Would it have been a good idea to shoot a James Bond movie on location in South Africa during the 1970s or 1980s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What exactly do you mean? That being black automatically makes them more indigenous? If so, that’s a very dangerous line of thinking, especially once you apply it elsewhere.

I simply don’t buy the line about unjust power structures. The sheer explosion of violence, corruption and bigotry has some roots in the past (as indeed the establishment of apartheid was rooted in history) but to blame it all on that is to deny the agency of those who have made modern South Africa into the mess it is.

Please note that I have explicitly NOT justified the means. I have been repeatedly critical of apartheid. However I am also highly critical of post-apartheid South Africa.
 
Briwerr said:
What exactly do you mean? That being black automatically makes them more indigenous? If so, that’s a very dangerous line of thinking, especially once you apply it elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think you are conflating native born with Indigenous. Whites descended from colonialism specifcally are not.

International definition of Indigenous

Assuming you are a white American, you are not and never will be a native American in the way it is properly used.
 
By that definition then, neither Zulus or Boers are indigenous. Presumably South Africa (an artificial construct) then belongs to the pygmies who (I believe) were the earliest to live in that geographic region.

I am, by the way, not a white American.
 
Briwerr said:
By that definition then, neither Zulus or Boers are indigenous.
Click to expand...
Did the Trail of Tears removal of Native Americans to what became Oklahoma (“Indian Territory”) any less indigenous? Did it make the whites who later pushed the Native Americans when Oklahoma became “available” indigenous?

The Zulus indeed were a powerful people who had invaded parts of what are now SA, but their ancestors had always been Africans. Colonialism was a whole different level of invasion and subjugation. The level of weaponry, the industrial extraction of resources, the near entirety of the world affected, the epic level of human slavery, and so on. It is a recognition by the “West” of how much our riches came from the subjugation of others.
Briwerr said:
I am, by the way, not a white American.
Click to expand...
Hence I said assuming. 🙂
 
The problem with the definition of indigenous is that the cut off line is arbitrary.

For example, pre-Colombian America had three waves of migration. An Austro-Melanasian population (see Luzia woman in Brazil). Then the familiar Amerinds (themselves 40% ANE and 60% proto-Chinese, with the ANE being paternal; i.e. they were Eurasian conquerors who took Asian brides) who conquered them. Then afterwards the paleo-Eskimo / Na-Dene (who have linguistic links to Siberia). So who is indigenous?

(Incidentally Europeans are ANE & WHG in ancestry; they’re genetic cousins to Amerinds).

On Africa, I find the idea that it is better to be conquered by a people who always lived in the same continent rather than by people who moved away and then came back to be silly. What’s the moral difference? As for Zulu versus European colonisation - look up the Mfecane.

In world historic terms, nobody is really indigenous. Human history is a tale of migration and conquest. It’s no more or less immoral to be conquered by those from nearby than those far away.

We are wandering rather far away from the original topic by now…😀
 
Last edited:
In America, the politically correct way to refer to black people in Africa who were born and live on the continent of Africa as African-Americans. (Unless the rules have changed in the past 5 years.)

However, white people who are born and live on the continent of Africa are referred to as white people.

I don’t know what made me think of this, but it has baffled me for 20 years. I’ll never forget the first time I was corrected in a professional setting for referring to a black person in Africa as black instead of an African-American. I’ve always wondered what people in Africa thought about this.
 
Briwerr said:
belongs to the pygmies who (I believe) were the earliest to live in that geographic region.
Click to expand...
Wow. I knew about the San and Khoi Khoi my entire life but first time I see this term being used. Yes I googled it and I learned something 🙂
 
Unless something has changed, that is not true. I have heard black people with no connection to America being referred to as African-Americans for many years. It is politically incorrect in the US to call a black person from Nigeria black. They are African-Americans.

I do not understand the reasoning why a white person born in Nigeria is white, and a black person born in Nigeria is an African-American. I’d like to know the reason why, because it has baffled me since the first time I was corrected in the late 1990’s early 2000’s. It doesn’t make sense to me.
 
Ask them. I am sure that they have experience with it. Any time they fill out a document where race is a question, they check the box marked African-American. Listen to any discussion by American academics discussing race in Africa.
They will speak in terms of White and African-Americans.

Unless something has changed in the past couple of years, because political correctness is fluid, it has perplexed me for a long time. I think this is the first time I have ever asked about it out loud.

Personally, I think it is the worst example of American arrogance I have ever seen. (Unless, of course, people from Africa prefer it that way. But I imagine that it probably perplexes them as well.)
 
They took it from tribes who stole from other tribes. Apparently the gains are only ill-gotten if you happen to be white.
 
Last edited:
Back in the late 1980s, Dolph Lundgren got flak for making the movie Red Scorpion in Namibia. At the time, Namibia was still under South African control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top