it is about lineage afterall? I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.
You look too far, the BBC cares a whole lot more than the people who don't like it
You look too far, the BBC cares a whole lot more than the people who don't like it
And caring about a good cause is a bad thing while caring only a little bit about a bad cause is better?
And if these people care only a little, why do we have this thread about a "controversy" and "going mad"?
If I had known that, I could have ignored the issue right away. :sweatdrop:
Well the people being so self-rightious want other people to do something. I actually do it myaelf even if I don't agree with it, I actually helped people, won't go into details but they would be dead if it wren't for ne
Suraknar
03-26-2018, 06:39
But no, the Greeks are descendants of black people.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-ancient-greeks-were-black-norman-mccreary
Even their gods were Africans...
You can't just whitewash European history as though the white man and the black man were completely different. It's just a Melanin difference, get over it.
That is Bull*** to put it bluntly.
To put it in a more civil way...That hypothesis has been proven to have been based on wrong data and is false, some people even drew conclusions based on the Vase choice of colors to represent people by the artists... "the pictures are painted black, people must have been black, Ancient Greeks were black"....can one be more superficial and shallow than this? Gee...
And they also said the same about the Egyptians and it is not true either.
I posted that link in my replies above allong with the Links which bring evidence to the falsity of this hypothesis.
For the record, here is one about the Ancient Egyptians
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know
==========
There is one thing to say some 60,000 years ago Humans that came out of Africa to populate the rest of the world were Black and that we all in fact come from Africa and our ancestor's skin was black.
it is quite another to try to apply this to some 3500 years ago, it is well known that by this time populations outside of Africa had already changed and adapted to the new environment..it is well known that skin needs to be lighter in order to become more sensitive to the sun as to be able to absorb a less powerful sun in temperate and above climates as to permit vitamin D synthesis of the human body. While in more tropical climates skin will become darker to protect from the intense sun. The substance in our bodies responsible of this is the pigment melanin.
Of course at the Core, all this is superficial, and we are all Humans, yet we are not talking at that level here and Ancient Greeks were not of sub-Saharan dark skin pigmentation.
Same with other populations of Asia Minor, the Levant, Persia, including Egyptians, as well as Black Sea, Caucasus and Balkan...not to forget Celts and Latins as well as Germanic Ethnicities ...
Also...has anyone even considered the Linguistic factors here? If indeed ancient Greeks were descended (in the near past), by sub-Saharan Africans, why is the Greek language among the Indo-European Group of languages rather than the Afro-Asiatic one? There would at least be some vestiges of an African language here..and there is not..
==========
Episode 6 this week. Still had some Long moments where my attention drifted but had good action and follows Iliad quite closely. The Amazons joined Troy and Patroclus dies, and Achilles fights Hector.
Watching it makes me think that this version is actually meant for an African Crowd primarily, it is a way to bring the story to the continent without being overly "just another series from the west"...
I think in this sense it is not a bad thing.
Imagine if this was a Play, live on stage, played by local African actors, I do not see why there is a problem there. All kinds of plays make it internationally no? And many are played by local actors no matter where. In that case the focus is not on who is play what role but rather the story and its expression itself.
I am sure Shakespeare plays are played internationally too, so does it matter if when "Henri V" or "Hamlet" is played by a Chinese Actor when the play happens in China?
So yeah, I am seeing the whole "controversy" in a new light like this.
Unless every character is randomized or detached from their racial background, you still have the contradiction.
There is a contradiction in the more literal interpretation of the casting, but there seems to be a disagreement over the impact of this contradiction.
Ethnicity also concerns geography more than lineage.
Ethnicity concerns primarily lineage and culture, but tends to correlate well with geography since groups of people of common origin separated by large distances have a tendency to desynchronise.
As for the likewise, sharing common ancestors is lineage, no?
So if that's "likewise" to the other argument, it is about lineage afterall? I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.
You also share common ancestry with South Americans, but you wouldn't say that all humans are of South American descent.
Suraknar
04-16-2018, 02:11
The Series is now on Netflix.
It was interesting and of a different flavor but did not leave an "Epic" feeling to me..but overall Ok. Of coursce it is but my opinion.
Enjoy :)
Seamus Fermanagh
04-16-2018, 03:12
Black achilles and zeus did not bother me.
Stirrups in use by all riders and ships without steering oars were more annoying
AE Bravo
04-16-2018, 08:42
Wasn't crazy about the first episode. Thought it was a competent show but they didn't go out of their way to make the characters stronger than they are, so everything rests entirely on the source material dressed up as a Lifetime tv movie. I know the 2004 movie wasn't the best either, but I really appreciated their approach to the fantasy elements. Gods weren't really there but you slowly buy into the reality of these characters and their fantasy world, where by the end it's all totally plausible. It's a rich topic when it comes to these civilizations.
This one is a good adaptation at best. I don't think I can finish this.
Black achilles and zeus did not bother me.
Stirrups in use by all riders and ships without steering oars were more annoying
There were no steering oars, they steered with manpower
Seamus Fermanagh
04-16-2018, 13:18
There were no steering oars, they steered with manpower
Possibly true, though Egypt was using steering oars during the bronze age. A 'reme would not have needed one, but I suspect the more common coasters/general work ships would have used them
Only one episode on Netflix it seems, the fuzz is much more interesting than the series so far
I'm confused, I saw it a while ago on Netflix (Troy: Fall of a City, 8 episodes here), but it has the Netflix branding like they produced it themselves. Other BBC series like The Musketeers and Sherlock have a little BBC logo and no Netflix branding. Did the BBC produce this as an order by Netflix or did they cooperate or does Netflix brand everything as their own now? Usually corporations are quite strict about their branding and licensing policies after all.
OR is this Netflix one different, also has a black guy in the teaser picture and was only produced so they won't have to license the BBC one? (I don't really think so, but....) :dizzy2:
Ok, obviously I prefer to write a long post versus looking it up on Wikipedia in 10 seconds. Turns out it's actually a co-production. The BBC in the thread title is misleading then since there is more than just British liberalism involved...
On a related note on the topic, there is the Teen Titans live action. I was a little old when this came on Cartoon Network, so it doesn't have the same notasgia for me, but people are up in arms about a black woman playing the female alien, Starfire back in August. This got worse when very recently on-set pictures were leaked...
https://i.imgur.com/kF6WycY.jpg
The backlash from this is bad, with many people blaming the decision to have a black woman playing as Starfire as the reason why it fails. I have to completely disagree with this notion that the casting of Anna Diop as Starfire is not the problem with the above picture and her ethnicity should not be a factor.
Firstly, Starfire (character) is an alien. Considering that Tamaranian's don't actually exist, there are no actual sensitivities about what 'ethnicity' should play her. Though being honest, having a female of colour or Donald Trump is probably a good choice considering Starfire an orange shade. Alien roles have always been good opportunities for black actors/actresses, and when done right, you have some iconic characters. Unfortunately, being an Alien does hide the 'colour' for those knuckle-draggers within society making it more 'acceptable'.
https://i.imgur.com/mYtOz9Q.jpg
Going back to the picture, let's see what is wrong with it. In short, it looks like they dressed Starfire as some kind of 1980's Hooker. To make it better for my point, the clothing choices for the rest of the cast are terrible too.
https://i.imgur.com/svoMsgB.jpg
Seriously? What is with the terrible costume design decisions being made! Obviously, fans of the series have been comparing the outfits to Cosplay too. By cosplay, the heavily doctored photos of real life models in skimpy versions of various outfits.
But someone did do this photoshop of Anna Diop as Starfire... so with the right-outfit, it could actually work for her. It is a shame that poor costume design resulted in so many people focusing on Anna Diop specifically, then targeting her ethnicity as the issue.
https://i.imgur.com/opD7Fyx.jpg
*person of colour: a term for anyone not white, in short.
Well, judging the character based on some leaked, unflattering set photos is obviously a great idea anyway. :rolleyes:
In the comic she looks more like a latina, except for the hair, but other than that people just need controversies nowadays.
Since the left starts most of them, some non-lefties have to make some up to not fall too far behind. :shrug:
In the comic she looks more like a latina, except for the hair, but other than that people just need controversies nowadays.
Latina is probably a better choice to be fair. Then same people would still complain.
I'm confused, I saw it a while ago on Netflix (Troy: Fall of a City, 8 episodes here), but it has the Netflix branding like they produced it themselves. Other BBC series like The Musketeers and Sherlock have a little BBC logo and no Netflix branding. Did the BBC produce this as an order by Netflix or did they cooperate or does Netflix brand everything as their own now? Usually corporations are quite strict about their branding and licensing policies after all.
OR is this Netflix one different, also has a black guy in the teaser picture and was only produced so they won't have to license the BBC one? (I don't really think so, but....) :dizzy2:
Ok, obviously I prefer to write a long post versus looking it up on Wikipedia in 10 seconds. Turns out it's actually a co-production. The BBC in the thread title is misleading then since there is more than just British liberalism involved...
Confuses me as well, Netflix originals are never on other channels
Sarmatian
04-18-2018, 07:52
And the have a black lady playing Uhura on Star Trek.
And the have a black lady playing Uhura on Star Trek.
And that is how it always was, it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura
Is there some joke I missed?
And the have a black lady playing Uhura on Star Trek.
Everything can make things look rediculois, I really do not mind that some persions are black, don not have any reason. Why it is so important tosome is beyond me though, I get the feeling that something is right before my eyes. I don trust it.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-18-2018, 16:04
Again, I have netflixed my way through two episodes and a bit.
Anachronism central, the plot should be Homeric but it falls short.
That Achilles is portrayed by someone of African descent is no where near the top of the problems list for this.
Not at all, the problem is the patrosnising of those who do not care. The multicultural left is the problem. The BBC hardly goes Pilatus on that one, if they would be honest they would just admit that they did it for a reason. I do not care, but they care too much
Montmorency
04-18-2018, 17:02
Not at all, the problem is the patrosnising of those who do not care. The multicultural left is the problem. The BBC hardly goes Pilatus on that one, if they would be honest they would just admit that they did it for a reason. I do not care, but they care too much
Why not the other way around? Isn't it just that you don't give these things thought and resent having it brought to your notice?
Why not the other way around? Isn't it just that you don't give these things thought and resent having it brought to your notice?
That is one way to put it, yes you could say that. But thatś not the other wat around, itś the exact same thing as I say in a way
Look a little bigger, enforced diversity is the new apartheid really, as it inevitably leads to identity-politics
Not caring is better and the BBC cares too much
Montmorency
04-19-2018, 13:26
That is one way to put it, yes you could say that. But thatś not the other wat around, itś the exact same thing as I say in a way
Look a little bigger, enforced diversity is the new apartheid really, as it inevitably leads to identity-politics
Not caring is better and the BBC cares too much
There are so many questions packed in here.
What is "enforced diversity"?
Where is there "enforced diversity"?
What are the shortcomings of "enforced diversity"?
Is the late case even an example of such "enforced diversity"?
What is the distinction between politics and "identity politics"?
Why isn't resistance to diversity ("forced" or otherwise) a form of identity politics?
What kind of politics leads to "new apartheid"?
What is the distinction between new and old apartheids?
Why isn't claiming not to care about diversity a form of caring privileged by 'out of sight, out of mind'?
...
Fragenigma, etc.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-19-2018, 14:17
There are so many questions packed in here.
What is "enforced diversity"?
Where is there "enforced diversity"?
What are the shortcomings of "enforced diversity"?
Is the late case even an example of such "enforced diversity"?
What is the distinction between politics and "identity politics"?
Why isn't resistance to diversity ("forced" or otherwise) a form of identity politics?
What kind of politics leads to "new apartheid"?
What is the distinction between new and old apartheids?
Why isn't claiming not to care about diversity a form of caring privileged by 'out of sight, out of mind'?
...
Fragenigma, etc.
I can answer these. Of course, you are not seeking my answer.
There are so many questions packed in here.
What is "enforced diversity"?
Where is there "enforced diversity"?
What are the shortcomings of "enforced diversity"?
Is the late case even an example of such "enforced diversity"?
What is the distinction between politics and "identity politics"?
Why isn't resistance to diversity ("forced" or otherwise) a form of identity politics?
What kind of politics leads to "new apartheid"?
What is the distinction between new and old apartheids?
Why isn't claiming not to care about diversity a form of caring privileged by 'out of sight, out of mind'?
...
Fragenigma, etc.
Well, the only answer I can provide is that I just look at things like that, prove me wrong, good luck with that
Well, the only answer I can provide is that I just look at things like that, prove me wrong, good luck with that
:laugh4:
You're wrong, prove me wrong if you want to be right!
Gilrandir
04-19-2018, 16:40
:laugh4:
You're wrong, prove me wrong if you want to be right!
Enforced diversity :shrug:
:laugh4:
You're wrong, prove me wrong if you want to be right!
I got reality at my side, do you
Enforced diversity :shrug:
Wrongful argumentativity. :creep:
I got reality at my side, do you
Got her in bed, prove me wrong.
Montmorency
04-19-2018, 23:31
I can answer these. Of course, you are not seeking my answer.
I welcome a spinoff thread, but sometimes I feel like not caring is better.
Wrongful argumentativity. :creep:
Got her in bed, prove me wrong.
What is your pillowś name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZH35n7SxW8
I started watching it and just finished the second episode.
There is also a black leader in it and several of the godesses are black (don't ask me about names, they're all famous).
It's a BBC movie and exactly what I would expect. I cannot explain why, but all the black women I saw so far are the "British Black Woman" type of black women, don't question my brain's ability to recognize patterns.
People think it's a problem of black washing or political correctness, but that is wrong. The problem is it is British. I've come to accept British exceptionalism in the sense that everything is a step or two weirder in Britain than anywhere else. The contrast between liberals and conservatives in the UK seems even stronger than in the US sometimes.
You don't see German or French liberals making historical movies where they replace everyone's skin color just to make a political point. Even in US movies this seems quite rare. The BBC has been on this path at least since Doctor Who was always giddy as all bloody hell about how diverse all the alien creeps around him were...
Although I'm not sure whether the old Troy movie had the correct actors according to this Metatron's metric of "could pass as Trojan", but there was no outrage about how the actors weren't ethnic enough back then IIRC.
This blackwashing by the BBC is really just revenge for Brexit so eat your own penis if you don't like it (or don't, I hope you live in a free country). I'm going to continue watching it so they can make a second season with black Romulus and Remus. ~;p
In Dr Who it makes sense though, can be anybody
In Dr Who it makes sense though, can be anybody
It's the way he treats the diversity as the best and most exciting thing in the universe, talks about how much one can learn and so on that makes it liberal multicultural propaganda. It's really funny if you haven't noticed...
It's the way he treats the diversity as the best and most exciting thing in the universe, talks about how much one can learn and so on that makes it liberal multicultural propaganda. It's really funny if you haven't noticed...
Dr Who has itś own mytholigy, so does greek mytholigy.This could just have been avoided, the BBC insists too much on promoting diversity
Seamus Fermanagh
04-29-2018, 23:26
...the BBC insists too much on promoting diversity
I thought that was why they had four channels. Are you saying that's too many? :inquisitive:
Something I found interesting was that the Lone Ranger (fictional white lawman) was based on Bass Reeves, the very first black marshal with an impressive career. Then there were the early years of Hollywood where people of colour were depicted by white people with black-face or the equivalent for Asians, etc too.
Now people are complaining that diversity (other than white people) in media does smack of racial/ethnic supremacy overtones.
Something I found interesting was that the Lone Ranger (fictional white lawman) was based on Bass Reeves, the very first black marshal with an impressive career. Then there were the early years of Hollywood where people of colour were depicted by white people with black-face or the equivalent for Asians, etc too.
Now people are complaining that diversity (other than white people) in media does smack of racial/ethnic supremacy overtones.
There is nothing wrong with diversity, but diversity should not be a persuit, there it goes wrong.
a completely inoffensive name
05-21-2018, 05:28
There is nothing wrong with diversity, but diversity should not be a persuit, there it goes wrong.
Diversity brings conflicting values, which challenge us and highlight the flaws in our methodologies for us to improve. Is this not something to pursue?
Do you believe there is nothing to be learned from the syrian refugee crisis?
Sure, that they should be helped regionally, not here
ConjurerDragon
05-21-2018, 09:01
Diversity brings conflicting values, which challenge us and highlight the flaws in our methodologies for us to improve. Is this not something to pursue?
Sure. But humanity and society are very slow learners.
We needed the 30 years war in Europe to learn that catholics and protestants should not kill each other while in Ireland the conflict continued to the last century. The Netherlands and Spain failed some lessons because they needed 80 years to get there.
Germany needed 30 years of EU-membership to stop seeing portuguese, spanish and italians as shifty southlanders who would steal our jobs and women.
Only in the last decade has freedom of movement in the EU really been accepted only to be challenged since 2015 by the inability for the EU to actually protect it’s borders.
Do you believe there is nothing to be learned from the syrian refugee crisis?
Sure. Falling for harebrained propaganda which portrays anyone who rises in rebellion against an authoritarian president, whom we don’t like, as heroes and half-heartedly supporting the uprising but to shy away from a REAL intervention was stupid.
Either the US and EU should have invaded Syria as usual when Faisal was thrown out and moved to Iraq, deposed Assad and occupied the country for a generation to allow the time for people to form a democratic government (at a cost in lives and money that neither the EU nor US would been willing to accept nowadays!), or
we should have accepted that in many states of the world a heavyhanded authoritarian president despite lacking in human rights, is the better choice than to provoke a civil war in which much more suffer and die miserably than if Assad would have ruled for 10 more years before being complimented out of his office.
I mean if we accept that in Russia and China very similar regimes rule we should try not to be hypocrites and try to remove Assad but simply accept Putin and Chinas lifetimepresident.
Or even better - we accept that borders are there to be respected to maintain peace and that no single state, nor military alliance, but only the UNO has the right to suggest an intervention in other countries.
Montmorency
05-21-2018, 13:39
Sure. But humanity and society are very slow learners.
We needed the 30 years war in Europe to learn that catholics and protestants should not kill each other while in Ireland the conflict continued to the last century. The Netherlands and Spain failed some lessons because they needed 80 years to get there.
Germany needed 30 years of EU-membership to stop seeing portuguese, spanish and italians as shifty southlanders who would steal our jobs and women.
Only in the last decade has freedom of movement in the EU really been accepted only to be challenged since 2015 by the inability for the EU to actually protect it’s borders.
Sure. Falling for harebrained propaganda which portrays anyone who rises in rebellion against an authoritarian president, whom we don’t like, as heroes and half-heartedly supporting the uprising but to shy away from a REAL intervention was stupid.
Either the US and EU should have invaded Syria as usual when Faisal was thrown out and moved to Iraq, deposed Assad and occupied the country for a generation to allow the time for people to form a democratic government (at a cost in lives and money that neither the EU nor US would been willing to accept nowadays!), or
we should have accepted that in many states of the world a heavyhanded authoritarian president despite lacking in human rights, is the better choice than to provoke a civil war in which much more suffer and die miserably than if Assad would have ruled for 10 more years before being complimented out of his office.
I mean if we accept that in Russia and China very similar regimes rule we should try not to be hypocrites and try to remove Assad but simply accept Putin and Chinas lifetimepresident.
Or even better - we accept that borders are there to be respected to maintain peace and that no single state, nor military alliance, but only the UNO has the right to suggest an intervention in other countries.
One of the greatest confounding factors for the EU and US from the outside was the fact that pretty much every Eurasian power has its hands in Syria. A consequence of the multipolar world we've been hearing about.
I don't know how it affects the duration of the civil war, but the US coalition contributed significantly to decreasing IS' longevity by clearing their zones of control on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border - with the consequence of empowering the local Kurds. Assad may never regain control of eastern Syria, at least not as he had it pre-2011.
Is Egypt going to be the next flashpoint for massive terrorist insurgency? Last I heard, their security forces were getting continually torn up by veteran North African cadres led by longtime IS and Al Qaeda operatives. Wouldn't that excite everyone. Maybe EU will get a do-over for 1956.
i vote Idealized fiction. http://gshort.click/isna/4/o.png
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.