It has a showing in 15 minutes.
worth me paying the money?
it won loads of Oscars apparantly
Dates
· UTC
Should i watch 'Crash' the movie on Sky box office?
Archived87 replies · 1,144 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
i think she's quite good in this movie.
anyway i have ordered it and its about to start.see yer later:)
i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america. ludacris steals the film, IMO.
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america. ludacris steals the film, IMO.
Ludacris.. LOL.. no Ryan Phillipe 
Cath wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america. ludacris steals the film, IMO.
Ludacris.. LOL.. no Ryan Phillipe
ryan phillippe may be hotter, but ludacris turned out a better performance. 
AgentWood wrote:
Cath wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america. ludacris steals the film, IMO.
Ludacris.. LOL.. no Ryan Phillipe
ryan phillippe may be hotter, but ludacris turned out a better performance.
hormones aside.. yea.. you maybe right.. :D
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america. .
just finished watching, a good summary there ,Agent.Although of course i don't live in America .
very involving, intertwining stories and characters which portray race relations as Agent says
thumbs up from me
Glad to hear that some NOOLers liked Crash. I have the DVD sitting right here, and I'll probably watch it Sunday evening.
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
It's an interesting film, but thank fcuk our country ain't like that. If that's a genuine interpretation of race relations in modern America then they appear to be stuck about 100 years behind us. Surely people can't honestly think like that in this day and age, judging virtually everyone by colour alone?! And, fcuk me, but what an awful advert for Los Angeles. Puts you right off going there, if you ain't already been.
And as for the storyline alone, there was a lot that simply didn't add up. The black geezer who's in TV nearly flipping and trying to get himself shot, and also the young copper who shoots the lad as he reaches for his St Christopher. There was fcuk all build up to these and little explanation. They just came straight from leftfield and seemed completely out of character.
Couldn't see what the fuss was about personally. Way too American for my liking (and yes, I know, that's a sweeping generalisation from me too).
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
You do make me larf. Your "black friend" will give you the inside from the urban jungle, eh? Colonial reportage - nice!!
Please. Think. Before. You. Post.
Al Jarvis wrote:
And as for the storyline alone, there was a lot that simply didn't add up. The black geezer who's in TV nearly flipping and trying to get himself shot, .
The reason he flipped and refused to cooperate was that he felt he had been humiliated once already by the Police and wasn't going to do so again.Well that's the way i saw it
But i agree that the young officer suddenly panicking and shooting the other guy in his car didn't make sense.
Johnny wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote:
And as for the storyline alone, there was a lot that simply didn't add up. The black geezer who's in TV nearly flipping and trying to get himself shot, .
The reason he flipped and refused to cooperate was that he felt he had been humiliated once already by the Police and wasn't going to do so again.Well that's the way i saw it
Indeed. But to flip so completely? One minute he's letting someone touch up his Mrs, next second he's on a suicide mission?! Just seemed way too out of character to me. No subtle hints and changes whatsoever, just a 180-degree flip to the other side.
Oh, and didn't he wear a cardigan. 
Well maybe the second time wound him up much more after the first incident (and there wasn't a lot he could do in that particular scenario)
I didnt see the film as racist.Just a document of how things are in LA and the United States as a whole
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
You do make me larf. Your "black friend" will give you the inside from the urban jungle, eh? Colonial reportage - nice!!
Please. Think. Before. You. Post.
urban jungle?! she's from the suburbs of albany, NY! why are you assuming she's from the urban jungle, eh? is it because she's black?
and i think most people who watched it agreed that the most accurate part of the film was the storyline about the iranian family whose store was vandalized. as the mother said, 'since when did persians become arab?'
Johnny wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote:
And as for the storyline alone, there was a lot that simply didn't add up. The black geezer who's in TV nearly flipping and trying to get himself shot, .
The reason he flipped and refused to cooperate was that he felt he had been humiliated once already by the Police and wasn't going to do so again.Well that's the way i saw it
But i agree that the young officer suddenly panicking and shooting the other guy in his car didn't make sense.
he shot him because he thought the other guy was pulling a gun out of his pocket.
Al Jarvis wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
It's an interesting film, but thank fcuk our country ain't like that. If that's a genuine interpretation of race relations in modern America then they appear to be stuck about 100 years behind us. Surely people can't honestly think like that in this day and age, judging virtually everyone by colour alone?! And, fcuk me, but what an awful advert for Los Angeles. Puts you right off going there, if you ain't already been.
And as for the storyline alone, there was a lot that simply didn't add up. The black geezer who's in TV nearly flipping and trying to get himself shot, and also the young copper who shoots the lad as he reaches for his St Christopher. There was fcuk all build up to these and little explanation. They just came straight from leftfield and seemed completely out of character.
Couldn't see what the fuss was about personally. Way too American for my liking (and yes, I know, that's a sweeping generalisation from me too).
it is very american, and yes, that is how much of our country is...as i first found out in high school when i was in a store with a black friend of mine and she was followed the whole time by the cashier. when i asked her about it afterwards, she said it happens to her all the time and there's no point in complaining as it will only make things worse for her.
as far as some of the incidents coming out of 'leftfield' perhaps that's part of what makes the film so 'american.' most americans who have seen it knew what was going to happen ages before it actually did. particularly the incident with the st. christopher statue. it was a disaster waiting to happen. and, yes, we are still dealing with race relations every day. now you see one of the reasons i want to move back to the UK?
p.s. we have a saying in the US: white people feel safer in the country while black people feel safer in the cities. says something, doesn't it.
AgentWood wrote: as far as some of the incidents coming out of 'leftfield' perhaps that's part of what makes the film so 'american.' most americans who have seen it knew what was going to happen ages before it actually did. particularly the incident with the st. christopher statue. it was a disaster waiting to happen. and, yes, we are still dealing with race relations every day.
Er, I've seen the film. I think ANYONE who's seen the film knows that the young cop is gonna shoot the lad who's reaching for the St Christopher. Even the studio audience have no idea he's reaching for a statue and the whole thing is geared towards him supposedly reaching for a gun.
But if you rewind the film to one minute before he picks up the lad in his car and ask anyone, do you think this cop is likely to execute a lad in these circumstances, then am sure most people would've said no. There was nothing in his character which suggested this whatsoever from the beginning. And I'm sure that speaks for 'most Americans' too.
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
Annie Proulx better think twice before she talks about a "safe choice." After all, for Brokeback Mountain to really be a progressive movie, it wouldn't have one of the two lovers die at the end. The fact that one of them dies as a result of a hate crime just allows liberals to throw up their hands and say that homophobia is bad (as if we didn't know that already), much in the same way that Crash tries to present an anti-racism message without showing any real options for political change (after all, just showing that everyone is racist, even if it does reflect the reality of American race relations, is hardly an empowering stance).
It would be hard to imagine Hollywood getting behind a gay romance where the couple actually survives intact and rides off into the sunset together at the end. Instead, Brokeback falls into the same sort of politically disempowering Hollywood ending where homosexual romance is always doomed to fail, thus inadvertently naturalizing its supposed "opposite" form of desire, heterosexuality. A safe choice, indeed. 
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
You do make me larf. Your "black friend" will give you the inside from the urban jungle, eh? Colonial reportage - nice!!
Please. Think. Before. You. Post.
urban jungle?! she's from the suburbs of albany, NY! why are you assuming she's from the urban jungle, eh? is it because she's black?
and i think most people who watched it agreed that the most accurate part of the film was the storyline about the iranian family whose store was vandalized. as the mother said, 'since when did persians become arab?'
Duh. It was your implicit assumption that said "black" friend's testimony would somehow provide an "authentic" view of "Crash"'s depiction of U.S. race relations that prompted my response. Again, please think. Just for fucking once.*
Only in America would a movie as trite as "Crash" gain the kind of credibility you seem to ascribe to it.
* (- There is no 'urban jungle'. That's. The. Point.)
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
annie proulx would agree with you that it's 'tripe.' surely you've seen her letter which complains that crash was the safe choice for the academy and brokeback mountain got snubbed?
as far as everyone being racist, i think you're missing the point. the film shows the way it works (unfortunately). someone sees a chicano with lots of tattoos. the first thing he or she assumes: gang member. blacks with nice cars get stopped by police every day because the police think the car is stolen. that's not hollywood, mate, it's a fact.
i'm watching it with my best friend (who is black) tonight. i'll get back to you on what she thinks (being a neo-liberal herself).
You do make me larf. Your "black friend" will give you the inside from the urban jungle, eh? Colonial reportage - nice!!
Please. Think. Before. You. Post.
urban jungle?! she's from the suburbs of albany, NY! why are you assuming she's from the urban jungle, eh? is it because she's black?
and i think most people who watched it agreed that the most accurate part of the film was the storyline about the iranian family whose store was vandalized. as the mother said, 'since when did persians become arab?'
Duh. It was your implicit assumption that said "black" friend's testimony would somehow provide an "authentic" view of "Crash"'s depiction of U.S. race relations that prompted my response. Again, please think. Just for fucking once.*
Only in America would a movie as trite as "Crash" gain the kind of credibility you seem to ascribe to it.
* (- There is no 'urban jungle'. That's. The. Point.)
just how exactly do someones actual experiences invalidate what that film portrays?
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Duh. It was your implicit assumption that said "black" friend's testimony would somehow provide an "authentic" view of "Crash"'s depiction of U.S. race relations that prompted my response. Again, please think. Just for fucking once.*
Only in America would a movie as trite as "Crash" gain the kind of credibility you seem to ascribe to it.
* (- There is no 'urban jungle'. That's. The. Point.)
i know how to think, thank you. you don't have to be such a prick about it.
p.s. the whole 'only in america' thing is really. tiring. and. not. very. original. *yawn*
yet another one of my NOOL 'fans' rears his head. how nice.
oh, and to say there is no urban jungle...well, that's just being naive. you may call it the 'inner city' or whatever, but when they have to put bulletproof glass between the customers and the servers at mcdonalds and when the average lifespan of an african-american male in some neighbourhoods is the same as the average lifespan in the poorest countries in the world (less than 35), i'd say there's something terribly wrong.
and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? is this how you treat your students when you show them sliver or robocop and they bring up alternate viewpoints?
Getting a kick out of the posts so far. I didn't think Crash was all that great. A good one time watcher, but not this "great" movie it's been hyped up to be. The racism in the movie is sooo Hollywoodish and a typical story line for numerous major actors in one film. Enjoy it for what it is, but don't expect to leave the movie feeling any smarter onthe issue. , , ,it's NOT what I would call a deep story line, as all the hype would lead you to believe.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Getting a kick out of the posts so far. I didn't think Crash was all that great. A good one time watcher, but not this "great" movie it's been hyped up to be. The racism in the movie is sooo Hollywoodish and a typical story line for numerous major actors in one film. Enjoy it for what it is, but don't expect to leave the movie feeling any smarter onthe issue. , , ,it's NOT what I would call a deep story line, as all the hype would lead you to believe.
JHC
what a relief to read a post from a person who disagrees with my take on the film but who doesn't hurl personal abuse like a three-year-old.
AgentWood wrote: what a relief to read a post from a person who disagrees with my take on the film but who doesn't hurl personal abuse like a three-year-old.
I do think that was the idea of the film. Get a decent storyline, place a topic that is easily argumentative as racism, and hype it up alot.The people thatlove the movie can talk as if they are experts on the "problem in the US with racism", and the people that don't care for the movie seem ignorant. Sincemost people have no desire to want to seem ignorant, many jump on the bandwagon, just to "fit in".
I'm not insulting anyone, but I think this was the marketing ploy for the movie. If so, well, it worked as it got a bunch of oscars.
JHC
Damn you Johnny, look what you've started ........... not another NOOL drama 
I'm. Sooo. In. Love. With. This. Place. 
68 Pontiac wrote:
AgentWood wrote: what a relief to read a post from a person who disagrees with my take on the film but who doesn't hurl personal abuse like a three-year-old.
I do think that was the idea of the film. Get a decent storyline, place a topic that is easily argumentative as racism, and hype it up alot.The people thatlove the movie can talk as if they are experts on the "problem in the US with racism", and the people that don't care for the movie seem ignorant. Sincemost people have no desire to want to seem ignorant, many jump on the bandwagon, just to "fit in".
I'm not insulting anyone, but I think this was the marketing ploy for the movie. If so, well, it worked as it got a bunch of oscars.
JHC
i just happened to like the film and thought it said a lot about racism in the US. granted, it's no 'do the right thing,' but i was moved by the film. i'm not an expert on racism in the US and i don't claim to be. i only know about the experiences i've had and what i've seen living in american cities. but to be told that i'm not thinking because i do like the film is no different than if i were to tell you that you were ignorant for disliking the film. if you didn't like it, that's fine. film is subjective, anyway. and that's an interesting point about marketing of the film.
however, if you like it or don't is immaterial. my problem is with the childish personal attacks and the 'only in america (would this film do well)' parroting bullshit.
AgentWood wrote:
he shot him because he thought the other guy was pulling a gun out of his pocket.
i realised that.
Al Jarvis wrote:
AgentWood wrote: as far as some of the incidents coming out of 'leftfield' perhaps that's part of what makes the film so 'american.' most americans who have seen it knew what was going to happen ages before it actually did. particularly the incident with the st. christopher statue. it was a disaster waiting to happen. and, yes, we are still dealing with race relations every day.
Er, I've seen the film. I think ANYONE who's seen the film knows that the young cop is gonna shoot the lad who's reaching for the St Christopher. Even the studio audience have no idea he's reaching for a statue and the whole thing is geared towards him supposedly reaching for a gun.
i disagree. everyone i've spoken to who have seen the film here in the states knew that he was going to reach for his statue, not a gun (because of the back story with the young man putting the statue on the car he helped hijack). but the young cop, falling for his own prejudices, jumped the gun (excuse the pun) and shot him.
when i saw the film, the second he got in the cop's car i knew something was going to happen. perhaps that's a flaw in the film (lack of surprise) or perhaps it's because in this country we're taught that cops in america and black people do not get along. i don't know.
AgentWood wrote: and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? ?
i have noticed that too.Fradley seems to like turning any argument personal and attacking the person he is arguing with instead of arguing the point
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
GlasVegas wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
i don't know what you are on about. we've had plenty of threads discussing racism where i and others have made our views known. you want my view again ok racism = bad.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
GlasVegas wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
i don't know what you are on about. we've had plenty of threads discussing racism where i and others have made our views known. you want my view again ok racism = bad.
Point missed completely. You sure you're not American?
GlasVegas wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
GlasVegas wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic--a very realistic testimony about race relations in modern-day america.
As opposed to glib, neo-liberal tripe which allows people to get their racists kicks and then gently disavow them 'cos, hey, everyones racist anyway, right?
Arse.
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
i don't know what you are on about. we've had plenty of threads discussing racism where i and others have made our views known. you want my view again ok racism = bad.
Point missed completely. You sure you're not American?
well if you must know, due to my cofused heritage i have give an affirmative answer to that.
Cruella wrote: Damn you Johnny, look what you've started ........... not another NOOL drama
:
yeah i better go and hide in my shed till it's all blown over (the argument i mean, not my shed)
GlasVegas wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i bought it on DVD. it's fantastic.
--glib, neo-liberal tripe right. Arse.
button..it's bad.-- retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
edit to shorten sorry. not sure of the heirarchy of liberaL- conservative posters :winkwinknudgenudge: but maybe the thinned out-thread contributers may also be due to Community 2 and that some may have noticed a thread about a movie not seen. and kept it simply at face -value.
simple. watch Crash on Sky box-office. fun to watch.
this make a movie, call it politically whatever you want to-& see if the masses get talking- connection...may work sometimes. but here- well made movie or not. would just rather pure entertainment.
no thanks, not going to get cranked up. has anyone else seen a different angle to this scenario with the almost visceraL hard- edge + irony in 1999' s Fight Club. and the better made The Game from a couple years earlier. of we can't do it on the streets so we'll do it in the cinema. 
68 Pontiac wrote:
AgentWood wrote: .
the marketing ploy for the movie. worked. JHC
also see that this a couple of hours --ago.
GlasVegas wrote:
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
Who did Mississippi Burning or Schindler's List or The Killing Fields if it wasnt 'Hollywood'? Those are just films I've seen that pricked my conscience, there are plenty of others in which racism is a recurring theme.
You're in the wrong place if you want people to be shouted down. If I were to stand up and talk about racism, I'd probably say the worst I have experienced was ten years living up your way with an English accent!
Er, can't we all just get along here?
Steve Lea wrote:
GlasVegas wrote:
On the button, Doctor, on the button. It's about as edgy as a circle. Hollywood does racism and says ......it's bad.
The deafening silence from so many "liberal" posters on the racism which has been a feature of a few repugnant threads/posts on NOOL is far more interesting. So quick to sing the praises of a safe-as-fuck film, so slow to shout down retarded racits. Stand up and be counted for once.
Who did Mississippi Burning or Schindler's List or The Killing Fields if it wasnt 'Hollywood'? Those are just films I've seen that pricked my conscience, there are plenty of others in which racism is a recurring theme.
lets not forget to kill a mockingbird. i have that on dvd. that story deeply affected me when we studied it at school, and then saw the film.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
lets not forget to kill a mockingbird. i have that on dvd. that story deeply affected me when we studied it at school, and then saw the film.
Harper Lee did a fabulous job writing that book, and the movie with Gregory Peck was excellent. I give To Kill a Mockingbird an A+.
"Who did Mississippi Burning or Schindler's List or The Killing Fields if it wasnt 'Hollywood'? and lets not forget to kill a mockingbird"
Quite honestly, don't see how any of these movies are related to Crash???
"Mississippi Burning": Based on true events (but severly misrepresented and historically changed by Hollywood)
"Schindler's List: Again based on true events.
Kill a Mockingbird": taken from a novel thathad acclaim way before made into a movie.
All these were not Hollywood stories, Crash is. A timeless novel and extrodinary true events are of course going to do well, Hollywood may have adapted them, but they are NOT Hollywood originals. Crash is written and produced by Hollywood and thus the reasoning that it has been said that Crash full of Hollywoodism.
I'm not against anyone here, simply noticing that these were weak arguements.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: "Who did Mississippi Burning or Schindler's List or The Killing Fields if it wasnt 'Hollywood'? and lets not forget to kill a mockingbird"
Quite honestly, don't see how any of these movies are related to Crash???
"Mississippi Burning": Based on true events (but severly misrepresented and historically changed by Hollywood)
"Schindler's List: Again based on true events.
Kill a Mockingbird": taken from a novel thathad acclaim way before made into a movie.
All these were not Hollywood stories, Crash is. A timeless novel and extrodinary true events are of course going to do well, Hollywood may have adapted them, but they are NOT Hollywood originals. Crash is written and produced by Hollywood and thus the reasoning that it has been said that Crash full of Hollywoodism.
I'm not against anyone here, simply noticing that these were weak arguements.
JHC
The thread sidetracked to racism Hollywood style, and on that basis there is a clear link between the films mentioned. I havent seen the film to comment on how twee the racism portrayed in Crash is. Whether its an excuse to bang a drum or not I dont really care. Mississippi Burning is a strongly dramatised version of events, thats the kindest you can say about it. Schindler's Ark was only written because Thomas Keneally bumped into Pfefferburg in his shop in Beverley Hills! How Spielberged the end product was is just opinion, but you cant tell me its not been 'Hollywooded'. Its a fantastic film to me. Whether they were Hollywood originals or not wasnt the point.
AgentWood wrote: when i saw the film, the second he got in the cop's car i knew something was going to happen. perhaps that's a flaw in the film (lack of surprise) or perhaps it's because in this country we're taught that cops in america and black people do not get along. i don't know.
But that's just the point, surely?! Nice Mr Liberal Police guy who's down with the youth, stops on a desolate road and offers a lift to a young black guy making his way home. Er, and then shoots him inside the minute cos he suddenly think he might have a gun. Simple really, just don't pick the bloke up in the first instance if you have even 1% reservation of what might happen.
AgentWood wrote: and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? is this how you treat your students when you show them sliver or robocop and they bring up alternate viewpoints?
Now, now, Christy. Pot. Kettle. Think about the 'personal abuse' you've dished out when people disagree with you.
Some of your arguments here in the past have bordered on the final lynchpin of 'you've studied stuff so you're right', well what does/did Fradders do for a living?! He's a bit of film expert isn't he, just check out his signature on this forum.
And as for him agreeing or disagreeing with any students, his are at least of an age where they can answer him back. Yours are not.
AgentWood wrote: and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? is this how you treat your students when you show them sliver or robocop and they bring up alternate viewpoints?
There hasn't been any "personal abuse". Yet. Your line is that "Crash" is an incisive and accurate depiction of the state of play as regards race relations in America today, which is (a) how it was promoted and (b) why it won the Oscar. I'm still waiting to hear what your black friend (and that's BLACK friend, everyone) thought of it. Presumably that will be the final nail in my little coffin, eh?
On the other hand, "Crash" seems to me to be little more than slick-but-glib "why-can't-we'all-get-along?" waffle of the most insidious order. Living in North Staffs, I can't say I have any great insight into "race" in America; I do know a movie with dubious ideological undercurrents, though. Like Allen says, it's my job.
I don't think you're thinking, and what I think is especially dodgy about said film is that it doesn't require you to think much either: not challenging, just reassuring. Why confont your own racism when (so "Crash" claims) everyone else's prejudices are just as deeply anbd casually entrenched?
I use the word "fuck" as a matter of course, so nothing to get upset about there. Try being less sensitive. The film's a bit rubbish, that's all. No need to get your knickers in a twist. Speaking to a colleague who spend a lot of time in the States the other week - she was saying that a lot of her black colleagues on t'other side of the pond also rate "Crash" highly, which tells you little more than that no (wo)man is an island. Even BLACK ones.
Oh, and my students disagree with me all the time. That's the nature of the job. They're usually a whole lot more critically astute than you, mind.
Al Jarvis wrote:
AgentWood wrote: and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? is this how you treat your students when you show them sliver or robocop and they bring up alternate viewpoints?
Now, now, Christy. Pot. Kettle. Think about the 'personal abuse' you've dished out when people disagree with you.
Some of your arguments here in the past have bordered on the final lynchpin of 'you've studied stuff so you're right', well what does/did Fradders do for a living?! He's a bit of film expert isn't he, just check out his signature on this forum.
And as for him agreeing or disagreeing with any students, his are at least of an age where they can answer him back. Yours are not.
al, i'd think about your own responses on this site if i were you. yes, he is a film instructor, but that's no reason to be personally abusive (we can go into what happened last summer, but that's not going to help matters). and for the record, i encourage dissent in my classroom. i'm not there to teach students what to think but how to learn to think for themselves.
You know what i did last summer??? Er, I don't!! You'll have to remind me. And that's a great line about "encouraging dissent": did you spin that at the interview??!!??
Hey! Teacher!!! Leave them kids alone!!!!!!!!
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: and martin, are you capable of constructive criticism and civilized discourse, or do you just appreciate hurling personal abuse at others whom you disagree with? is this how you treat your students when you show them sliver or robocop and they bring up alternate viewpoints?
There hasn't been any "personal abuse". Yet. Your line is that "Crash" is an incisive and accurate depiction of the state of play as regards race relations in America today, which is (a) how it was promoted and (b) why it won the Oscar. I'm still waiting to hear what your black friend (and that's BLACK friend, everyone) thought of it. Presumably that will be the final nail in my little coffin, eh?
On the other hand, "Crash" seems to me to be little more than slick-but-glib "why-can't-we'all-get-along?" waffle of the most insidious order. Living in North Staffs, I can't say I have any great insight into "race" in America; I do know a movie with dubious ideological undercurrents, though. Like Allen says, it's my job.
I don't think you're thinking, and what I think is especially dodgy about said film is that it doesn't require you to think much either: not challenging, just reassuring. Why confont your own racism when (so "Crash" claims) everyone else's prejudices are just as deeply anbd casually entrenched?
I use the word "fuck" as a matter of course, so nothing to get upset about there. Try being less sensitive. The film's a bit rubbish, that's all. No need to get your knickers in a twist. Speaking to a colleague who spend a lot of time in the States the other week - she was saying that a lot of her black colleagues on t'other side of the pond also rate "Crash" highly, which tells you little more than that no (wo)man is an island. Even BLACK ones.
Oh, and my students disagree with me all the time. That's the nature of the job. They're usually a whole lot more critically astute than you, mind.
martin, if you don't like the film, that's your prerogative. but berating ME and asking me to think just for once is HIGHLY offensive to me; and saying i'm not critically astute is rather offensive, as well. it's difficult to get into a discussion about a film on a message board. i'm sure if we were talking about the film face to face it would be much different but, to be honest, my new meds (and shit if i'm not starting to sound like campbell here) have really fucked with me and making a coherent online point is like climbing mt. everest. i will only say this: you can call me ugly as the elephant man, but insulting my intelligence is very painful. i'm not going into why in this public forum, but i have my reasons.
as for what my black friend thought of it: she thought it was good but not great. she was moved by the storyline about the iranians, however, and said that that was the most accurate depiction she found in the film considering the climate in america today (i agree with her on that). her problem was that it wasn't surprising enough, because things like this happen everyday (as in the jittery cop (ryan philippe) shooting the hitchhiker), and they're so common that the movie should have done something more interesting and provocative with the storylines.
i did, however, show her this thread and she was pretty shocked at your responses (and not because she's my best friend, either. she calls them as she sees them.). she asked if you had ever been to america. i said yes. she was really surprised about that, particularly when you said that there were no urban jungles.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: You know what i did last summer??? Er, I don't!! You'll have to remind me. And that's a great line about "encouraging dissent": did you spin that at the interview??!!??
Hey! Teacher!!! Leave them kids alone!!!!!!!!
what happened last summer had nothing to do with you, and you have no idea what my teaching style is like. i don't have to defend it to you, that's for sure.
You're a wee bit uptight, ain't ya? "Urban jungles" = extremely dodgy trope, as it comes with all that baggage about animality, the wild/primitive, etc. In other words, the 'jungle' is raced, and the urban has only become a 'jungle' because the jungle has been imported from some 'dark' elsewhere.
But then you don't have to defend 'owt to me. Especially when (yaaaaawn) you have black friends who agree with you. Word up!
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: "Urban jungles" = extremely dodgy trope, as it comes with all that baggage about animality, the wild/primitive, etc. In other words, the 'jungle' is raced, and the urban has only become a 'jungle' because the jungle has been imported from some 'dark' elsewhere.
I disagree. The phrase 'urban jungle', or 'concrete jungle' has fuck all to do with the people that live there. It's a comment on the piss poor architecture of the 50's*.
Well it is around here anyway. 
* Possibly a bit cruel on the Architects there, most countries were still recovering from the economic impact of WW2 to be able to afford quality mass housing.
AgentWood wrote: call it the urban jungle, call it the inner city. whatever.
and 'word up' is so 1987, dude.
I'm so 1987, love.
Barney Army wrote: I disagree. The phrase 'urban jungle', or 'concrete jungle' has fuck all to do with the people that live there. It's a comment on the piss poor architecture of the 50's*.
Well it is around here anyway.
It's called an urban, or concrete, jungle round your way cos it's inhabited by Northern Monkeys.
AgentWood wrote: al, i'd think about your own responses on this site if i were you. yes, he is a film instructor, but that's no reason to be personally abusive (we can go into what happened last summer, but that's not going to help matters). and for the record, i encourage dissent in my classroom. i'm not there to teach students what to think but how to learn to think for themselves.
Now, now, I could be here for a hell of an age yet and I don't think I'd ever come up with anything as snide and downright nasty as you managed. But, hey, that's the mark of an intelligent person, right? Throwing their toys out of the pram in such a fashion when something they said is challenged. Well done you.
As for encouraging dissent in the classroom, you teach, like, very little children, don't you?! Martin's pupils are fellow adults.
Al Jarvis wrote:
It's called an urban, or concrete, jungle round your way cos it's inhabited by Northern Monkeys.
Actually the really big ones got flattened years ago and regenerated.... Hulme, Moss Side etc...
Unlike some cities that spring to mind
Anyway, I'd rather be a monkey than a poofta
Al Jarvis wrote:
AgentWood wrote: al, i'd think about your own responses on this site if i were you. yes, he is a film instructor, but that's no reason to be personally abusive (we can go into what happened last summer, but that's not going to help matters). and for the record, i encourage dissent in my classroom. i'm not there to teach students what to think but how to learn to think for themselves.
Now, now, I could be here for a hell of an age yet and I don't think I'd ever come up with anything as snide and downright nasty as you managed. But, hey, that's the mark of an intelligent person, right? Throwing their toys out of the pram in such a fashion when something they said is challenged. Well done you.
As for encouraging dissent in the classroom, you teach, like, very little children, don't you?! Martin's pupils are fellow adults.
wow. you still don't understand why what you said last summer was so patently offensive, do you. even after several people tried to explain it to you? you attacked me viciously for explaining the london bombings based upon my knowledge of terrorism (which was later backed up by evidence provided by the metropolitan police). and i mean VERY viciously. and you wonder why i got so upset. i'm the one throwing my toys out of the pram? extraordinary, al. really extraordinary. and it's just not me. you bully people constantly on this board; but i guess you'll never see it, will you. you'll just reply by making a comment that attacks me and be on your way. oh, well. you often have interestng things to say, al, but you do yourself a disservice by constantly putting others' opinions down.
as for who i teach, i teach 6 to 14-year-olds. there isn't much room for debate with the 6-year-olds, but in a gifted classroom full of 14-year-olds, part of the curriculum is fostering debate.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
AgentWood wrote: call it the urban jungle, call it the inner city. whatever.
and 'word up' is so 1987, dude.
I'm so 1987, love.
skinny tie. evidence. now.
AgentWood wrote: wow. you still don't understand why what you said last summer was so patently offensive, do you. even after several people tried to explain it to you? you attacked me viciously for explaining the london bombings based upon my knowledge of terrorism (which was later backed up by evidence provided by the metropolitan police). and i mean VERY viciously. and you wonder why i got so upset. i'm the one throwing my toys out of the pram? extraordinary, al. really extraordinary. and it's just not me. you bully people constantly on this board; but i guess you'll never see it, will you. you'll just reply by making a comment that attacks me and be on your way. oh, well. you often have interestng things to say, al, but you do yourself a disservice by constantly putting others' opinions down.
What was offensive?! Right, the two initial points I picked up were that you suggested 4 men (3 Asian, 1 black) bought RETURN train tickets from Luton to London so as to not arouse suspicion. The inference is there for anyone to see. It's like some secular scene from Crash, isn't it. Oh no, the Muslims have bought one-way tickets: it means they're gonna blow themselves up! Oh, please. Like I said, we don't think like you lot over here. But you still didn't get it, did you?
And then you felt the need to explain the topography of my very own city to me. Just cos you've got an -ology. The targets were soft to say the least. Had they bombed Liverpool Street instead of Aldgate or Baker St instead of Edgware Road (the very heart of Arab London!) they would've induced far more carnage. But, oh no, you're the expert. What you say goes.
You didn't even attempt to justify your points. Just shouted and screamed and told me you'd have my posts deleted if I ever posted again. Even threatening to have my posts deleted from WIM, if you please! You basically attempted a complete character assasination on me, even slagging off my job as 'cushy' (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that) and even - more childishly - slagged off a novel I had posted SEVEN years ago which you've never even read. Where the fcuk did that come from one wonders?!
Truth is, you spend all day with people of maximum age 14. When you say something, they listen. If you try that sort of approach with adults, we tend not to sit down and simply take it.
You said it yourself in this thread. You don't like having your intelligence challenged.
I nicked a DVD copy of Crash off a mate a few months ago and thought it wasn't too bad. Better than the usual shite which comes out of mainstream Hollywood these days but that's not difficult to beat. I notice it was shot in a very similar way to the drugs movie "Traffic" from a couple of years back i.e. seperate story arcs/characters who'll eventually cross paths towards the end.
The risk with any film 'with a message' is that it'll patronise you but I don't think Crash did too badly on that front. Flashing "racism is bad y'all" subliminally between scenes would've been laughable. The Sandra Bullock character was a right bitch wasn't she? Mugging or not...
Anybody seen Syriana yet? I saw the other week and thought it was really entertaining and had a decent stab at questioning US foreign policy on middle-eastern oil. Again, similar to the way Traffic was shot and Clooney's gone up in my opinion for that one 
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
Think I've got you beat Al. When I am deployed I work 15 hour days, 6-9 months long, usually get 3 days off and 4 1/2 days (for the whole 9months), and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight. At least the time goes by fast. Had to digress the situation.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
...and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight.
I've heard that's standard Viking living, no?
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote: (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that)
...and could be woken at any moment intended to work or fight.
I've heard that's standard Viking living, no?
I'd laugh, but I don't understand the Viking jokes. Are they an inside thing, or are they just flying over my head??? Please explain (though it will probably loose it's humor like all good jokes do when explained).. Sorry,
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: I'd laugh, but I don't understand the Viking jokes. Are they an inside thing, or are they just flying over my head??? Please explain (though it will probably loose it's humor like all good jokes do when explained)..
The Vikings are explained in a one-liner HERE by Roger Lyons.
Any Vikings jokes are down to the alleged drinking and marauding of our forefathers. And are purely coincidental.
Al Jarvis wrote:
What was offensive?! Right, the two initial points I picked up were that you suggested 4 men (3 Asian, 1 black) bought RETURN train tickets from Luton to London so as to not arouse suspicion. The inference is there for anyone to see. It's like some secular scene from Crash, isn't it. Oh no, the Muslims have bought one-way tickets: it means they're gonna blow themselves up! Oh, please. Like I said, we don't think like you lot over here. But you still didn't get it, did you?
al, when terrorists purchase tickets they purchase return tickets. i was watching a documentary on the london bombings where the head of counterterrorism for the metropolitan police went to luton train station car park and noted that every car had a return ticket in the window. he then said what i said: to buy singles would have raised suspicion as they would have had the only car in the lot with a 'single' in the window, thus raising suspicion. it has nothing to do with race.
And then you felt the need to explain the topography of my very own city to me. Just cos you've got an -ology. The targets were soft to say the least. Had they bombed Liverpool Street instead of Aldgate or Baker St instead of Edgware Road (the very heart of Arab London!) they would've induced far more carnage. But, oh no, you're the expert. What you say goes.
al, i used to live in london. remember? terrorists attack symbols. carnage is secondary (although often important), except for with groups who have a manichean worldview, where it is the primary objective (such as shoko asahara and the sarin gas attacks in tokyo). the symbol was the underground--the point, to interrupt transport in london. just like in new york the symbol was the WTC, the financial symbol of the world, and the intent was to disrupt the financial state of america. we now know that kings cross was the main symbol as all trains left from kings cross, a major terminal. the bombings were supposed to have occurred in all directions, but one train left late (the kings cross one) as it had to change drivers and for some unknown reason the fourth bomber decided to take a bus instead (it is surmised that he was to go north).
You didn't even attempt to justify your points. Just shouted and screamed and told me you'd have my posts deleted if I ever posted again.
i did justify my points, al. i used the MO of other terrorists to explain what happened in london and describe a pattern--something which terrorists always follow. but your initial response to my post was extremely vitriolic, and you later said that i sounded like a terrorist apologist. as far as having your posts deleted, this was after the moderators locked each thread and new ones kept popping up, simply to vilify me. it was too much and too upsetting to have threads dedicated to insulting me and telling me that i had no idea what i was talking about.
Even threatening to have my posts deleted from WIM, if you please! You basically attempted a complete character assasination on me, even slagging off my job as 'cushy' (whaaaat?! I work longer hours than anyone here, bar JG probably, and everyone who knows me knows that) and even - more childishly - slagged off a novel I had posted SEVEN years ago which you've never even read. Where the fcuk did that come from one wonders?!
i don't remember the WIM thing, but perhaps it's true. as far as the rest of it, that was sent to you in an e-mail for which i have since apologised. you yourself have said that people should sort out their problems via e-mail on here. i sent mine in extreme anger and you called me a coward for not posting it. so i did, and then you got upset for me posting it!
al, your original post to me and the constant posts afterwards were filled with hate and personal attacks. others tried to explain that to you, but you didn't understand. also, you don't know what was going on in my personal life at the time to make me so upset (i'm sure you see this as a sign of weakness, 'throwing my toys out of the pram,' if you will, but so be it. i'm not ashamed.). i've made my peace on this issue with conor via e-mail and explained to him what had happened subsequent to the row, although we still disagree passionately about other issues.
i was so surprised you were so cruel (yes, you were cruel), as i thought we got along well in new york. i guess i was wrong. if you disliked me then and dislike me now then that's your prerogative, al. so be it.
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
ahm, i do live in a totally different time zone to you.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
What? You mean it's not all a dream?
Barney Army wrote:
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote: omg. i just woke up and read all this.
my life is one non-ending nightmare
very good b a.
AgentWood wrote: i was so surprised you were so cruel (yes, you were cruel), as i thought we got along well in new york. i guess i was wrong. if you disliked me then and dislike me now then that's your prerogative, al. so be it.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree, Christy. I'm not going to continue locking horns with you here publicly.
Peace.
Al Jarvis wrote: We'll simply have to agree to disagree, Christy. I'm not going to continue locking horns with you here publicly.
Peace.
ditto.
AgentWood wrote: p.s. we have a saying in the US: white people feel safer in the country while black people feel safer in the cities. says something, doesn't it.
Same thing is happening here actually... in the last 20 years we had so many immigration in Canada, all the european descent are moving to the subburbs and leave the city to the new comers, and more recently, the immigrants are also moving to the subburbs and the white folks are moving even further...
But I don't think it's a race thing, it's just people wanting to live with their own, just like there is a chinatown in each and every city.
One thing for sure, after one generation, they are definitively part of this country, I have absolutely no issue with anybody adopting our culture and lifestyle, what I have difficulties with is those completly rejecting them... makes you wonder why they moved here in the first place.
Although Canada is a pretty liberal country... supreme court just allowed young siks to wear the kirpan knife in school, when nobody is allowed to bring a knife of course since it's too dangerous... I'm all for liberty, but there is a thin line there...
That said, there is a pretty good chance the next prime minister from Quebec will be gay in 1 year... not sure this could happen at many places YET...
Al Jarvis wrote:
It's an interesting film, but thank fcuk our country ain't like that. If that's a genuine interpretation of race relations in modern America then they appear to be stuck about 100 years behind us. Surely people can't honestly think like that in this day and age, judging virtually everyone by colour alone?! And, fcuk me, but what an awful advert for Los Angeles. Puts you right off going there, if you ain't already been.
All countries have their issues Al, maybe race is an issue in the USA, but it improved a lot over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, despite knowing not much about the issues... I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland... that's even worst IMHO as it's not even race related, but ideology!
But as I said, I know fook all about it.
We can talk about what we do to indians in Canada, no problem there.. it's pretty stupid IMHO!
Spotnick wrote:
AgentWood wrote: p.s. we have a saying in the US: white people feel safer in the country while black people feel safer in the cities. says something, doesn't it.
Same thing is happening here actually... in the last 20 years we had so many immigration in Canada, all the european descent are moving to the subburbs and leave the city to the new comers, and more recently, the immigrants are also moving to the subburbs and the white folks are moving even further...
But I don't think it's a race thing, it's just people wanting to live with their own, just like there is a chinatown in each and every city.
here it's called 'white flight' and it is a race thing. it started in the 1950s when massive suburbs were built on the outskirts of cities and whites, who made up the majority of the middle and upper classes, moved into these new towns. blacks had moved into northern cities beginning in the 1940s both to find work and to escape jim crow, and racist whites were threatened by this influx of african-americans. before the civil rights act of 1964, blacks were often forbidden from moving into the suburbs, which ensured that they remained all-white. this is part of the reason for the drop in detroit's population from roughly 1,600,000 in 1960 to 900,000 today. in many cities the loss of tax dollars has left impoverished neighbourhoods, poor schools and little infrastructure--along with a mostly non-white, poor population. basically de facto segregation.
Spotnick wrote:
I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland...
Oh that one is easy....we're a nation of dicks and dicks+god=death. ;)
Steve Campbell wrote:
Spotnick wrote:
I still stugle why religion caused so much harm into Northern Ireland...
Oh that one is easy....we're a nation of dicks and dicks+god=death. ;)
