Alcoa and “Shield Headwear”:
2 Likes
Oh joy of joys, here we go.
Just for reference…
1 Like
If you seriously think that ‘American’ means ‘white’, then you have some issues of your own.
Read all my posts again, for homework.
1 Like
Cool, I’ll continue with you here.
You should heed your own advice, this is the second time you’ve claimed to be in agreement with me, while completely - completely- missing my point.
You brought up Mexico, not me. LIke I said before, I’m above all this race nonsense, and it’s reflected in my posts.
You said.
You were proud.
That your ancestors / kin
“Roflstomped into Mexico”
…when I never said anything about Mexico at all.
Get it? You hated on the country, and by context the race of the person I was arguing with. There was no other Mexican person in the discussion, nor anything else being spoken about Mexico. We weren’t talking about old wars or American sovereignty.
You said what you said because dude is Mexican.
Conversely, I hated on the criminal, regardless of race. Race is irrelevant. In fact, I went out of my way several times to point out that the culture he was promoting was anything but Mexican. Mexican culture is to be loved and respected. Gang and crime culture, on the other hand, is not.
Come on, now, son, you just made that up outta thin air. I never said that.
What I did say was:
First of all, that is actually your standpoint on the Ariel issue.
Second, in a discussion about crime and gangs - where, incidentally, the race of one of the people in the discussion is Mexican - yes, I think it’s racially insensitive to waltz in and say how proud you are that dude’s country was “roflstomped.” Hence, the “of course.” You lack racial sensitivity; it’s buried under all that pride.
4 Likes
Off topic but when are you gonna Break out some sick beats?
2 Likes
I do almost daily. Here’s the first one I posted today:
Oh joy of joys, here we go.
Just for reference…
All he posts makes me PROUD I had kin in the American army that roflstomped into Mexico City in the 1840’s. > Blockquote
Fun fact: I was born in mexico and my ancestors were from the United States during the 1800s and during the mexican-american war, my american ancestors fought against the mexicans and hundreds of years later, one of their descendants was born on the nation they fought against. Funny isn’t it?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We shouldn’t be re-writing white characters to be black (or black characters to be white), we should be creating NEW and ENGAGING characters of color. See: Moana.
We shouldn’t be remaking The Little Mermaid at all.
6 Likes
This is my opinion as well, but I’d go so far as to say:
Originals should stand on their own. You either appreciate them for what they are, even if the media is outdated, the artistic techniques are no longer used, or the ideals presented are anitquated, or you move on to other art.
2 Likes
But to be kinda pedantic they aren’t rewriting her in this case, they are remaking a past work and have chosen to cast someone in the part who does not look like the animated version. It makes no change to the story, it’s just a casting. Do we insist the actors in a production of Hamlet look like the first actor to play him when Shakespeare was still involved in the production?
3 Likes
Get out of here with your logic!
3 Likes
On topic, anyone know if the woman they’ve cast can hit the notes she needs to?
No, but we would insist he is white and not black, because he was white in Shakespeare’s tragedy.
1 Like
laughs Oh wait, you think you’re making a good point?
The Royal Shakespeare Company begs to differ.
2 Likes
Right, because The Royal Shakespeare Company speaks for the public.
1 Like
And you do with your preoccupation with skin tones where they don’t matter one bit?
Shakespeare has been done over and over again, with countless twists on the design. Hamlet is the character, and frankly, you can change tons of things and have it work as long as the actor can convincingly act the part. The boring particulars of Hamlet (the person) have nothing to do with what has kept the play around. A child gets upset at the speed at which one of their parents has remarried after the death of the other, they try to find out and then prove that the new spouse is responsible for that death and dial things to 11 to try and avenge that parent and kill off most of the cast in the process. None of that has any particular casting demand on the part, male, female, any race, hell, there’s probably been productions that go into non-human characters, and it does not matter to the story, still Hamlet no matter what the actor looks like.
2 Likes
Yet the tragedy is about a Danish prince in the late middle ages and I doubt there were many black royal families ruling Denmark at the time. Historical accuracy is also important in Shakespeare’s work.
1 Like
I can confirm there were NO African races in that part of the world at that time; nor for a long time after.
In fact, I can attest that my ancestors would have taken one look, screamed ‘TROLL’ and slain him.
Conversely, if there WERE a few knowledgeable travellers there, it would have been
‘Oh okay; a Blue Man from Afric! How much am I bid?’.
Rough times.
Skäl.
1 Like
Oh man, you are hilarious.
Butts in seats and groundlings by the stage was what was important. And on occassion a commission by a powerful family to make them look good or their enemies look bad. He cared about drama and wrote the equivalent of soap operas that have aged extremely well.
" Were Shakespeare’s Histories Accurate?
Another characteristic of Shakespeare’s histories is, for the most part, they’re not historically accurate. In writing the history plays, Shakespeare was not attempting to render an accurate picture of the past. Rather, he was writing for the entertainment of his theater audience and therefore molded historical events to suit their prejudices or preferences."
https://www.thoughtco.com/shakespeare-histories-plays-2985246
2 Likes
She can. There’s a Facebook video of some of her musical performances.