Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Then eventually when artists and film maker cave to our unending outrage we'll be left not with art or particular artistic vision, but rather we'll be left drooling automatons staring at the pandering propaganda that strokes our own justice warrior egos. It'll be great.
This is a great piece about the Indian women involved in the movement, for those who are interested: http://fwsablog.org.uk/2014/01/09/asian-…
Often, comments here better than the articles.
There have been plenty of great movies about history where gays were left completely out, yet the reviewer still reviewed the movie. Where does it all end? Regulating art?
I'm not negating the great achievements that minority groups have made with the film and television industry a whole.
But this smug pseudo "review" has far less to do with racism than creating controversy for controversy sake - same thing Donald Trump likes to do.
I never, ever, advertised in The Stranger. Ever.
In addition, who doesn't love Meryl Streep? Her career shouldn't be blemished by such insulting pseudo-reviews.
If black women were well represented by all other WOC were not I don't think she would be complaining. I haven't noticed black activists lifting a finger for under represented minorities in sports or other areas where blacks are well represented.
You don't notice black activists lifting a finger because you don't notice black activists at all.
And the issue of Indian membership in the suffragette movement IS kinda important because England was NOT devoid of people of color in the early 20th Century.
Now we gotta deal with Jezebel-brainwashed millennial cat ladies and their idiot (male?) counterparts. Sad.
Eyeballs deep in muddy waters, fuckin' hypocrite
YOU MUST HAVE BEEN HIGH....
And she isn't calling for people of color regardless of their origins to be shoe horned into events. She is calling for the accurate representation of the people of color, in this case women from Colonial India, who were there and participated in those events.
There was some Capitol Hill group that made up posters that showed crappy behavior on the hill. I didn't notice the posters including any black people as examples. Why were there no complaints?
The reality is that some people complain when anything focuses positive attention on whites. These same people complain when anything focuses negative attention on blacks. The only thing acceptable is positive attention on blacks and negative towards whites. The author is one of those people.
They were North Africans and Ottomans.
But by all means use this information to add some Islamophobia to spice up your racism.
To it's credit, the film is focused upon the particularly radical character of the movement's working-class roots ( and not as a gift bestowed from above), but beyond that I agree with Ms. Oluo.
And since no one but you brought her up your Straw Jane Austin argument is just that I'm afraid.
The UK 1911 Census does show, however, just how monochromatic the UK was in that period: in England & Whales (a population of 36 million) some 66,000 were born in India or Ceylon, and some 30,000 from Africa and the West Indies. It should be noted that The General Report states that: "Except in the case of natives of India and Ceylon of Asiatic origin who have, as far as possible been tabulated separately from those of European parentage, no attempt to distinguish races has been made. The numbers of persons born in the several Asiatic and African countries include, therefore, all persons of European origin as well as those of the native races."
Point being..... is at that time, the non-White population in England and Whales, outside of London and a few larger municipalities, resembled Queen Anne Hill, Laurelhurst, and Windemere. Maybe your grandmother lived in such a neighborhood and didn't venture outside?
Also worth noting is the relative indifference the British Census pays to race when compared to the obsessive space that race and blood-quantum occupies in American censuses. White Supremacy is a pan-European phenomena, surely, but it was (and still is) particularly virulent in the U.S.
Look, we all know that you (like Teckel) just hang around here to say racist shit, because you are a racist sleaze who doesn't understand statistics. You don't have to remind us; trust me, we'll remember.
Where there is a parting in of the ways is that the people interviewed felt that telling this story through the lens of class was a valid choice, which it is, and in aid of that very important perspective were willing to sacrifice the fuller story which would also include the very real, and underrepresented contributions made by South Asian women to the movement.
From the point of view of people of color the question, the grinding, disheartening, seemingly never considered by white people question is:
Why is it always their part of the story that ends up on the cutting room floor?
Why is it always the white face that ends up being the face of history?
Yes best to be silent.
And don't ask questions.
Never ever question.
Question = attack.
Your point is fine -- it IS ok to attack historical basis of movie -- but the reviewer doesn't have enough expertise to do a good job.
Not interested in being seen as comic relief of next door neighbor. And I don't see Hollywood representing my life any time soon. So where does that leave a consumer of popular culture?
It's a worthwhile discussion. I'm just not sure of answers, other than seizing production & creating new narratives.
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding her expertise.
Of course I do have a very good idea.
I read her non-review and she obviously is not an expert in 1912 Britain.
Historically. The population. Immigration. etc etc.
So her opinion about whether the film was accurate or not means that she has no basis on which to offer an opinion (except that anyone is allowed to offer any opinion since it's the law.)
And I really don't appreciate your micro-aggression of "LOL".
That's an attempt to marginalize me and I expect SLOG to be a safe space which you are violating.
So stop your harassment.
There you go again with your micro-aggression and put downs.
I go to SLOG for a warm comforting safe environment and you act the put-down queen.
or if you prefer, as the kids say:
You do understand.
But then, as more American women joined the suffrage movement, it began to include more and more women from the American south, and these younger southern woman took leadership and made the suffrage movement hostile to black women by a decade or two after the 19th Amendment technically gave black men the vote (in practice, many hostile roadblocks were put in the way of blacks voting in so much of the country that you can't say there was even a pragmatic black vote in the US until the 1960s, nearly a century after the US Constitution was amended to allow it, it's truly shameful).
This turn in the suffrage movement led to the rise of black women suffrage organizations -- separate and sadly not equal in resources or reach to their white sisters' efforts, but no less passionate. They were also fighting, after suffrage was granted, poll taxes, voting tests, physical violence, and other impediments to actually being allowed to vote that were not put in the way of their white sisters after the franchise was offered to women at last..
We are not talking about artificially trying to make this move look more diverse. We are talking about erasing real people from events of which they were a part.
Fascinating, in a depressing way.
The issue is basically whether there were a lot of POC in Britain in that era?
Do we agree?
And then -- as an additional factual question -- to what extent were WOC involved in the Suffrage movement in 1912?
I mean, at the extreme, FOR EXAMPLE, if there were EXTREMELY FEW WOC in the movement, why should they be in the movie?
Me? I don't have the answer.
The few articles (which are hardly last word) I read suggest that while there were some WOC in that era and active, it was by no means a great number.
I may well be wrong.
You may be correct.
But do you really have the facts?
Do you know British history/society of that time?
The issue raised by the author was that women of color, who were an active part of the movement, were erased from this story. The film makers wanted to tell the Suffragette story using the lens of class. Which is fine, it's a valid point of view. But in the name of expediency they completely excised the contribution of women of color.
As you have undoubtedly read there were at the very least two South Asian women who were very prominent players at that time.
The movie is about a working class woman, and the big historical players like Pankhurst are peripheral.
Why not have a cameo appearance by Sophia Duleep Singh as well?
You have never made a single comment, in all your time on Slog, that hasn't been an ugly one.
I should respond to your question
"Why not have a cameo appearance by Sophia Duleep Singh as well?"
Without having some sense of the real historical background the question could also be asked "Why have a cameo appearance by Sophia Duleep Singh?"
Was she friends with Pankhurst? Spent a lot of time? Unless _we_ know about the historical context in detail, it seems gratuitous and patronizing to add Singh. The filmmaker didn't add any other ethnic groups. Right? No Irish or Italians or Jews in the movie? Are you sure that they were NOT present in society? (In fact they were.)
My point is not to argue who should be in or out of the movie but simply that neither you nor the non-reviewer know enough to offer an opinion of any importance.
What appears to be important to you, more than anything else, is to invalidate her, and thus her point, rather than arguing her point itself.
You should think about what that means.
Not demographics. Try and keep up.
I have no idea who you are or who she is. Nor do I care to know.
I am trying to help invalidate and to marginalize stupidity.
Your comment does not refute mine.
You know nothing about the author's credentials but are wedded to the idea that some how you know better.
Again I suggest you think about that and what that means.
Why is that?
The film makers had an ipportunity and they chose not to take it.
You are castigating the wrong person.
Erasing women of color does not help women.
Me hate phone.
I apologize for my fat fingers.
Right on. People of Colour have always been in Britain, and they've always been a part of the feminist movement even as they have been so purposely excluded by white women. You shouldn't have to put up with historical revision. Thank you for writing this article.
We need more films by and about women and people of color. Suffragette is not the last chance ever to cover non-white-male perspectives.