What's with all the Black washing?

Jul 2016
7,744
USA
It was just a good movie. Get over it. Or more appropriately, get over yourself.
I've said numerous times before that I found it decent. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was good, but it was worth the price of a ticket.

I'm simply discussing the marketing tactic that was used. Which obviously worked on you as well, as you seem to think anyone who didn't absolutely love it has some sort of problem. Am I racist because I think the script was lazy and the overall acting, minus Michael B. Johnson, was lackluster?
 
Jul 2016
7,744
USA
It won’t - I think America’s race problems are primarily rooted in our history with slavery.
Not a single ancestor of mine lived in the US before the year 1901. Most of my ancestors barely qualified as being called "White People" until a few years ago, when suddenly anyone of a skin tone was White, where previously the term was largely used for those of Germanic background. Also, on three occasions in my life I've been subject to legit violent physical attacks because I was white.

Tell me more about racism in America, please!
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
4,802
DC
Not a single ancestor of mine lived in the US before the year 1901. Most of my ancestors barely qualified as being called "White People" until a few years ago, when suddenly anyone of a skin tone was White, where previously the term was largely used for those of Germanic background. Also, on three occasions in my life I've been subject to legit violent physical attacks because I was white.

Tell me more about racism in America, please!
We do have a problem in the USA, it is called "Otherism", it stays a problem because some of the groups are allowed to practice their "Otherism" freely and blatantly while the rest are shamed into guilt about even the unproven accusation of "Otherism".
 
It won’t - I think America’s race problems are primarily rooted in our history with slavery.
Well Britain had a lot to do with that but I appreciate its not quite the same as it wasn't taking place on British soil.

I think a lot of it though is mainly that in Britain its considered rude to keep bringing up a persons race when referring to them, we find it uncomfortable and its a mannerism I'm glad we have if I'm to be honest.

When you keep talking about someone just using race its almost like your talking about a set of people in the third person using their colour to address them and I've never liked that about American News / shows.

I think its degrading, people are more than just a colour.
 
Likes: Tulius
Jan 2019
40
USA
Well Britain had a lot to do with that but I appreciate its not quite the same as it wasn't taking place on British soil.

I think a lot of it though is mainly that in Britain its considered rude to keep bringing up a persons race when referring to them, we find it uncomfortable and its a mannerism I'm glad we have if I'm to be honest.

When you keep talking about someone just using race its almost like your talking about a set of people in the third person using their colour to address them and I've never liked that about American News / shows.

I think its degrading, people are more than just a colour.
It's not normal in America either, outside of the media.The ones who feel the need to constantly bring up race are the ones who are trying to manipulate it for their own agenda. In this case, it would be a textbook example of the acceptance speech for Black Panther at the Oscars, or whatever award it won (don't follow that stuff anymore).

They use it to highlight a divide that they only can be seen to perpetuate. I don't see a racial divide in my day to day life in the states. However, when you turn on the television, you'd think its rampant. That would explain your assessment if you're not from the US.

Morgan Freeman said it best, we need to let it go. It's ridiculous at this point. People in general are pretty crappy to one another. Race rarely has anything to do with it. The problem now is when someone does something bad to a person of color, the media immediately jumps on the race issue. I don't think you should have to tiptoe on egg shells about someone's race either. That's silly. You shouldn't address someone by their color, but who does that anyway?
 
Last edited:
Likes: MamlukWarrior
Jul 2016
7,744
USA
We do have a problem in the USA, it is called "Otherism", it stays a problem because some of the groups are allowed to practice their "Otherism" freely and blatantly while the rest are shamed into guilt about even the unproven accusation of "Otherism".
The most insane argument I've ever heard is that its impossible for non-whites to be racist, because they need to have the privilege and power to be the oppressor in order for that to be true.

When crazy people make that claim, I ask them when two "People of Color", say a Mexican and Black person, call each other the worst racial slurs, which one of them is the oppressor? Or is that not racist? That usually gets the crazy person to shift the discussion and call me a racist for not understanding the complexities. lol
 
MamlukWarrior and aggienation, I feel like your original comments were sort of taking the same stance. Not sure how it turned into an argument.
I can explain that.

Its because Aggienation just likes an argument and always ends his statements by "telling you" what you think or what your position is making him the most obnoxious poster to have a debate with on the forum.

Example "You used Black Panther as an example of a successful film with a black cast, therefore your brainwashed sheep who fell for Fox (although it was Disney) marketing".

............ rather than just the fact that it was simply the latest recollected example?

The marketing for Black Panther bothered him, that much is clear.

I do think we have two different angles though, my stance was I don't watch films with either overly forced White saviour roles in foreign countries when its not needed or historical pieces who force diversity for diversity's sake when its not historically accurate.

Aggienation is just triggered by Black Panther in general and what he sees as forced diversity or "getting rid of white people".

Mine is contained to historical and source material only, I'm not sure how far Aggienation's objections go, but I'll leave that to others to guess because unlike him I don't make unfounded accusations.
 
Jan 2019
40
USA
I can explain that.

Its because Aggienation just likes an argument and always ends his statements by "telling you" what you think or what your position is making him the most obnoxious poster to have a debate with on the forum.

Example "You used Black Panther as an example of a successful film with a black cast, therefore your brainwashed sheep who fell for Fox (although it was Disney) marketing".

............ rather than just the fact that it was simply the latest recollected example?

The marketing for Black Panther bothered him, that much is clear.

I do think we have two different angles though, my stance was I don't watch films with either overly forced White saviour roles in foreign countries when its not needed or historical pieces who force diversity for diversity's sake when its not historically accurate.

Aggienation is just triggered by Black Panther in general and what he sees as forced diversity or "getting rid of white people".

Mine is contained to historical and source material only, I'm not sure how far Aggienation's objections go, but I'll leave that to others to guess because unlike him I don't make unfounded accusations.
I understand. I do see his point htough. The Matt Damon movie wasn't marketed as some revolutionary breakthrough in cinematic history. The Black Panther blatantly marketed their movie around it. It was the primary focal point.
 
Jul 2016
7,744
USA
I can explain that.

Its because Aggienation just likes an argument and always ends his statements by "telling you" what you think or what your position is making him the most obnoxious poster to have a debate with on the forum.

Example "You used Black Panther as an example of a successful film with a black cast, therefore your brainwashed sheep who fell for Fox (although it was Disney) marketing".

............ rather than just the fact that it was simply the latest recollected example?

The marketing for Black Panther bothered him, that much is clear.

I do think we have two different angles though, my stance was I don't watch films with either overly forced White saviour roles in foreign countries when its not needed or historical pieces who force diversity for diversity's sake when its not historically accurate.

Aggienation is just triggered by Black Panther in general and what he sees as forced diversity or "getting rid of white people".

Mine is contained to historical and source material only, I'm not sure how far Aggienation's objections go, but I'll leave that to others to guess because unlike him I don't make unfounded accusations.
Aggienation isn't triggered, he's annoyed by those duped by corporate marketing hacks into thinking Black Panther represented something more than just another Marvel movie.

As for thinking you one upped me for knowing it was Disney and not Fox. You sure you want to feel superior over that? Especially since Fox was also making Marvel movies (X-Men was theirs, rest was Disney), and that Fox is about to get bought out by Disney? :p
 

Similar History Discussions