"Kingdom of Heaven"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I realize that now.

He said that on the first page. Why is it sinking in now?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Oh dear, you still don't get it

If there was a French blockbuster about how the Americans are evil and used Vietnam to portray it, you'd have the Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's of the world going on about how the French aren't really our allies and yadda yadda... and all the anti-French stuff does tend to make a difference in how the countries treat each other. I don't think the 'freedom fries' debacle went down so well.

I get it. Some people place more value in a movie than others. I wouldnt really care either way if the French protrayed Americans bad in a Vietnam movie, hell I can get that in American movies. So I get it just fine Imran, some people are so damn sensitive that they just can't take any kind of critisim and your saying Muslims are that way. I would like to think that most muslims that aren't into murder and mayham would simply choose not to watch a film if it protrayed them in a bad way. That or speak out about it and then get on their lives with paying the bills and such. But maybe your right. Maybe Muslims can't do that. Sort of sad

[Sprayber]

Now if the Muslims were handled as the ultra evil villians then they would be ignoring the ultra evil villians on the European sides.


I wonder if any Greeks were pissed that they were painted in a bad light in Troy?

[DinoDoc]

I'd kind of like to think of Muslims as human beings as Sprayber does rather than as rabid animals set to go into a rage at a moments notice as Imran and Dracon do.

[Sprayber]

BTW I'll watch this movie on one condition. Blooms character must die horribly

[DinoDoc]

Doubtful. You'll have to go see Sin City if you want to see one of the Fellowship die brutally.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd kind of like to think of Muslims as human beings as Sprayber does rather than as rabid animals set to go into a rage at a moments notice as Imran and Dracon do.

*Dinodoc marvels at the two strawmen he has erected. As an afterthought, he decides to name them Imran & Dracon*

clap. clap.

It's an interesting rhetorical device to twist diplomacy, a healthy respect for cultural diversity and historical honesty, into racism. Not once in our arguments did we present the slightest iota of an argument or suggestion that Muslims were anything less than human, nor did we suggest that they would "spring into rage" like "rabid animals" "at a moment's notice". It was you who projected these suppositions and viewpoints into our words... and thus it is you who should answer for them.
Not once in this conversation was the humanity of Muslims ever (even implicitly) a point of discussion or a tool of argument. From where did it come? You!
Imran and my arguments spring from legitimate questions of historical representation/accuracy and it's implications for cultural and ethnic cohesion both within the world at large and within multicultural societies such as the USA. It has deep historical roots especially within the USA; such as debates about the portrayal of blacks in early Hollywood films, (the critics of which were not stereotyped as seeing blacks as "rabid animals") or the portrayal of Jews in "The Passion" (the critics of which were not stereotyped as seeing Jews as "rabid animals"). Most recently there have been similar problems between China and Japan. Surely criticizing the insensitivity of that textbook does not imply that the critic sees the Chinese as nothing but "rabid animals"?
We have not seen the film of course, but we were simply making an observation as to its significance as a cultural product in these times, and the possibility that (if portrayed incorrectly) a film about the Crusades could create the cultural equivalent of a diplomatic incident. Certainly our arguments are not without precedent (Bush's comments on the War on Terror as a "Crusade" created a cultural and diplomatic incident. Surely criticizing that use of language is not in anyway implying that those it offended were "Rabid Animals").
Your kneejerk reaction to Imran and I says more about you than it does about us. Perhaps you should be more rigorous in your thinking before you persist in translating what you think into a message to others.
Thankyou.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dracon II
*Dinodoc marvels at the two strawmen he has erected. As an afterthought, he decides to name them Imran & Dracon*

clap. clap.

Old DD just loves those strawmen. He can't seem to post in a thread without making at least one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dracon II
*Dinodoc marvels at the two strawmen he has erected. As an afterthought, he decides to name them Imran & Dracon*

I aim to please but it does seem strange to me that you assume that the first reaction a group of people to a film that they didn't like would be an increase in support for terrorists rather than simply not pay to see it and this is the assumption you made. I don't have to missrepresent that. It didn't make any sense then and it doesn't make any now.

We have not seen the film of course

That's why these kneejerk reactions are amusing.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Old DD just loves those strawmen. He can't seem to post in a thread without making at least one.

You golden tongue bastard.

[Dracon II]

It does seem strange to me that you assume that the first reaction a group of people to a film that they didn't like would be an increase in support for terrorists

I thankyou for pointing out a possible area of ambiguity in my argument. Allow me to clarify my position to prevent furthur confusion. I was not implying that being offended by the cultural bias of a text necessarily results in an increase in support for extremism or an increased tendency towards political violence (any more than a text implying that the founding fathers favoured big government would necessarily lead to greater membership in and support for libertarian militia groups or cause Oklahoma style political violence). I was simply saying that such a text could quite seriously offend and, in the case of a biased film on the Crusades, lend some credence to some of the prejudices of terrorist groups. Muslims are of course not constrained by a choice between complete support for Western Governments and complete support for Terrorist Organizations, such a dichotomy never occurred to me when I was formulating my arguments... simply due to the sheer absurdity of it.

Rather than simply not pay to see it

They wouldn't have to see such a film in order to be affected by it. Just because you didn't see a prejudiced film doesn't mean you won't be affected by someone who saw it and believed it. Again, to avoid confusion, I am not stating categorically that westerners are ignorant of history and would be driven to prejudice because of a film. I'm just saying that the film wouldn't do anything to help. Racism against Muslims is a reality... it does not represent a majority of opinion (no more than terrorists do), but it exists and it can be problematic.

That's why these kneejerk reactions are amusing.

It was a knee jerk reaction to be concerned that the film COULD be prejudiced yes. But that is not unreasonable.... Hollywood is capable of distortions and playing favourites. I was proceeding from the possibility that the film could be biased... note my first post.

When I saw the preview for this movie my stomach turned somewhat... I mean, right when we should be doing everything we can to keep Muslims calm and not alienate them, we release a hollywood film about the crusades. Unless they portray the crusades as a pointless slaughter and as a war of opportunism and intolerance masked as spirituality... I'll be very disappointed.

You'll note that I am reflexively describing a kneejerk reaction. It was not intended as a point of debate. I can see where your thoughts could proceed from the point about keeping Muslims "calm"... but my point was not about keeping them out of terrorist organisations but assuring them that they are not targets of prejudice and that (if they are in a country where they are a minority) they are part of a multicultural society that respects all cultures. I was making a commonsense point about geopolitics as well: to win wars in the middle east, and against Islamist extremism, it is necessary to distance oneself from religious or ethnic interpretations, and to avoid the kinds of connotations that suggests that it is somehow a "clash of civilizations"..

I hope I have clarified things (somewhat) for you. Sorry for any confusion.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Timexwatch

I think that the <...> Baltic Crusades <...> would make interesting films.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204344/

Also, the Poles made one about the Battle of Tannenberg (in which they couldn't resist plugging their "Witold (Grand Duke Vytautas) cowardly fled the battle" line. Morons).

[Dinner]

1972 and it was filmed in black and white? You Soviets really were behind the times.

[Saras]

"We" were never soviet

[Dinner]

The period map says other wise.