Last movie watched...

[Funt Solo]

it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

Unless you saw, like, these guys:


Members of the famed 369th Infantry, a.k.a. the Harlem Hellfighters, wave from deck of a ship as they arrive home from duty in World War I.

Your blether, Milstar, seems based on your false assumptions, rather than on historical accuracy. It's not revisionism to portray reality - it's revisionism to remove non-white troops from history and then do a bunch of hand-waving bollocks about later waves of migration without spending any time learning actual facts. It doesn't make sense to say "just watch Saving Private Ryan" because, and this is key, that was a movie.

[milstar]

You're making the acute inability to distinct between an Arab Sikh and a British Born Sikh of Arab Descent, which in the case of 1917 was very much the later instance and was undeniably not entirely uncommon in European battlegrounds in real life.

And thats only an example.

Do we actually a place of origin of such character?

it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

Unless you saw, like, these guys:


Members of the famed 369th Infantry, a.k.a. the Harlem Hellfighters, wave from deck of a ship as they arrive home from duty in World War I.

Your blether, Milstar, seems based on your false assumptions, rather than on historical accuracy. It's not revisionism to portray reality - it's revisionism to remove non-white troops from history and then do a bunch of hand-waving bollocks about later waves of migration without spending any time learning actual facts. It doesn't make sense to say "just watch Saving Private Ryan" because, and this is key, that was a movie.

I don't blether. I stand by--

When I said less ethnically diverse, I meant in both world wars and on European soil. I mean, it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

It is reviosionism to give those people significant part in the war effort. Then learn some facts.

[Jim_Campbell]

When I said less ethnically diverse, I meant in both world wars and on European soil.

I've literally just linked you to sources that prove this isn't true, and yet you persist.

[milstar]

You're making the acute inability to distinct between an Arab Sikh and a British Born Sikh of Arab Descent, which in the case of 1917 was very much the later instance and was undeniably not entirely uncommon in European battlegrounds in real life.

And thats only an example.

Do we actually a place of origin of such character?

it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

Unless you saw, like, these guys:


Members of the famed 369th Infantry, a.k.a. the Harlem Hellfighters, wave from deck of a ship as they arrive home from duty in World War I.

Your blether, Milstar, seems based on your false assumptions, rather than on historical accuracy. It's not revisionism to portray reality - it's revisionism to remove non-white troops from history and then do a bunch of hand-waving bollocks about later waves of migration without spending any time learning actual facts. It doesn't make sense to say "just watch Saving Private Ryan" because, and this is key, that was a movie.

I don't blether. I stand by--

When I said less ethnically diverse, I meant in both world wars and on European soil. I mean, it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

It is reviosionism to give those people significant part in the war effort. Then learn some facts.

And even if I get an image of a black soldier on Omaha beach, that guy was just seldom among other combatants.
Aside U-571, movies can be sometimes historically accurate, which always entertains me on when people bleat how JFK is i accurate when, with minor liberties, is actually pretty fair portrayal of JFK assassunation and conspiracies (proven or not) behind it.

[Tjm86]

I mean, it wasn't very likely that you'd be along British forces somewhere in the trenches of Europe and easily spot a non-white soldier among your ranks.

I'm going to stick my head in the Lion's mouth hear and defend this up to a point.  For a significant proportion of the British Army in France, having 'colonial' troops in the regiment was not that common. 

Yes they fought in France and yes they were there in sufficient numbers that their treatment in history texts borders on criminal.  The majority of them though fought as separate regiments.  There were exceptions but it was not that common for them to be integrated.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/commonwealth-and-first-world-war

[Hawkmumbler]

You're making the acute inability to distinct between an Arab Sikh and a British Born Sikh of Arab Descent, which in the case of 1917 was very much the later instance and was undeniably not entirely uncommon in European battlegrounds in real life.

And thats only an example.

Do we actually a place of origin of such character?

'A 10 second Google search later'

British Sikhs served in Flanders, Neuve Chapelle, and Paris as well as the Western Front.

https://scroll.in/article/671238/rare-images-of-sikh-soldiers-who-fought-in-world-war-i

[Funt Solo]

If you watch Omaha landing ... you couldn't spot a non-white person.

Unless you happened to be looking over ... here:


320th Barrage Balloon on Omaha Beach


I get it, though. You start with "there weren't any non-whites", then when you're shown photographic evidence that there were you downplay their value. The goal posts, they do shift. I suppose those Tuskagee airmen were just, oh, I don't know, learning how to tie shoelaces or something, and not actually flying fighter aircraft in combat ops over occupied Italy. Not proper, important, white combat ops, though. Nothing really significant, as you say. Their bullets were probably less significant, somehow - like, you know, non-white bullets don't fly as fast, or something.

[milstar]

Are you sure that image is legit?

At least Miracle at St.Anna partially is accurate in that it indeed deals with non-white participants in ww2, who took part solely in a particular part of the planet. But don't tell me how any non-whites were in a particulate part of the conflict, where there is no evidence left (which includes Normandy beach).

And I'll defend my point to the death that the UK army was much diverse a hundred years ago than today.

[Hawkmumbler]

I can't think of any reason why the participation of none-white British/European ally wouldn't be properly documented in the notoriously right wing early 20th century Britain.

Nope, seems far more logical to me these photos are staged. Ask Stanley Kubrick.

[milstar]

I'd rather believe that than the notion that 20th century Britain told those people:"hey, come fight with us willfully and we'll fuck you off from history books when the conflict is over".

[Funt Solo]

Are you sure that image is legit?

This thread is clearly derailing, so perhaps we should shift to a different one. The only real question I would have at this stage, though, is why you're so determined that there shouldn't be any non-white participants here? What is it about that idea that disturbs you? I've never really understood racism well (although I perfectly understand slavery - that's just people using other people for their own profit - very human) - but the sort of blind racism that just downplays people due to their skin tone, I've never really got a handle on the purpose of. You could help me understand.

[milstar]

This thread is clearly derailing, so perhaps we should shift to a different one. The only real question I would have at this stage, though, is why you're so determined that there shouldn't be any non-white participants here? What is it about that idea that disturbs you? I've never really understood racism well (although I perfectly understand slavery - that's just people using other people for their own profit - very human) - but the sort of blind racism that just downplays people due to their skin tone, I've never really got a handle on the purpose of. You could help me understand.

Maybe we should switch onto something else. Your question why am I so determined symbolically lies i nthe notion that some people tried to justify the casting in remake of The Magnificent Seven, saying that Wild West was much diverse than we know, when arguably it wasn't. You had people of color here and there, but not as the movie painted it to be. And maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't U-571 be more problematic in terms of historical accuracy than Dunkirk?

And this-- (I'll requote)

I've never really understood racism well (although I perfectly understand slavery - that's just people using other people for their own profit - very human) - but the sort of blind racism that just downplays people due to their skin tone, I've never really got a handle on the purpose of. You could help me understand.

I get it, though. You start with "there weren't any non-whites", then when you're shown photographic evidence that there were you downplay their value. The goal posts, they do shift. I suppose those Tuskagee airmen were just, oh, I don't know, learning how to tie shoelaces or something, and not actually flying fighter aircraft in combat ops over occupied Italy. Not proper, important, white combat ops, though. Nothing really significant, as you say. Their bullets were probably less significant, somehow - like, you know, non-white bullets don't fly as fast, or something.

Just because I happen to give more credit on the people who substantially battled (and ultimately won) both conflicts in the trenches of European soil, doesn't make me racist. At least if you made such implication. And it'd take someone smarter than Einstein to connect the two. Have I ever said that those people were worthless cowardly scum who didn't even know how to hold their rifles? Have I? Ofcourse, you can always paint me blind racist, blind sexist, blind anti-lgbt, blind anti-immigration, while we are here, when I am not the man, who, bluntly speaking, dabbles in societal issues. At least it saves my nerves and guts.

[Funt Solo]

So, you're determined that there were no black soldiers on Omaha beach, despite seeing a photo of them, because of The Magnificent Seven? Okay. Figure I can safely assume trolling or idiocy here. I shall retreat. You have the floor.

[Jim_Campbell]

Just because I happen to give more credit on the people who substantially battled (and ultimately won) both conflicts in the trenches of European soil, doesn't make me racist.

Consistently ignoring evidence that completely disproves your point kind of does.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

aaaaaaaaanyyywaaayyyyy....

THE TOMORROW WAR

2.25 hours of paradox ignoring tripe. No matter how low your expectations, and mine were pretty darn low, this is worse than you can imagine.

It's a travesty that plot holes are waved through "because sci-fi".

Questions from my youngest include:

"If they are fighting aliens, then why are they training on human shaped targets?"

"If the aliens are bullet-proof, then why are the soldiers given guns? And why are they not told not to shoot at the armoured parts?"

The only paradox that is honoured here is this: someone clearly thought this film was worth making, yet in making it you have something of no worth.