I seriously don't understand the issue with the depictions of the Zulu in the movie? They aren't portrayed as stupid, inept, or ahistorically. Does any movie featuring non-white indigenous people just get a warning, despite the content or context of the film?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
Outdated because it depicted Africans as relatively competent warriors who could use successfully use superior numbers to destroy a British column at the Battle of Isandlwana despite having stone age weapons? Instead of depicting them as completely useless like their modem counterparts?
Really Rorke's Drift was an absolutely amazing defense and by all rights they should have been wiped out like their compatriots at Isandlwana. It's no criticism on the Zulus that they lost.
It doesn't help 'the narrative' at all as it doesn't disparage either side, the Zulus were cunning and tactical while the British managed to turn their little outpost into a stronghold under very little time and hold out long enough to survive the seige.
So no vulnerable 'minority' (despite it being in Africa) and no Whites destroying innocent natives.