It is a problem inaccurate or not. I vehemently disagree with you that rapers and pillagers should be able to claim the rape and pillage as their cultural history.
What are you talking about? How is negative history not part of your cultural history? Would you have them erase that history? How is that not whitewashing? Wars? Colonization? Subjugation? These aren’t culturally relevant? Arguably the negative history is more important, especially when it collides with other cultures because that history can be defining for the other culture.
What are you talking about? A bunch of white people made a shit load of money off a movie that exploits history. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting why people have a problem with that.
In this particular case, with the film Pocahontas, the problem was the whitewashing, the inaccuracy, and the insulting implications of those inaccuracies. But by your metric, the History channel producing a documentary about Jamestown, or about Columbus, and giving every accurate gritty detail of those cultural clashes, including the raping and pillaging, you are saying it is fundamentally wrong to make such a thing because they are white and profiting off of their work. Right? You’re ridiculous.
The metric I am trying to point out that you don’t seem to get is who made it. I am saying it is fundamentally wrong for white people to make profit off the stories of them raping and pillaging regardless of how accurate it is. The inaccuracy makes it worse but accuracy wouldn’t make it better.
Cool. I disagree entirely. I think we should even be encouraging it. Awareness, Cautionary tales, accurate history, these are the only ways we, ideally, prevent recurrence. It will always be better and more personal for the creators to be a part of that culture. But I think those of the perpetrating culture also bare a responsibility to learn and amplify knowledge of the mistakes of the past. And if there is no profit motivation, no one, regardless of culture, will make these stories. That’s just the reality we live in. Call it evil if you must, but it is a necessary evil that serves a greater good.
Also, you have a problem specifically with production media profiting from these stories… do you have a problem with a white teacher telling kids about the Underground Railroad? Because they’re paid to do that too. How about a black person making a show about America’s oppressive history and including stories about Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics and Hawaiians? I just want to know where the line is.
PBS exists. People would make things with no profit motive.
Let me ask you this; would you be okay with members of certain terrorist groups making money off movies about 9/11 or other attacks? Are you okay with that song made by the J6 choir being on streaming services?
If you are then fine, we will just have to agree to disagree. But if those ideas are irksome to you then I would ask that you extrapolate that feeling to try to understand why people flocking to see for example Killers of the Flower Moon when nobody would have gone to see it if it had been made by Sterlin Harjo for instance irritates the group of people who are the subject of the movie.
I feel like you are getting lost in the weeds from the original point. Accuracy does not negate insensitivity. Intent, however, can but does not always.
A major problem was that the history presented was inaccurate.
I know. That is what I said was the problem with the movie. You said it was a problem inaccurate or not.
What are you talking about? How is negative history not part of your cultural history? Would you have them erase that history? How is that not whitewashing? Wars? Colonization? Subjugation? These aren’t culturally relevant? Arguably the negative history is more important, especially when it collides with other cultures because that history can be defining for the other culture.
What are you talking about? A bunch of white people made a shit load of money off a movie that exploits history. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting why people have a problem with that.
In this particular case, with the film Pocahontas, the problem was the whitewashing, the inaccuracy, and the insulting implications of those inaccuracies. But by your metric, the History channel producing a documentary about Jamestown, or about Columbus, and giving every accurate gritty detail of those cultural clashes, including the raping and pillaging, you are saying it is fundamentally wrong to make such a thing because they are white and profiting off of their work. Right? You’re ridiculous.
The metric I am trying to point out that you don’t seem to get is who made it. I am saying it is fundamentally wrong for white people to make profit off the stories of them raping and pillaging regardless of how accurate it is. The inaccuracy makes it worse but accuracy wouldn’t make it better.
Cool. I disagree entirely. I think we should even be encouraging it. Awareness, Cautionary tales, accurate history, these are the only ways we, ideally, prevent recurrence. It will always be better and more personal for the creators to be a part of that culture. But I think those of the perpetrating culture also bare a responsibility to learn and amplify knowledge of the mistakes of the past. And if there is no profit motivation, no one, regardless of culture, will make these stories. That’s just the reality we live in. Call it evil if you must, but it is a necessary evil that serves a greater good.
Also, you have a problem specifically with production media profiting from these stories… do you have a problem with a white teacher telling kids about the Underground Railroad? Because they’re paid to do that too. How about a black person making a show about America’s oppressive history and including stories about Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics and Hawaiians? I just want to know where the line is.
PBS exists. People would make things with no profit motive.
Let me ask you this; would you be okay with members of certain terrorist groups making money off movies about 9/11 or other attacks? Are you okay with that song made by the J6 choir being on streaming services?
If you are then fine, we will just have to agree to disagree. But if those ideas are irksome to you then I would ask that you extrapolate that feeling to try to understand why people flocking to see for example Killers of the Flower Moon when nobody would have gone to see it if it had been made by Sterlin Harjo for instance irritates the group of people who are the subject of the movie.
I feel like you are getting lost in the weeds from the original point. Accuracy does not negate insensitivity. Intent, however, can but does not always.