Note the 9 year old satirical flick 'The Hot Chick' for instance; it dates such an entity to about 50 BC. Now of course, that description immediately strikes the informed as fictional, but should it be dismissed on that account, and on the idea that one is dealing with "just a movie", and a "funny" one at that?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a movie about wht suburban teenagers off course the Ethiopians are going to look like they crawled out of a 50ts movie that's where the two lover met in a former life..why the hell the chose an African civ?? donno.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Hollywood seems to think so.
Note the 9 year old satirical flick 'The Hot Chick' for instance; it dates such an entity to about 50 BC. Now of course, that description immediately strikes the informed as fictional, but should it be dismissed on that account, and on the idea that one is dealing with "just a movie", and a "funny" one at that?
Point blank question:
Have you or have you not seen the movie entitled 'The Hot Chick'?
posted
Question yourself with this, lioness: Would I bring it up, had I not seen it?
@ Brada-Anansi,
An "African civ" was more than likely chosen, precisely because of the "exotic" appeal of the foundation of the entire plot...you know, it ties in with all that mysticism associated with the world of "witches", and "mystical" curses or "black magic". As if to further emphasize this theme, the ancient artifact that was supposed to bring about the "curse", was located in a store run by some "black female" on the heavy side, with a name like "Madam Mambuza", clothed in a supposedly "African"-like attire, wherein some guy in dread locks (played by Adam Sandler) interrupts the scene with "beating on a pair of conga-like drums".
So, imo, the real question should be, why the producers of the film chose to man an "exotic mystical" background, involving some sort of a "civilization" I suppose, with mainly 'non-black' characters.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Tarzan mentality I guess,make wht kids look cool by way of being blk or dominating things that are of the "blks".
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] Question yourself with this, lioness: Would I bring it up, had I not seen it?
It seems logical that you would have seen it but after seeing the trailer for it, it didn't seem like something you would be able to sit through and actually watch. Maybe you need a better cable package.
posted
A few interesting things about whites in medieval Ethiopia in 'The Sign and the Seal' by Graham Hancock:
Apparently there was 'an Ethiopian tradition which told of the involvement of mysterious "white men" in the construction of the Lalibela churches.' The tradition had been very old 'when it was first recorded by a Portuguese visitor, Father Francisco Alvarez'. Hancock says that the Ethiopian king Lalibela was in exile in Jerusalem at the time of the crusades, and may have been assisted in his take-over of Ethiopia on his return by Knights Templar, who had an ulterior motive for interest in Ethiopia, namely the belief that the Ark of the Coveant was there.
I've not come across any Latin chronicles mentioning the Ethiopian's supposed visit to Jerusalem, but it's an interesting idea. Hancock quoted a medieval Armenian Christian chronicler, Abu Silah, which conformed the Ark's presence in Ethiopia. Silah described the attendants and bearers of the Ark as men 'white and red in complexion, with red hair'. (p. 159.)
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazing how Euro loonies will invoke mythical stories to justify any mischaracterization of ancient Abyssinia as some sort of an oddly 'white' sub-Saharan "civilization".
Now, imagine any European peoples....even as socio-politically unsophisticated as say, the Vikings, the Gauls or even mythic icons like the Irish Leprechauns, were portrayed in some movie or play as nearly all 'black' characters.
I'm willing to bet that some European or another in the room will reject the whole notion as "crazy", even if it is presented as fiction. Just look at the row caused by reports that a Black actor was playing the part of the mythical figure "Thor". Yet, everything should be taken for granted as "okay", if not simply as "entertainment", when Europeans strangely play the part of "Black Africans".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that but there is actully evidence that the Templar's Cross was older in Ethiopia than the formation of the Templars who knows maybe the Templars got it from them When I have time I'll dig up that ol post.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: In past discussions, "economic" justification, and accordingly, the pandering to a mostly "white" audience, had usually been given as a primary consideration for casting 'Whites' in "non-White" roles in this day and age, i.e. in contrast to the more overtly racist past of Hollywood, but here, even that justification has no legs to stand on.
To begin with, the Abyssinians in the aforementioned movie were not exactly portrayed in a flattering manner by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, the scene involving the Abyssianians was quite brief. A few measly seconds of screen time dedicated to a "magical world" of ill-portrayed "Black" Abyssinians would not have taken away from the remainder of the show. If that were to happen, then general bad-movie making should be seen as the culprit, not a few seconds of screen time.
So, on economic or viewership grounds, there was no reason Abyssinia could not have been portrayed as an ancient "Black" Kingdom. It would not have made any appreciable difference to the Box Office reception of the flick. So, I dare say that something else, perhaps more subtle, is at work...
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Im thinking the scene was mocking the Mummy or the Begining of the Mummy. Abyssinia looked awfully(in reference to Architecture and constume) like Egypt the Mummy style.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Note: In past discussions, "economic" justification, and accordingly, the pandering to a mostly "white" audience, had usually been given as a primary consideration for casting 'Whites' in "non-White" roles in this day and age, i.e. in contrast to the more overtly racist past of Hollywood, but here, even that justification has no legs to stand on.
To begin with, the Abyssinians in the aforementioned movie were not exactly portrayed in a flattering manner by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, the scene involving the Abyssianians was quite brief. A few measly seconds of screen time dedicated to a "magical world" of ill-portrayed "Black" Abyssinians would not have taken away from the remainder of the show. If that were to happen, then general bad-movie making should be seen as the culprit, not a few seconds of screen time.
So, on economic or viewership grounds, there was no reason Abyssinia could not have been portrayed as an ancient "Black" Kingdom. It would not have made any appreciable difference to the Box Office reception of the flick. So, I dare say that something else, perhaps more subtle, is at work...
It is ridiculous to portray Abyssinia the way they did in the movie. I have never seen this type of portayal of Abyssinians before. Is it only the willful ignorance of this particular screenwriter or director or are there other instances in particular to Ethiopia in pop culture?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Note: In past discussions, "economic" justification, and accordingly, the pandering to a mostly "white" audience, had usually been given as a primary consideration for casting 'Whites' in "non-White" roles in this day and age, i.e. in contrast to the more overtly racist past of Hollywood, but here, even that justification has no legs to stand on.
To begin with, the Abyssinians in the aforementioned movie were not exactly portrayed in a flattering manner by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, the scene involving the Abyssianians was quite brief. A few measly seconds of screen time dedicated to a "magical world" of ill-portrayed "Black" Abyssinians would not have taken away from the remainder of the show. If that were to happen, then general bad-movie making should be seen as the culprit, not a few seconds of screen time.
So, on economic or viewership grounds, there was no reason Abyssinia could not have been portrayed as an ancient "Black" Kingdom. It would not have made any appreciable difference to the Box Office reception of the flick. So, I dare say that something else, perhaps more subtle, is at work...
If we can have Medjay and Anakhsun Amun portrayed as white people in the Mummy, why not have Abyssinians as near white in a movie. Makes sense to me! lol! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Note: In past discussions, "economic" justification, and accordingly, the pandering to a mostly "white" audience, had usually been given as a primary consideration for casting 'Whites' in "non-White" roles in this day and age, i.e. in contrast to the more overtly racist past of Hollywood, but here, even that justification has no legs to stand on.
To begin with, the Abyssinians in the aforementioned movie were not exactly portrayed in a flattering manner by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, the scene involving the Abyssianians was quite brief. A few measly seconds of screen time dedicated to a "magical world" of ill-portrayed "Black" Abyssinians would not have taken away from the remainder of the show. If that were to happen, then general bad-movie making should be seen as the culprit, not a few seconds of screen time.
So, on economic or viewership grounds, there was no reason Abyssinia could not have been portrayed as an ancient "Black" Kingdom. It would not have made any appreciable difference to the Box Office reception of the flick. So, I dare say that something else, perhaps more subtle, is at work...
It is ridiculous to portray Abyssinia the way they did in the movie. I have never seen this type of portayal of Abyssinians before. Is it only the willful ignorance of this particular screenwriter or director or are there other instances in particular to Ethiopia in pop culture?
Those who are familiar with historic attempts to explain away anything that might be perceived as "civilization" in "Black Africa" are not going to be all that surprised by these sort of undertakings. I was hoping someone would fill in the blanks about "what looks to be at work" that I ended my last note with, but since that didn't happen, I'll just go ahead and flat out say it:
I think the brief opening scenery of Abyssinians was keeping with the broader "western" media misguided portrayal of Africans. Accordingly, Africans are to be perceived as just hapless charity basket cases, who cannot be allowed to defy that image with something supposedly more "sophisticated". Interestingly, drought inflicted "hungry" Ethiopian children are usually paraded as poster-children for an Africa that "cannot take care of itself", and it is to be the object of western "pitty" and "saving" from "extinction"; a coincidence maybe? Well, be the judge.
If the above-mentioned is considered, then this choice of portrayal of Abyssinia in Hollywood should not be seen as a fluke, an artifact of economic decisions, and/or mere racism. I think it goes beyond racism, but rather, speaks more to "western" imperialism, of which racism is of course part and parcel.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: . Accordingly, Africans are to be perceived as just hapless charity basket cases, who cannot be allowed to defy that image with something supposedly more "sophisticated". Interestingly, drought inflicted "hungry" Ethiopian children are usually paraded as poster-children for an Africa that "cannot take care of itself", and it is to be the object of western "pitty" and "saving" from "extinction"; a coincidence maybe? Well, be the judge.
This movie the "Hot Chick" is regarded as a pretty bad movie and such misrepesentations are harder to get away with in non-comedy movies.
I think although portraying ancient societies is important the only real antidote to counter the image of Africans as hapless charity basket cases at war with each other is to give a broader portrait of modern day Africa in places which are more stable and prosperous. This is why African media is important and should consider more extentions in the English language to connect to the diaspora
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic