The Woman King

[Twin_Moose]

And there's many others - how about Boudicca who lead her people against the romans after they brutally mistreated her and her family? That was a pretty epic tale, would make a good movie or trilogy.

Or Queen Tomyris - the king of persia tried to marry her and ambushed her soldiers and tried to wipe them out, she regrouped and came back and led her army to wipe out his army, killed him, stuffed his head in a wine cask full of blood and sent it back to persia as a warning to anyone else who thought to bother her people. THAT'S an empowered woman!

There's a lot of others. But i guess white and asian queens didn't scratch all the intersectional check boxes. Well, at least they didn't try to re-write her as gay.

Or Catherine the great yes there are many

 

[pgs]

Or Catherine the great yes there are many

Elizabeth .

 

[Serryah]

Or Catherine the great yes there are many

Sure, I'm all for that, too. Cleo, Catherine, Marie Antoinette, Joan of Arc, though they are more studied because they're well known. Boudicca, Isabella of Spain, Hatshepsut; they're lesser known women of power that aren't looked at so much. And there are so many others.

Unless things have changed since I went to school though, you never, or hardly ever, heard of strong, powerful black women.

Which was the point; watching the movie would at least start a discussion to talk about the actual historical accuracies in it and teach kids that such women did exist.

 

[The_Foxer]

Sure, I'm all for that, too. Cleo, Catherine, Marie Antoinette, Joan of Arc, though they are more studied because they're well known. Boudicca, Isabella of Spain, Hatshepsut; they're lesser known women of power that aren't looked at so much. And there are so many others.

Unless things have changed since I went to school though, you never, or hardly ever, heard of strong, powerful black women.

Which was the point; watching the movie would at least start a discussion to talk about the actual historical accuracies in it and teach kids that such women did exist.

You're just learning about those people right now aren't you.

And no, that was not your point. How pathetic.

 

[pgs]

Sure, I'm all for that, too. Cleo, Catherine, Marie Antoinette, Joan of Arc, though they are more studied because they're well known. Boudicca, Isabella of Spain, Hatshepsut; they're lesser known women of power that aren't looked at so much. And there are so many others.

Unless things have changed since I went to school though, you never, or hardly ever, heard of strong, powerful black women.

Which was the point; watching the movie would at least start a discussion to talk about the actual historical accuracies in it and teach kids that such women did exist.

Did you not learn of the Amazons in Greek Literature ? Ferdinand and Isabella in history ? Wow you must have been high and missing during your high school , and formative years .

 

[The_Foxer]

Did you not learn of the Amazons in Greek Literature ? Ferdinand and Isabella in history ?

How do you expect her to learn about that stuff unless they make a movie she didn't watch about it first?

 

[Jinentonix]

Well considering I didn't explain why I thought it should be taught - I suppose I should have though, considering some people here - yeah, I do. It's not a documentary, lots of movies aren't. But there is enough things in this in the first 9 minutes that make it worth being something to bring up in a classroom and teach about, especially considering the subject is not something taught much about at all other than "it happened" (or depending on the state you live in now, it didn't).

Here's why, just for you, Jinny.

Despite historical INaccuracies (which can also be discussed), it discusses the slave trade still, and how it exploited the African populations. And how African nations themselves used it to their own advantages.

It DOES show women in a position of power and respect, something not seen often and would be a great discussion topic. That it shows BLACK women in that position makes it more important in the context of black history (yes, yes, I know, teaching Black history is bad).

Yeah okay, I'll give that one to you. Showing that Black women in a position of power can be just as corrupt and evil as White men is very important.

It's a black centric, black focused movie. Considering the rarity of movies like it when compared to movies made by and for white people, it opens up another topic about representation, culture as it appears with entertainments and arts...

But but...representation man. I mean if Ann Boleyn can be portrayed as a Black woman and be called "progressive", surely to god General Nanisca could have been portrayed as a non-Black woman, or they could have tossed in a few White or Arabic or Asian extras to fill out the The Woman King's army in the name of "progressiveness". I'm being cynical by the way, that would be stupid. Just pointing out that to the leftists it's perfectly okay when the race swapping of historical figures swaps out the White figures.

I'll amend; maybe not just taught in history classes, but in say a theatre arts class.

Why? Why involve identity politics in theatre arts? Can't art just be fucking art for art's sake, goddamit?

Then again, I also think recent movies like Till, Marvel's Black Panther (theatre arts only since it has no history in it really), The Harder They Fall (about black cowboys), 12 Years a Slave should also be taught, for various reasons.

They are "Hollywood" productions. The only merit they'd have as teaching instruments would be in theatre arts and used to showcase different acting/directing etc methods. That's like saying they should show the movie U-571 in schools to teach about naval warfare in WW2. Don't confuse 'historically accurate' with "historicity". The disclaimer "Based on real events" is actually pretty wide open to interpretation.

I'm not saying it's something for little kids, but High School, grade 10 on? Stuff like this might actually get it through some heads...

Get what through their heads? The ridiculous notion that slavery was invented by Whitey? If you're going to tackle slavery, then deal with the entire history of it, not just a very tiny part of it based solely on ideological motivation. Same with imperialism and colonialism.

Oh wait, I just realized, all this is the "Evils of CRT!" that paranoid people keep screaming about.

Yep, because nothing ever happened before you were born. There's never been any movies or mini-series about and starring Black people. Nope, not a single one ever. Especially none dealing with slavery and racism. Man I sure remember White people not complaining about Roots and exclaiming it was Marxist garbage, because they didn't. And I sure don't remember anyone screaming or protesting when some schools actually showed it in the classroom.

Now I get why you're against things like this being used as tools of discussion.

Yes, because "Hollywood" productions are always great vehicles for discussing things like history. Not really sure why you need a production just to discuss a topic. Oh that's right, we gotta deal with the TLDR generation who can't seem to focus their reading attention on anything longer than a Tweet.

 

[Serryah]

Yeah okay, I'll give that one to you. Showing that Black women in a position of power can be just as corrupt and evil as White men is very important.

Showing Black women in a position of power period is a good thing. Whether she went power mad or not is side gravy.

But but...representation man.

Oh FFS.

I mean if Ann Boleyn can be portrayed as a Black woman and be called "progressive",

Here's a shocker for you, Jinny - I don't think that's "okay".

surely to god General Nanisca could have been portrayed as a non-Black woman, or they could have tossed in a few White or Arabic or Asian extras to fill out the The Woman King's army in the name of "progressiveness".

Maybe after a few more remakes of it come out, then you can throw in other races/people that have nothing in with the story. Until then, no.

I'm being cynical by the way,

Well yeah, you'd never be serious about diversity on this scale.

that would be stupid. Just pointing out that to the leftists it's perfectly okay when the race swapping of historical figures swaps out the White figures.

Is that "normal" leftists or the radical kind?

Why? Why involve identity politics in theatre arts?

LOL! Chill, Jin. My suggestion for it to be in theater arts isn't for identity politics, but rather to discuss the merits of the movie, the casting and other actual theater/cinema related issues. Did you even take Theater arts? I did and the movies we saw were just... well, interesting is one way to put it.

Can't art just be fucking art for art's sake, goddamit?

Here, you're low.

They are "Hollywood" productions. The only merit they'd have as teaching instruments would be in theatre arts and used to showcase different acting/directing etc methods.

Exactly. So why would that be an issue?

That's like saying they should show the movie U-571 in schools to teach about naval warfare in WW2.

Uh... okay...? Except that it doesn't depict any real events, so...

Don't confuse 'historically accurate' with "historicity".

I don't.

The disclaimer "Based on real events" is actually pretty wide open to interpretation.

It is. You seem to miss that the point is to open discussions about events in this and other 'based on real events' movies. I mean, as it is there are some movies "based on real events" already shown in schools for various reasons - and it's up to the teacher to remind students that it's not *completely* real, but the subject matter, when it is factual, is what's discussed.

Get what through their heads? The ridiculous notion that slavery was invented by Whitey?

No, that not all Black people were savages, not all blacks were enslaved by Whitey and the whole issue is complicated and complex. And that black women weren't just baby producing machines.

If you're going to tackle slavery, then deal with the entire history of it, not just a very tiny part of it based solely on ideological motivation. Same with imperialism and colonialism.

I absolutely agree. As I've said elsewhere. And IMO, movies like this WOULD help that because it's not all just blacks being put into slavery.

Yep, because nothing ever happened before you were born.

Oh FFS Jin, I thought you said you were gonna stop this shit?

There's never been any movies or mini-series about and starring Black people.

Never said that.

Nope, not a single one ever. Especially none dealing with slavery and racism.

Never said that, either.

Man I sure remember White people not complaining about Roots and exclaiming it was Marxist garbage, because they didn't. And I sure don't remember anyone screaming or protesting when some schools actually showed it in the classroom.

You don't? Cause I do, even when I was old enough to get what Roots was about. Another movie that should be used in classrooms more than it is. Thank Gods my parents sat and watched it with me and explained it to me; lots of kids DON'T get that, which is part of why it should be in school classrooms, along with other movies.

Yes, because "Hollywood" productions are always great vehicles for discussing things like history.

Not saying that, either. But when something IS produced that can be used, why the hell not use it?

Not really sure why you need a production just to discuss a topic.

You shouldn't but then look at the right wing wackadoo's AND some left wing wackadoo's and then you might get a clue as to why.

Oh that's right, we gotta deal with the TLDR generation who can't seem to focus their reading attention on anything longer than a Tweet.

Well I won't argue with you on that either.

Then again, movies/documentaries have always been a teaching aid in schools. Are you that far removed that it wasn't a thing for you?

 

[Twin_Moose]

Uh... okay...? Except that it doesn't depict any real events, so...

It is. You seem to miss that the point is to open discussions about events in this and other 'based on real events' movies. I mean, as it is there are some movies "based on real events" already shown in schools for various reasons - and it's up to the teacher to remind students that it's not *completely* real, but the subject matter, when it is factual, is what's discussed

But it was based on real events

German submarine U-571 - Wikipedia​

German submarine U-571 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Overview
• Design
• Service history
• Bibliography
• External links

German submarine U-571 was a Type VIIC U-boat built for the Kriegsmarine of Nazi Germany for service during World War II. U-571 conducted eleven war patrols, sinking five ships totalling 33,511 gross register tons (GRT), and damaging one other for 11,394 GRT. On 28 January 1944 she was attacked by an Australian-crewed Sunderland aircraft from No. 461 Squadron RAAF west of Ireland and was destroyed by depth charges. All hands were lost.
Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

• Commanders: Kptlt. Helmut Möhlmann, 22 May 1941 …
• Victories: 5 merchant ships sunk, (33,511 GRT), …
• Part of: 3rd U-boat Flotilla, 22 May 1941 – 28 …
• Operations: 11 patrols:, 1st patrol:, a. 18 – 27 Au

 

[Serryah]

But it was based on real events

German submarine U-571 - Wikipedia​

German submarine U-571 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Overview
• Design
• Service history
• Bibliography
• External links

German submarine U-571 was a Type VIIC U-boat built for the Kriegsmarine of Nazi Germany for service during World War II. U-571 conducted eleven war patrols, sinking five ships totalling 33,511 gross register tons (GRT), and damaging one other for 11,394 GRT. On 28 January 1944 she was attacked by an Australian-crewed Sunderland aircraft from No. 461 Squadron RAAF west of Ireland and was destroyed by depth charges. All hands were lost.
Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

• Commanders: Kptlt. Helmut Möhlmann, 22 May 1941 …
• Victories: 5 merchant ships sunk, (33,511 GRT), …
• Part of: 3rd U-boat Flotilla, 22 May 1941 – 28 …
• Operations: 11 patrols:, 1st patrol:, a. 18 – 27 Au

U-571 (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The film, telling the story of a World War II German submarine boarded by American submariners to capture her Enigma cipher machine, does not represent any real events.

 

[Twin_Moose]

U-571 (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The film, telling the story of a World War II German submarine boarded by American submariners to capture her Enigma cipher machine, does not represent any real events.

Oh are you sure?

The Capture of U-570 and its Enigma Cipher Machine

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/th…
2011-08-30 · About the size of a breadbox and containing a lampboard, a typewriter keyboard, and a plug board for electric cables, the heart of the Enigma system was a series of rotors (usually three or four) containing the alphabet. …

By 1941, Great Britain had a large and growing code breaking organization located in Bletchley Park. Each branch of the German military had its own system, and the first Enigma codes the British were able to regularly decipher were those of the Luftwaffe. Britain’s first big breakthrough in cracking the more complex Kriegsmarine Enigma code occurred following the capture of U-110 and the successful seizing of its Enigma machine and codebooks in May 1941. Three months later, Bletchley Park got another break.

There are conflicting accounts about the U-boat crew’s subsequent actions, particularly whether or not they destroyed and/or tossed overboard codebooks and cipher machines. All accounts made public in the immediate aftermath of the incident and later claimed that the German sailors were able to destroy and toss overboard all cipher machines and codes.

On the morning of Aug. 27, 1941, U-570, under the command of Kapitänleutnant Hans-Joachim Rahmlow, surfaced off the coast of Iceland and was immediately spotted by a British Hudson bomber on anti-submarine patrol. As the Hudson dove to attack, Rahmlow ordered a crash dive, but before U-570 could escape, it was bracketed with four depth charges. The U-boat suffered only minor damage, but the inexperienced crew, many suffering acutely from seasickness, panicked. Rahmlow himself was new to U-boats and U-570 was his first operational command. U-570 surfaced and crewmembers unfurled a white sheet. Rahmlow, meanwhile, sent out a radio message to U-boat command stating what happened and that he had surrendered.........



............U.S. Navy officers stationed in Iceland as part of the American military defense force were allowed to search the submarine after it had been docked in Reykavik. Their confidential report, dated Sept. 28, 1941, noted: “At least one German receiving or transmitting instrument had been removed . . . by the British.” And later more tellingly, “A large cabinet had been removed from the forward corner of the control room by admiralty personnel soon after the capture and sent to England. . . . In view of the vagueness of the information on the site as to the exact nature of this instrument it is considered important that accurate information be obtained from the Naval Attaché London.” [Emphasis in the original.]

 

[Serryah]

Oh are you sure?

U-571, World War II German Submarine

The Movie U-571 is not based on the actual circumstances of the naval career of the German Submarine named U-571. Rather, it is a fictional narrative, loosely based on events involving several different German submarines during World War II, including U-110, U-570, U-559, and U-505. Background...

www.history.navy.mil

The Movie U-571 is not based on the actual circumstances of the naval career of the German Submarine named U-571. Rather, it is a fictional narrative, loosely based on events involving several different German submarines during World War II, including U-110, U-570, U-559, and U-505.

 

[The_Foxer]

The Movie U-571 is not based on the actual circumstances of the naval career of the German Submarine named U-571. Rather, it is a fictional narrative, loosely based on events involving several different German submarines during World War II, including U-110, U-570, U-559, and U-505.

They're all 'fictional narratives' based loosely on actual circumstances. That's why we don't use them for education. Well - except for in your case where apperently not watching them makes you an expert magically. Quite the trick, you should not watch a bunch of other 'fictional documentaries' and become an expert in everything.