Notice your primary “interpretive lens”. Your sensibilities have been tuned to snoop out even minor traces of the dread “white privilege”. The majority of the filmic artifacts that expose White injustice to Blacks are American productions. But the larger intolerance for the category of “White” and the beginnings of a type of channeled contempt and self-loathing would likely be harder for you to trace. So, this is another facet of the progressive movement that resulted in the recent over-the-top “wokeness”.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 9:41 pm And all of this aside, you're advertising some sort of white male privilege. If all the black people and women who complained in the past that they didn't see representations of themselves on screen in anything but supporting roles that reinforce stereotypes were unwarranted, then your complaints here must also be unwarranted. If your complaints are not unwarranted... well you see where this leads us, right?
It is interesting to note a type of counterpoint and counter-narrative developing. It is revisionist of course, but not in an exclusively negative sense. Take Matt Walsh’s recent exposition on the *Real History* of American slavery.
It is revisionist history, not untruthful, yet it does have a social and narrative function with that developing movement said to oppose wokeness. What it says is: Stories have been told with the function of undermining — what exactly? The nation? Its civic myths? Its ‘true history’? These Stories which are forcefully critical, undermine — what? White identity? Whiteness as a category? Pride in culture?
The Stories are critical narratives that are not untruthful, but they are exaggerations, and they have ‘functions’ that are always more complex than surface analysis indicates.
