Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Inclusivity and History are a BAD match!" video.

Actually "representation" in superhero comics leads to terrible characters. Characters that are created to represent a group can't have defects, because those would be the defects of the group. They can't evolve, because that would mean that the group needs to evolve. They can't be taught, because that mean the group needs to take lessons. Their probemls can only be the fault of someone else, etc... etc. There's no way to obtain a relatable character with those premises. Logan was a representation of short Canadian smokers? Batman of orfaned billionaires? Deadpool of disfigured loudmouths? Really beloved characters had not been created to represent anyone.
13
When the mith had been created, the only known thing of the localization of the Ethiopians was that they inhabitated along the Ocean river. Only subsequently they had been placed in two separated places (where the sun rises and where it sets), and then in Lybia and near India (Erodotus) with the African Ethiopians having curly hair and the Asian ones straight. Erodotus also placed Memnon's capital in Asia (Susa). As the son of a Trojan and a Goddess, Memnon was not a native African, but in classical Greece he was indifferently depicted as being black or white, and Diodorus Siculus explains him being black (that was obviously the prevalent opinion in his time) with the fact that Eos carried the two brothers on her chariot at sunrise. But even when he was depicted as white, the Ethiopians he led were depicted as African blacks with curly hair and not Asian blacks (see Pausania's description of Polygnotus' Nekyia). Subsequently Memnon's reign was placed definitely in Africa, since Heracles killed his brother Emathion while he was going up the river Nil (Diodorus Siculus), or in Lybia (Apollodorus) and gave his reign to Memnon, still a child.
10
Actually "representation" in superhero comics leads to terrible characters. Characters that are created to represent a group can't have defects, because those would be the defects of the group. They can't evolve, because that would mean that the group needs to evolve. They can't be taught, because that mean the group needs to take lessons. Their probemls can only be the fault of someone else, etc... etc. There's no way to obtain a relatable character with those premises. Logan was a representation of short Canadian smokers? Batman of orfaned billionaires? Deadpool of disfigured loudmouths? Really beloved characters had not been created to represent anyone.
8
@LionClanChief In case of Memnon, he can be depicted as a black African, a black Indian, a middle eastern (like his father), or even a white European (his mother, Eos, was "the goddes with rosy fingers"), but stating "Memnon was not from Africa" is incorrect. Memnon had been considered African for much of classicity.
4
You mean you related to Batman without being an orphaned billionaire? How that's even possible?
2
Everyone is responsible of his own facts.
2
@drafezard7315 And in what world Marvel's Thor was meant to represent "Scandinavian culture"? Kirby and Lee created him only because "How do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? Make him a god", and chose a Norse god only because people were less familiar with them than with Greco-Roman gods. He wasn't mean to represent anyone. He was precisely meant to represent NONE. His name to be only vaguely familiar but, for the rest, they could have made anything of him.
2
Consider, IE, the great popularity that the "Romance of Three Kingdoms" recently acquired in the west. And I think those that read it quite understood that all of those guys were Chinese.
2
You subscribed and you didn't see his video about the topic? What's the sense of subscribing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsTlb5a5LrY&t=3s BTW, what the Romans gave importance to doesn't change how they were made. It's not that, if Native Americans did not give importance to race, then they became Australian Aboriginal.
2
It's actually an important factor in any armed conflict before firearms. Physical strenght is an enormous advantage in combat. Especially strenght in the upper body. Especially in formation fighting.
2
The injection of all that fantasy crap in 47 Ronin actually ruined the real story. Imagine doing that to the story of Fort Alamo.
2
@Zankaroo it's a mistake Lindy made.
2
That's a re-interpretation. There had been a Richard III movie set in a WWII context or a Hamlet movie set in 18th century context. They had never meant ot be historical.
2
@Heeroneko Deadpool had not been created to represent anyone, bar a parody of Spiderman's habit to talk while fighting. His description, given by Cable himself, that first hired him, was "a lethal idiot" (and he was not meant give idiots a representation). Him, or any other character, being "something" is not "representation", is simply having some charateristic, which I think is more so what you meant. A character made for representation instead, IE, is the defunct "Snowflake", whose introduction described as being "not binary". Because obviously the first thing I want to know of a superhero is who he/her wants to fuck...
2
@Heeroneko Because they were made expressely for representation, and "representation" in superhero comics leads to terrible characters... etc. etc.
2
@Heeroneko That's my point. Giving a character some charateristic is not "representing", is "not making him a dummy". Bishop has not Australian Aboriginal roots because the creators wanted to represent the Australian Aboriginal community. Bishop has Australian Aboriginal roots because he had to be something, and why not an Australian Aboriginal? It's a charateristic, not a representation of a group. Troubles begin when characters are intended to represent some community, maxime if it's perceived as an oppressed community. Because "representation", in superhero comics, leads to terrible characters. For the abovementioned reasons.
2
@Heeroneko That's representation. The character is meant not to have a personal trait. Is meant to represent. To be an example of. Characters that are meant to represent are bound to be abysmal, because there's no way to decently write a character that's meant to represent a community. Unfortunately, a lot of people make this mistake. Critics tend to acritically (isn't that funny?) exalt characters made like that, because they "spread the right message", regardless of the quality of the work, and who dare to object is labeled as a homophobe, misogynist, and worse. And, among those who label, other than the aforementioned critics, there are the members of the minorities. Not the members that really read the comics, yeah, who KNOWS the media, KNOWS that those characters are terrible, but you don't need to really read comics to be vocal on twitter about "how they should be made".
2
@Heeroneko That's "tokenism". "See? We did put a black guy in the movie. We are inclusive. He's the best friend of the main character, the one that dies first (It's a hard work, so it's better to let the black guy do it)". So they are inclusive, the main character is progressive, and the balck dude is soon out of the way. Three birds with a stone.
2
@Heeroneko "representation" is when the character is meant not to have a personal trait. Is meant to represent. To be an example of. To be there because he's black, gay, queer etc. "I'm gay and I want a superhero that represent my gayness" is not going to create a good character.
2
@Heeroneko It's the definition according which many characters had been created or hijaked recently.
2
@Heeroneko As said, it's the definition of "representation" that had been used to create and hijack characters, and it's the definition of "representation" that will never create a decent character. At this point discussing "but that's not the correct definition" seems pretty pointless.
2
1) There's nothing wrong in making a documentary / series even on the only known sample, until it's also higlighted that's the only known sample and not the norm. Yasuke, Abram Petrovic Gannibal... why not? Someone wants to make a TV series on the life of a fictional Black African (from a group Living in North Africa, or coming from south of the Sahara with a caravan) that enlists as an auxiliary in the Roman Army, participates in one or more campaigns, earns citizenship, becomes centurion, is honourably discharged, starts living as a civilian Roman citizen in some part of the Empire and even obtains some minor public office (more was impossible without having followed the cursus honorum)? Good, as long as is historically accurate. 2) In a documentary, you can highlight the various possibilities. In a series, when you can only make a choice, it's better to stick to the most widely accepted interpretation, but the interpretation of a minority of scholars, as long as it's a legitimate and discussed scientific theory , is acceptable.
2
Alexander grew up in a culture where this definition wouldn't have made any sense. It's like finding words for those who like and don't like shellfish, and then basing your identity on that.
1
Because documentaries are not about artistic licences and suspending someone's disbelief, so they should be as accurate as the means employed allow (so, IE, in a documentary about prehistoric Africa produced, with very limited resources, by a Japanese amateur production using voluntary cast, is acceptable to use Japanese actors) And, even in historical fiction, it seems quite ridicolus, to insert people for the sake of inclusivity, while at the same time telling to the pubblic "we all know there were only white males in this expedition. Just ignore the diverse ones, or pretend they are believable".
1
He never stated sources must be taken acritically. But you can't replace sources with fantasies because sources can be biased.
1
The real shame is that the not white audience is not calling for them. It's not like Africa or Latin America are not able to conjure up a movie or a TV series. They made quite a lot of them actually, but it needed an Australian white guy to came up with Apocalypto, or a French to came up with Himalaya (that's still considered at least a Nepali production, but wrote, directed and produced by French).
1
For a Roman the term "bisexual" would have meant nothing. Romans considered manly to bang a man, while to be penetrated was a no-no, and would have been the end of a political or military (that were deeply interconnected) career.
1
You can see his video about the subject.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsTlb5a5LrY&t=3s
1
@michaelrenper796 It's the same reason why Romans should be at least 17 to enlist in the legion. And boys were pretty expendable given the mortality rate at young age in Rome. Having younger boys in a line formation meant to have weak links. A thing that a formation couldn't have.
1
And are you able to counter-argument, or your only opposition to bigots and fascists is name calling?
1
@MrContrapicado If you are not able to prove your point, is name calling and I have yet to see you bringing any argument to counter those exposed. So, who pretend to oppose to fascists and bigots, has really no argument better than theirs to expose? That's seems like an easy win for bigots and fascist.
1
@TheOutsider69 Metatron referred to previous videos on the argument. I'm (still) not demanding "evidence", I'm demanding argumens. You should have been able to read at least that.
1
Had he said that you should take sources acritically?
1
Romans didn't consider active homosexuality as anything out of the ordinary, but passive homosexuality was a no - no. You couldn't be a passive homosexual and have some hope to reach a political or military (the two things were intrconnected) position of any importance.
1
@madmanthepope6448 being penetrated.
1
Theater.
1
So your reply to a clip that talks about the importance of sources and historical autenticity is stereotyping Italians? Pretty revealing of who's the racist here.
1
@Pelagion98 It can be said that what's important in Shakespeare is the story, not the setting, even when he wrote stories using the names of historical characters. Not so much for Puccini, to name one. There the characters are not historical, but the setting is important. The Girl of the West was made specifically for a western setting. Madame Butterfly for a Japanese one, etc. etc.
1
@Heeroneko You're intentionally ignoring reality, so that your argument works.
1
@Heeroneko As already said, it's the definition of "representation" that had been used to create and hijack characters, and it's the definition of "representation" that will never create a decent character. At this point discussing "but that's not the correct definition" seems pretty pointless.
1
@Heeroneko Simply you have an idealistic and personal opinion of what "representation" mean, and pretend others to stick with it. In real world mine is applied, you like it or not.
1
@Heeroneko I long understood your point. It doesn't really take much. Fact is that's YOUR point. You're not talking for anyone else than yourself. As already said (maybe the explanation was too complicate for you, I'm sorry for not having been able to adapt to your level), critics acritically exalt characters made for what you call "bad representation", because they "spread the right message", regardless of the quality of the work, and who dare to object is labeled as a homophobe, misogynist, and worse. And, among those who label, other than the aforementioned critics, THERE ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE MINORITIES. Not the members that really read the comics, yeah, who KNOWS the media, KNOWS that those characters are terrible, but you don't need to really read comics to be vocal on twitter about "how they should be made". Is that explanation simple enough for your limited brain to grasp it?
1
@Heeroneko Are you that came pretending to preach me dood. I didn't search for you. Have you had some functioning braincell you would have noticed I'm not blaming minorities. I'm stating that "representation" in superhero comics leads to terrible characters.
1