Propaganda
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Four Feathers
nikjunk — 18 years ago(March 04, 2008 03:50 PM)
In my opinion, what went wrong with this film was that the director had a point he was trying to make about the British Empire and to do so he twisted history and portrayed such a characterization of the Victorian age as to make this film propaganda. It feels like a movie made by a bitter man who was allowed to make the film because it was politically correct.
I am not an imperialist. I believe very strongly in the right of self-determination. Having said that, I would like to say that of all the empires in history, the British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked.
I am not British. I do not think that the British did the right thing in building an empire and I believe that much of what they did was morally wrong. However, as a student of history, I have to look at the Victorians and Edwardians without emotion and compare them in a rational manner to other powerful peoples.
Compare the Brits to the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks, the Romans, the Japanese Empire in this past century, the Russians, the AssyriansI could go on. Compared to the brutality of, say, the Ottomans who would denude a region of people when they rebelled (and not take any pains to see that they were even killing rebels), the Brits were gentle. This reminds me of a Muslim Pakastani work aquaintance of mine who said once about the British "Those SOB'show many people did they kill conquering India?" I didn't say what came into my head "way fewer than the Muslims did when they conquered India, because they did it by the sword and the Brits did it mostly with a pen."
You would never know from watching this propaganda piece that Gladstone, the Prime Minister at the time of the Mahdist uprising objected strongly to sending troops to Sudan because the Mahdists were "a people rightly fighting for their freedom."
I don't remember. Does the film say that the reason they launched the expedition was not to conquer anything or to stop the uprising, but simply to rescue Gordon, the British general who was trapped in Khartoum? I would be suprised if it did, because it might have made the British look somewhat sympathetic. -
batowich — 17 years ago(May 09, 2008 06:37 PM)
And even if the Britis empire were brutal (which they generally weren't), it doesn't follow that British soldiers, officers and christian missionaries were anything but brave and honorable on a personal/individual level unlike how they're portrayed in this simple-minded cartoon of a movie. But I guess that's a bit too much subtlety and nuance for your average Hollywood liberal to grasp.
-
jubilee200749 — 17 years ago(May 22, 2008 12:35 PM)
lets get a grasp on this movie and see it for what it really is and that is a film about passion to bring justice and peace to a region split because of the root of the belief system. Throughout this film you can observe all sides and their beliefs and passion. Of course you see those who had lost their values in the war and constantly warring to make place for themselves in the world. This movie is about nations and the culture of those nations. Propaganda is posts like this that declare it to be so with out the facts.
As for Britian being civil compared to other nationsI would ask which history class did you take? Britian learn their war tactics from the Romans and were not very civil. Did you forget about the Revelutionary War and the horror storiesCome on get the facts straight and back it up with citations. Otherwise, your words will not have any power or credibility -
ContinentalOp — 12 years ago(February 25, 2014 10:29 AM)
'' Did you forget about the Revelutionary War and the horror storiesCome on get the facts straight and back it up with citations.''
What do you mean? It would be a lie to pretend that the British dealt with the American Revolution with particularly horrific brutality.
And I am a hard leftist and anti-imperialist but the British Empire was not even as strict or brutal as most other empires of the time. The Portuguese were more brutal, the Belgium Empire was (and the privately owned by Leopold I Belgian Congo was a hellhole) and the French were too. But the British Empire was the most powerful, the biggest and the most iconic so people tend to think it was one of the worst. The worst empire of them all was probably that of the Japanese but luckily it was short-lived compared to the British Empire.
Formerly KingAngantyr -
Royalcourtier — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 09:35 PM)
"Britian" did not "learn their war tactics from the Romans and were not very civil". The British Army had its own traditions and tactics. In any event we are talking about ruling empires, not army tactics. And whatever do you mean by "Did you forget about the Revelutionary War and the horror stories"?
There is a racist and anti-European view about, meaning that the European and British colonial powers must be pilloried and abused. But what about non-European colonial powers? Virtually every nation on earth has expanded its territory by means that were either violent or without the consent of the occupied. The British empire was not only the most civil and beneficial for the occupied, but its expansion was very largely with the consent of the colonials.
However do not forget that Four Feathers is not about the British empire at all, but the Egyptian empire - specifically Sudan. -
-
dtechba — 11 years ago(May 23, 2014 06:37 AM)
Lord man the Boer Wars predated the Phillipines by 10 to 20 years. Even Churchill condemned some British conduct during the Boer Wars. I hold the British military in very high esteem but your ignorance of the historic facts as woefully naive. As for the American Indians, reservations are not concentration camps. Not that the conduct there by US forces was something to write home about.
-
ContinentalOp — 11 years ago(May 30, 2014 07:58 PM)
''I hold the British military in very high esteem but your ignorance of the historic facts as woefully naive. As for the American Indians, reservations are not concentration camps.''
They are pretty damn similar though. As were the POW camps in the Civil War, which predated the Boer War.
''Lord man the Boer Wars predated the Phillipines by 10 to 20 years.''
For someone saying that someone's ''your ignorance of the historic facts as woefully naive'', the claim can be made for you. The Philippine-American War was from 18991902 and the Second Anglo-Boer War (in which concentration camps were first used by the British Empire) was from 1899-1901. However, the Spanish used them in the Cuban War of Independence (18951898) before the US and the UK. And contrary to popular belief the Tsarist regime in Russia had the katorga camps, though you could argue that penal camps and concentration camps are different.
Formerly KingAngantyr -
dtechba — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 12:12 PM)
The Phillipine Insurrection did not end until just prior to WW1. It should be noted that the famed .45 cal semi auto pistol came from that conflict. It is known as the M1911 the 1911 the year it was approved for purchase.
-
ocoileain1890 — 17 years ago(May 27, 2008 05:19 AM)
"The British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked"
Centuries of State sanctioned brutality, religious and civic persecution, culpability through sheer neglect in in the artificial holocaust that was the 1845-47 famine, rapine, avaricious resettlement of the natives from their ancestral lands, god I could go on at risk of sounding like a broken record but what would be the point? 13 miles down the road from where I live British soliders indulged in the delightful little sport of Pitch capping that is pouring hot pitch, or tar (mainly used at the time for lighting purposes), into a conical shaped paper "cap", which was forced onto a bound persons head and then allowed to cool. Less elaborate versions included smearing a cloth or paper with pitch and pressing onto the head of the intended victim. The "pitchcap" was then torn off taking lumps of skin and flesh with it which usually left the victim disfigured for life. Wonderful! How to win over the natives! Instead such treatment goaded the peasant population into open rebellion as ill-educated (Because of a prickly little series of discriminatory edicts called the "Penal Laws".) farm hands took on canon and cavalry with little more than pikes. Slaughter ensuing.
Selective historical amnesia seems to prevail in the British educational system in relation to the history of Ireland. We'd been "asking" for our country "back" since the medieval period but quickly realised ones point of argument to be augmented no end with the fixing of a bayonet when dealing with the British. One thing you taught us well, might is right! But sure thats all in the past since we're "civilised" now. Well done. We're still dealing with the socio-political and physic poison of the occupation well into the 21st century. This country will never be right. Please do continue to live in your insular cotton wool feel-good bubble with wax in your ears or maybe I could recommend you some
books? Theres no excuse for remaining blind or indeed delusional in this information age.
