BruceVC

Pidesco its important we dont become selective of historical injustice and things like genocide. All European countries and most civilisations did it. Are the English worse than the Ottomans and what about the terrible carnage that the Vikings inflicted on my ancestors the Saxons? The Vikings were responsible for the most unspeakable deeds that included slavery, colonialism, rape, mass murder and killing of Christian monks and priests Its not something we like to talk about and I understand that but we must always be honest when we look through lens of historical injustice. @Gorth and I have spoken about what his ancestors did to my ancestors but I am sure it upsets him so I dont like to always bring it up and we havent agreed on redress but I think we close to it?

Is this a movie about the actual history of Egypt or is it a fantasy movie? If its a historical movie I am not sure what race the gods of Egypt were but you could be right and this could be a good reason for outrage?

I was a little unhappy by Braveheart, they always portray the English as the worst types of people in that era like in Rob Roy

Yes I would agree its more about cultural appropriation which is why that lawyer suing said its " trying to create an Afrocentric view " and ignoring the Egyptian identity

No its not for everyone and its not for Egyptians who are offended because they dont believe it represents Egyptian history . People dont object to things just because of culture wars, sometimes there is real outrage because things are ostensibly historically inaccurate

Okay it seems like you misunderstanding something about race and the issue In Africa the word black refers specifically to Bantu tribes and other similar tribes. Arabs are not black and Khoisan are not black, they have their own culture, history and ethnicity Mixed race is not seen by most as black and then you get a specific race in SA called Colored people who are there own race and descendants of white people and the SAN So when we talk about black in the Netflix issues we are talking about Cleopatra's race. She wasnt black, she was mixed race or Caucasian. And this is not about the US definition An example of a famous black historical figure is Steve Biko who is considered the father of Black Consciousness. No one refers to him as mixed race or Colored, he is black

True but we know she wasnt black which is what the main criticism is about If the actress was played by an Arab\Egyptian then I doubt you would have the same outcry?

I wanted to create a dedicated thread to this topic because its not a political or culture wars debate. There are several global examples of this and I want to get people's views, this is not about fantasy or superhero movies. This is about documentaries about history. It got me thinking with the Netflix Cleopatra outcry but it applies to all historical documentaries But I will use the Cleopatra documentary as an example and provide context for those not familiar with this current furore The latest Netflix documentary has Cleopatra as a black women and the reasonable criticism is she was not black. Here is a good link that attempts to explain her race, https://www.knowledgesnacks.com/articles/cleopatras-ethnicity/ To quote from the link " So only 25% of Cleopatra’s racial makeup is certain: through her grandfather, Cleopatra was 25% European and Middle Eastern. The other 75% is inconclusive. It could have been European, Middle Eastern, North African, sub-Saharan African, or a mix of any of those. To simplify: Cleopatra could have been 100% Caucasian, or she could have been mixed (Caucasian+sub-Saharan African) " So there is no real debate that Cleopatra was black which makes the Netflix documentary inaccurate. Also Netflix is getting sued from groups in Egypt who are also outraged. There view to quote is " "The complaint submitted against the streaming platform alleged that "most of what Netflix platform displays contradicts Islamic and societal values and principles, especially Egyptian ones.", Greek city times reported. The case said that the documentary promotes Afrocentrism that is widely spread on social media, which have slogans and writings aimed at distorting and obliterating the Egyptian identity" https://www.africanews.com/2023/04/20/egyptian-lawyer-sues-netflix-for-depicting-cleopatra-as-black-woman/#:~:text=An Egyptian lawyer has taken legal action against,the trailer for the upcoming movie%2C "Queen Cleopatra." So thats why the outrage is more than just US culture wars theater and hyperbole But whats you view on the correct race being portrayed in historical movies? I think the correct race should be used if you want to create an accurate historical account and avoid the type of criticism the Cleopatra movie has created

Welcome back, Im glad you okay. I was worried because you were quiet for so long

You make some good points here, its hard to believe anyone would believe the likes of the USSR provided a more free society than the West but some people did believe it But honestly I would encourage people to immigrate to Russia under Putin but only those living in a Western Democracy who think that they dont have freedom or their basic rights are being undermined by events like the Corona lockdowns perpetuated by the "deep state\globohomo" insidious control of governments Live a while in the ME or places like Russia and you will see the difference when real freedom is denied

I know this comes from Russian propagandists but I found the idea hilarious Americans unhappy with the current state of freedom in the US should immigrate to Russia because Russia represents " white, Christian values "

Please do, it may be the first time I think the girls are being ....naughty, of course we dont really mind if they naughty

https://news.yahoo.com/china-backs-un-resolution-mentioning-203500758.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall Interesting UN resolution the last few days with China voting to support the resolution despite it mentioning Russian aggression. China has always abstained from votes that mention Russian aggression. To quote " In particular, the document refers to the “unprecedented challenges” facing Europe after Russian aggression against Ukraine, and before that against Georgia, and calls for “compensation” of the damage sustained by the victims of Moscow’s aggression "

You make some good points, I agree with several of them For example you do have a reality with real transphobes\bigots supporting legislation and concerns with people who are more uninformed. There are people in the US who think the left\democrats are trying to force or encourage transitioning on normal kids who dont want to transition So fearmongering and misinformation is also shaping public opinion

You have made a long post to ask me a question, are you asking me if I would support Anita Bryants right to freedom of speech and homophobia in a modern world? If you are my response will be the same, I dont personally support anyone that peddles blatant bigotry. But I dont know exactly what she would say because I never heard of her until now. So under freedom of speech yes she a legal right to say it but she doesnt have a right to hate speech And these are different, it depends on the speech and what she says? And Im not talking about moral equivalence, Im talking about a world where people are going to have different views to you on many subjects and people must accept that other people have a right to hear what that person has to so say irrespective of what you personally feel about the likes of Charlie Kirk, he has a right to speak at the University . But if someone says "kill LGBT " there is no moral equivalence to that from the left as far as I know and we must condemn that and call it out

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...enary-force-boss-threatens-bakhmut-withdrawal This is probably been posted already but Prigozhin is threatening to withdrawal from Bakhmut because he is not getting the necessary aid from the Russian military Also mentions the high number of Russian casualties in the Russian meat-grinder known as the battle for Bakhmut

Im about 45 hours into Mafia 3 and Im having a great time, its basically a watered-down version of GTA. But to summarize the aspects I like about it The narrative is set in New Orleans but its called New Bordeaux. I have always wanted to go to New Orleans and Im enjoying the realistic representation of that city and in the game you visit places like the swamps and the French district. And the culture and restaurants are very similar to what you find in Louisiana in 1968 The protagonist is a Vietnam vet and he is also black. The game does an excellent job at capturing themes that existed in that era like racism in the South, Vietnam and other similar things I am really enjoying the 1960's music when you drive around, I know most of the songs because they timeless classics like " I see a red door " and Johnny Cash songs The upgrades to your car and weapons are worthwhile The consequence to death makes sense, if you die you lose 50% or so of your wealth you carry but you can bank your wealth. However on missions you cant bank your wealth so you end up not wanting to die because there is reasonable penalty Im enjoying the overall narrative and people who join you in your quest for vengeance. They all interesting and believable with good side stories

But Chair you can see how Gromnir has clarified how the Charlie Kirk incident is indeed an example of the radical left using violence to try to stop someone they ideologically and or politically dont agree with And yes freedom of speech means people should be able to participate at a seminar without being subjected to intimidation and violence All Im saying is let's be consistent with our outrage and call it out instead of trying to defend or handwave it?

And what you consistently dont seem to understand or accept is of course Russia benefits strategically and in the long term if sanctions or the public support for sanctions ends The main way for the sanctions to end would be if energy prices in the EU skyrocketed and ending Russian sanctions would stop this energy price crisis And Im surprised we even debating this because this was a clear and attempted Russian strategy and most of us on this thread use to read @Darkpriest posts about " tick-tock" and how the Western economies were going to collapse because of the impact primarily on energy security. And the Russian propaganda machinery peddled this hyperbole and fake news for about 3-6 months hoping that would be outcome and there literally dozens of articles about this and I know because many of them posted on Codex So no, Russian blowing up the pipe is not the same as them dosing themselves on fire because they have other energy revenue sources. Right now Russia is selling energy to numerous countries, albeit at reduced prices, and they do have a consistent revenue stream. Whoever blew up the pipe has not crippled the EU or Russia, its just had an impact

But I dont think Keyrock believes that about Russia. I think he believes that Russias global intentions and actions have been misrepresented and its mostly the West\US who are responsible for the invasion and Russia had no choice because they were defending themselves. I may be wrong but thats the impression Im getting I am not going to repeat to same point I have made twice but there is absolutely a valid Russian reason to blow up the pipe. And its got to do with the impact on energy prices to the EU and how that could have influenced Western sanctions. And this is not my opinion, anyone who has been following the war from the beginning will remember the anxiety and concerns with the initial energy prices the first 6 months and how there was a call to " end sanctions because Russia is an irreplaceable source of energy ". And its not a tinfoil theory when there is an obvious long term advantage to Russia. For me its not about framing anyone, it was a strategic decision to ensure sanctions end..it was a gamble that didnt pay off because primarily the EU has found other energy sources and markets outside of Russia But end of the day we wont know the truth until its revealed. So it could be the US, pro-Ukrainian groups, some EU militant groups or Russia. They all have valid reasons to do it

Yes, this is also true and it answers @Gfted1 question The Russians already did shutdown the pipe or reduce gas for " maintenance " reasons, here is one link about this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-11/gas-pipeline-russia-shut-down-germany-maintenance-europe-concern/101226656 But everytime they did this there was a massive and understandable outcry from the EU and they were accused of using energy blackmail. And its important to remember that Russia continues to pretend it respects the international rules of law and order. If you listen to any Russian spokesman they never acknowledge they have done anything illegal and they even go as far as to say they respect UN and international law But if the pipe gets blown up and no one knows who did it then they dont have to worry about the legal and contractual obligations to the EU around committed energy supply

Yes there are several groups and people who could have been responsible and like I was saying earlier we tend to unintentionally forget the reality and instability of global energy the first 6 months. Remember oil price got to $124 Think about if you were a Russian strategist, you know that the Western sanctions are not going to end on their own. But if you destroy the Nord pipeline yes it does impact that energy source and revenue for Russia but you still have other energy revenue sources like oil sales But it directly impacts Germany and that leads to massive internal anger at the government and a call to "end sanctions " because understandably German citizens are suffering Here is an old link from that time period about how that dependency use to be tied to Russia, there was real and valid concerns https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/07/18/a-german-gas-crisis-will-cause-jitters-across-europe/#:~:text=Nord Stream 1 supplies 58% of Germany’s annual,24%2C to more than €170 per megawatt hour. And then it would take 6-8 months to end EU\German energy sanctions in one form or another because you cant expect any EU country to suffer because of sanctions And thats better for Russia in a long term perspective. Blow up the pipeline now but it leads to a lessening of EU sanctions and thats a reasonable objective and you can mitigate the temporary loss of revenue from this for that time period All Im saying is the point that says " it makes no sense that Russia would blow up the pipeline " is not accurate. There are strategic reasons for the Ruskies to do it

I am always fascinated by other languages and how they written but why is Danish such a complicated language? Why cant it be easy to understand like English, we all understand English ?

There is a reason, the initial Vatnik propaganda for at least the first 6 months of the war was full of " Western sanctions are going to lead to the collapse of Western economies and people in Europe are going to freeze and starve to death because Russia energy sources cant be replaced" and similar rhetoric. Even on this forum members like @Darkpriest spent about 3 months posting ZeroHedge Russian funded links about the " inevitable " collapse of the EU\US economy due to high energy prices amongst other things And the EU did go through a time of rebalancing and recalibrating its economies for the first 6 months of the war but that was mostly due to the imprudent Corona lockdowns and their impact on global supply chains and this is mostly resolved compared to the first 6 months of problems So going back to the pipeline and Russia being responsible, Russia did it because they believed it would put massive additional energy pressure on the likes of Germany which in turn would put massive internal pressure on the German government to end the Western sanctions So Russia could have done it and the US could have also done it to make the EU less dependant on Russia energy and or other pro-Ukrainian groups could have done it for the same reason

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/reframing-us-policy-debate-‘long-war’-ukraine Good read on REFRAMING THE US POLICY DEBATE ON A ‘LONG WAR’ IN UKRAINE @kanisatha You should appreciate this