The NYTimes critic even outright mentions that the movie promotes Nationalism, a possible cause of her bad review.
This is sad world we live in, political bias is seeping into everything we hold dear. Bring back the 90's and early 2000's please, I want to escape this dystopia.
This was a great film.
https://i.imgur.com/8ZbFQRr.png
100% odds the (((critic))) is a proud Zionist.
shareAin't nobody gonna take you up on that.
shareI will. The critic's name is Manohla Dargis. That's a Spanish first name and a French last name. No evidence at all that she's Jewish.
The assumption itself, like most of what the nutcase who calls himself Thrillhouse assumes, is simply absurd seeing how Zionists ARE in fact Jewish nationalists. So why would a proud nationalist be dissing nationalism genius? What's funny is how you reflexively agreed with such an idiotically uneducated and contradictory claim.
Nobody is actually against nationalism. Just like nobody is actually against guns. If she had criticized guns, I would have said "I bet she has private security".
shareNYTimes, biased!?!?!?! Say it ain't so!!!! LOL.
shareIt depicts 14th century Scottish nationalism. (which was actually a product of the Norman invasion of the British isles and the struggle of various families to stake claims to its various parts )
Historically, nationalism was rather important in the 14th century British Isles.
Anybody who is taking direct lessons from 14th century politics and applying them to today is already a moron anyway. Don't blame Outlaw King.
Anybody who is taking direct lessons from 14th century politics and applying them to today is already a moron anyway.
That's right! It's much better to follow 2nd century Roman multiculturality! What could go wrong?
If you believe that the Roman Empire fell because it was too "multicutural" then you really are a moron.
NPC comment #238: Diversity is our strength!
shareIf it wasn't diverse and multicutural, it wouldn't have been an empire in the first place.
shareNot everyone wants to be ruled over by a world government in the first place.
shareBut many of them seem to be content with being ruled over by global capitalists with no accountability.
Orange man bad.
shareTeah tat's what you sound like when trying to make a coherent point. What of it?
Are you implying that "global capitalists" must mean "orange man"?
"Moron" is fast becoming inadequate
The NYT reviewer says it's nationalists, you say it's global capitalists. Let's just call it Hitler.
shareThey say what's nationalists/global capitalists?
shareMartoto, what is a "global capitalist" according to you?
I'll tell you what it is according to me: It's someone who expands the labor market to the entire world, so that there is a near infinite supply of labor and therefore no labor competition which naturally drives down labor costs, i.e. wages.
How are the two ways that the labor market is expanded from a national self-contained labor market to a global market?
1) Immigration - as a capitalist I no longer have to care about my nation's labor resource because I can simply import more labor. I don't have to care if my nation's labor is able to have enough money to own a house or reproduce because even if they don't reproduce I will continue to have labor resource or my business thanks to immigration.
2) Outsourcing - purchasing cheap labor from abroad. This not only increases my profit margin because outside labor is cheaper than labor inside my nation, but also it ensures that the country selling labor to me will grow much more slowly because they are significantly underselling their labor power which could otherwise be used to improve their own national businesses or improve their infrastructure.
I don't think that you see that there is very little distinction if any between globalism and economic globalism (i.e global capitalism).
If my empire reaches all of the globe, then ofocurse capitalists in one region of of the empire can source labor from another region of the empire and they don't have to care about laborers because the labor pool is so huge.
This is a contrast to nationalism where the capitalist is forced to care about the labor in his small nation because if the laborers don't have a good life and reproduce then the there will be lower labor supply, therefore more competition for labor and therefore labor price will keep on going up, or wages will keep increasing.
I haven't even talked about other problems with globalism, such as people in one region of the globe might have different preferences from another region of the globe, yet everyone in the empire has to follow the same laws dictated by the world government. Laws will inevitably be unjust due to different regional preferences.
The question should be "why" labour from around the globe is attractive while living around the globe remains far less attractive in many of the places around the globe where this labour comes from.
That has more to do with global capitalism than globalism.
Ofcourse I don't deny that. But, if I source my labor from all over the empire, and the empire spans the globe, how is that different from global capitalism?
shareI don't know what you mean buy "I".
I as a globalist? I as a capitalist?
A globalist can, in theory, plan to ensure that the global interest is looked after. A capitalist is simply looking to exploit whatever the situation is, global or otherwise, for one sole interest
Capitalism is just a thing that people do regardless of the scope of the context.
By "I", I ofcourse mean the capitalist, who else purchases labor? The difference is only where is the source of my labor? Am I getting labor from the small labor pool in my nation, or am I sourcing labor from the large pool of the entire world. If I'm sourcing labor from my nation (small pool) I have to have a vested interest in making sure that the laborers reproduce so that the labor pool may be maintained, In other words I have to make sure that the people farm has a fair stock of people. People don't typically reproduce unless they are wealthy enough to reproduce (i.e they have a stable dwelling and can afford to feed one more mouth).
If I source from the globe, I need not care about these things because the supply of labor far exceeds any demand.
You have a different perception of "globalist" from me. A globalist, from my perspective, is someone who advocates global imperialism, or one who advocates for the abolishment of all states except for one and this one global state will have laws that apply to everyone in the state regardless of regional disparities in preferences for laws. A globalist is anti-self-determination and anti-freedom of people to form small governments which have laws that are specifically tailored to the niche interests of people in a particular region.
You seem to be thinking not only about globalism, but about globalism on top of national ownership of businesses. I could go into why national ownership of businesses is bad, but that's a different topic from globalism.
Almost. The right sequence is:
1) Slavery
2) Immigration
The shortest way to import a cheap workforce is to buy slaves. If that's not allowed, or the slave market dries up, then the following step is to open boundaries so cheap workers compensate the lack of slaves.
Actually, 'diversity' is just 'slavery 2.0'.
Fuck yourself.
shareAt least in old Hollywood, filmmakers would also try to entertain you amid the clashes and post-combat huddles, giving you something more to watch and ponder than this movie’s oceans of mud, truckloads of guts and misty, unconsidered nationalism ...
It’s telling that while the story turns on nationalism, the movie feels untethered from life. It takes the Scottish desire for sovereignty for granted (also: the English are greedy and pathologically sadistic). Yet like many movies of this type, it never engages a simple yet profound question: Why would human beings, especially the lowliest, willingly die to be ruled by a king named Robert instead of one called Edward.
It's Xenophobic Tribalism. King Edward could have overcome it if he had promised the peasants more free iPhones though.
sharethere should be different words to describe nationalism in the context of oppression, such as in scotland/ireland/vietnam/palestine on the one hand, and expansionism as in the case of england/france/germany/us/israel
shareBe careful with the official 'oppressed' ones.
Vietnamese, for example, conquered half of the country which is nowadays Vietnam quite recently. Indeed, most of the area invaded by US (the south part of the country) was invaded by Vietnam only one or two centuries before.
And Palestinians are the descendants of Muslim invaders. A few centuries ago, that area was fully multicultural: different nations and religions. Nowadays, it's mostly Muslims. Figure.
invaders ??
yeah, i think you need to study some history:
demographics of historic palestine (israel plus occupied terrorities):
1800: jew 7K (arab) christian 22K (arab) muslim 226K total 275K
1890: jew 43K (arab) christian 57K (arab) muslim 432K total 532K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
in indochina, the US suppressed the geneva-accords plebiscite in the 50s which would have unified the country (saving 50K of ours, a few million of theirs)
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=vietnam_637
Stop manipulating.
The 'Muslim homogenization' happened during the peak of the Ottoman Empire (Renaissance to early XIX century) and since the second half of XXth century. During the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Britain Mandate there was a 'pause' (let's call it that way). Before that, during the Renaissance, Muslims there used to be about a 50% or even less.
Indeed, you can check that the 'Muslim homogenization' process has restarted during the last decades. Right now, there's only a 1-2% of Christians in Palestine, versus the 10-15% in the XIXth century, according to YOUR own numbers.
You choose to present numbers from the period that just lies in the in-between. What a coincidence you just chose exactly that period, isn't it? oh, you naughty boy! XD
you win. my links are all lies.
shareI didn't say that. I said that your link were manipulative, as your last comment is manipulative (too).
Your links presented a cherry-picked window where relative percentages were stable, due to the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the growing influence of Britain in the area. Before that, there were a Muslim homogenization process. After that, there's Muslim homogenization process (which goes on right now, actually).
I didn't say you were a lier. I said you were manipulative and your data were cherry-picked.
you made some ahistorical asseritions, i tried to set you straight.
for example, there is no 'in between' in palestine - there is a stable distribution prior to the late 19th century & the advent of the zionist movement , which had held for millennia - there were no 'invaders' prior, exactly opposite of the nonsense you are attempting to put over :
1533: jew 5K (arab) christian 6K (arab) muslim 145K total 157K
1690: jew 2K (arab) christian 11K (arab) muslim 219K total 232K
1800: jew 7K (arab) christian 22K (arab) muslim 226K total 275K
1890: jew 43K (arab) christian 57K (arab) muslim 432K total 532K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
not surprisingly, you deride this straightforward demographic information as cherry-picking, or in effect evade the implications of what i have pointed out.
education is for the educable.
i don't do the back and forth thing, said what i had to say, you are free to disregard it, as you have, unconvincingly as you must.
it is not a defect to be misinformed. it is a defect to be resolutely, defiantly misinformed.
not surprisingly, you deride this straightforward demographic information as cherry-picking
No. I haven't said that. I derided the previous information you presented as cherry-picked. This one, I label it as directly false.
So, why your numbers are false?
Well, actually, the most reliable European source after the Renaissance was a dutch cartographer, Adriaan Reland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_Reland He traveled more than 2000 locations in the whole area of Palestine and published one of his two biggest works 'Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata' (1714). In a nutshell? Palestine was mostly empty and the few existing communities of Christians or Jews. (Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata. Trajecti Batavorum, Guilielmi, 1714., pages 648-649)
So, according to your numbers (yeap, the wiki ones), Muslims were 90% of the population in 1690... but the most reliable European cartographer who studied Palestine in that period and spent two years mapping the whole area and... wait for it.... he didn't see them!!!
Guess.....
You're a nut.
shareUnfortunately the press and our higher educational systems have labeled "Nationalism" as the cause of every bad thing in history, be it wars or static cling!
What's really bothersome, is the Marxist root of that argument. Communism calls for the end of nation states but people have a right to live where they want and have their own laws, language and customs. They shouldn't have to abandon that because a bunch of highbrow, closet Trotskyites (who don't even really work for a living), tell them they're bad people, "facists" or whatever new word the ugly Left uses to describe those who's ideas they cannot defeat.
LIKE THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND WAS MORE MERCYFULL TO THE PEASENT. KINGDOM X AND KINGDOM Y. ALL THE SAME. THIS MOVIE TRIED TO MAKE A PATRIOTIC JOKE
share