She wasn’t responding to his comment in any meaningful way. There is no counter-argument apart from “white male privilege”, none of which bar his experience from informing him.
Is he going to have gotten racial abuse? Highly unlikely. Is he more likely to be able to gauge racial abuse perpetrated by others? Absolutely. He is in fact more likely to have witnessed white people being racist because they’re more likely to feel comfortable making those sorts of comments.
Fox’s questioner was a thick regurgitator with no real conviction, no real substantiation to her claims ( perhaps she forgot about Meghan’s mother in law being murdered in a tunnel ) and has come out of that little exchange far worse than Fox managed.
I got the point he was trying to make. That one Sikh bloke, on his own, in 1917, looks a little bit like checkboxery.
And yes I am well aware that we had our whole Empire fighting for us during those times, including Sikhs, but the film doesn’t really put that in context, whereas something like Glory absolutely fucking does.
You might walk away from 1917 thinking that the British Army was a rainbow coalition of all men fighting side by side irrespective of race. You’d never get that impression from Glory.
The cultural norm on Twitter seems to be perpetual condemnation.
I’ve seen Fox on a few interviews this week. It is clear that he has been pissed off about woke culture for a few years. I have gotten that way myself; as someone that wants a left-wing government little saddens me more than to see people on my own side acting hysterical with no sense of perspective, understanding, or the ability to debate an issue.
I trust the film accurately portrays the full range of gender identities and sexuality. I’d hate to think that our armed forces in 1917 weren’t in touch with their feminine sides.
Thanks for communicating your uncertainty. It means a lot.
To clarify, no-one takes hysterical cunts screaming about their newly adopted identity politics cause very seriously, and there are a lot of them about.
Perhaps it is not, as Fox suggests, the inclusion of a brown man per se in the film which he finds distracting, but his own uncomfortable, unsettling thoughts about his annoyance at this. The question for himself then becomes: why does it bother him so much?
She is an academic/lecturer on race and ethnicity. So maybe has some idea.
White male privilege is a thing. It’s not that you are rich but the systems are much more stacked in your favour if you are white and male. There are exceptions to this. Then next there is white female privilege. Still not as great as the males though. You know like having only had the vote for a century or being able to have a bank account of our own etc…
I’ve been out of the country and didn’t log into here for the past two weeks. Have to say this thread doesn’t make me want to much now either. So you were sort of right in your first comment.
Spent some of the time reading the book Guilty Feminist which may give some insight into issues about male privilege. Or Natives by Akala which I also finished.
I am not for a second disputing that people come from different backgrounds. I am even prepared to acknowledge that if you’re white and male in this country, you have an easier time than the law-abiding BAME population.
What I do not accept is someone’s background being used to deny them an opinion, which is precisely what happened in the QT exchange.
His opinion wasnt denied. It was broadcast on national tv. He is welcome to his opinion and to express it. Even when it’s codswallop. It’s not a free speech issue.
I haven’t read his words before and i only know what’s quoted in the article, but this bit leaves him nowhere to turn.
He went on: “It’s like, ‘there were Sikhs fighting in this war’… okay, you’re now diverting me away from what the story is. There is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way.”
