Historical or political correctness?

[Berzerker]

jasev -

Maybe, but when they posess this land as a result of a former invasion and a racist polytical sistem, they lose many of their rights.

The Moors did not invade to "liberate" native Iberians. If the Visigoths who fought the Moors were defending that system, then I have no sympathy for them, but the Moors were not saints and had no right to the land either.

I know my english is quite poor, but I'm sure I said moors didn't kill civilians. Those who didn't resist and accepted the new rule continued with their lives, changing visigoth taxes for muslim taxes.

But the key there is those who "didn't resist" and "changing over to muslim taxes". The Moors had no right to impose taxes on Iberians.

The only people who lost with the moor invasion was the king and a part of the dirigent class. Under my point of view, the only murderers are those who send their men to battle only to protect their own privileges.

The Spanish who eventually rebelled against the Moors might have thought differently.

Protecting from who?

Invaders.

As I said, those who didn't resist preserved their lives and posessions. They only changed the government.

And those who did resist were killed or run off.

War is part of the history, and maybe one of the engines that move it. And you can't judge the wars in the 8th century with a 22nd century morale.

Slavery is part of history but that doesn't make it moral. And yes, I can judge all history. Morality doesn't change, only the opinions of people. But if we asked ancient peoples who were enslaved if slavery was moral, I don't think they'd say, yes.

Forgive my ignorance, but... what did we do to them? Did we almost exterminate them? I don't think so, it was US job.

The US actually left the Hopi, Pueblo and Navaho alone for the most part because their lands were considered too desolate, and to this day they still occupy ancestral lands. But the Spanish were quite brutal to them. Remember Coronado? Spanish armies and missionaries following in his wake tried to subjugate the Pueblo and to a lesser extent, the Hopi and Navaho, and in 1680, the Indians rebelled in a bloody war successfully repelling the Spanish.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
To be an actress you need certain qualifications. One of those may be a likeness to the character you are supposed to play. In this situation Whoopi Goldberg does not possess one of the qualifications for the position. The decision is made based on qualifications not race. The outcome may fall along racial lines, but the decision isnt racist. Now on the other hand, if someone were to say, "we must give that part to Whoopi because we need more blacks and Whoopi is black" that would be racist because the decision would be based on race even though the outcome might provide for a more diverse cast.

It's not racist to not give Goldberg the part because she's Black, but it would be racist to give her the part because she's Black. In both cases, the decision is soley based upon race. You can't even stand by your own definition.

[Thorgal]

I can judge all history.

Ahhh!!!. God is posting in Apolyton!.

Morality doesn't change, only the opinions of people.

The morality emanates from the humanity. If the humanity changes, the morality changes.

An invasion always is slightly bad. But thinking about the situation in that epoch and especially the situation in Europa, the Moors invasion of Spain was not bloody and the Moors were extremely tolerant with the religion and with the customs of the invaded ones, much more than the Christians in his conquests. You are confuseing your evident personal antipathy towards the "moors", probably caused by the facts of September 11, with the historical truth.

The US actually left the Hopi, Pueblo and Navaho alone for the most part because their lands were considered too desolate, and to this day they still occupy ancestral lands. But the Spanish were quite brutal to them. Remember Coronado? Spanish armies and missionaries following in his wake tried to subjugate the Pueblo and to a lesser extent, the Hopi and Navaho, and in 1680, the Indians rebelled in a bloody war successfully repelling the Spanish.

Go to any city in Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala..., look at people´s faces: the immense majority are indians or Indians descendants, not Spanish descendants. Now we go to any city in US. Where are the millions Indians and his descendants?.
How you dare to speak us about the Spanish extermination or subjugation of the Indians in America ?

[chequita guevara]

We can because you did.

[Shaka Naldur]

thor, jasev

don´t bother anymore,

Ahhh!!!. God is posting in Apolyton!.

[jasev]

Originally posted by thorgalaeg
Ahhh!!!. God is posting in Apolyton!.

Originally Posted by Shaka Naldur
thor, jasev

don´t bother anymore

Right. How could we argue with God? I surrender

Wait a minute... I'm atheist!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Tingkai


So, if they cast a black person to improve the artistic value of the film, then this is a racist decision. But if they cast a black person in order to create a more marketable film for black audiences, then that is okay?

If they casted a person (regardles of race) to improve the artistic value then the decision wasn't based on race was it. It was based on artistic merit in the opinion of the casting director.

If they cast a person (regardless of race) to increase the marketability of the film - that is a profit and loss decision. In this case it seems to be a P&L decision which exploits the racist attitudes of the audience. If the audience chooses their movie selection based on race, that is a racist decision. I don't know about you but when I go to the movies, the determining factor isn't the race of the actors.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's not racist to not give Goldberg the part because she's Black, but it would be racist to give her the part because she's Black. In both cases, the decision is soley based upon race. You can't even stand by your own definition.

Are you really having that difficult of a time understanding the difference between someone getting or not getting a position based on qualifications, which could be based on many different objective and subjective standards and someone getting or not getting a position based solely on race.

It's one thing to say:

"I'm doing Muhammed Ali's story, therefore I need a black person to play the lead (along with certain other characterstics that that person must have)

Then to say:

"I'm doing a movie and regardless of anything else I need a black in the lead"

One decision is based on qualifications (one of which may be race). The other is based soley on race regardless of qualifications.

Any decision based soley on race is a racist decision.