MovieChat Forums > The Revenant (2016) Discussion > Liberal Propaganda or the White Man Triu...

Liberal Propaganda or the White Man Triumphant?

posted 9 years ago by Enlil-An
24 replies | jump to latest

This is not your typical white-male, western hero. He's married to an Indian woman and has a Native American son, (both of whom are killed by white men), is betrayed by white men (his friends) and rescued more often than not by Native American strangers. In the hardest moments of his journey, especially when at the point of death, the wisdom of Native American philosophy pulls him through, most commonly in the form of sayings from his dead wife and the teachings of an Indian friend he picks up along the way.

There is a dream of his in which he finds himself with his Native son in a Christian church that looks like a WWII bomb fell on it. Other than that, he doesn't seem to have collected anything useful from his white-Christian heritage except fur pelts and a lot of heart-ache. He never utters a prayer (to my recollection), reads the Good Book or makes the sign of the cross. The only thing he and his comrades seem to be interested in is capitalism. The only time their Christian roots do surface is in the face of death - but never in the case of the hero.

The film industry's thought process is that in order to draw the crowd, they must cast well-known, white male actors for all the leading parts. However, for the sake of political correctness (and liberal bias), they attempt to compensate for this by throwing in a bunch of Native American extras and giving them the moral high ground, letting them spout off some great words of wisdom now and then, but not giving them the chance to be anything more complex. In the end, imo, both cultures get insulted.

[–] SerDarioTaranFulci 9 years ago

You do realize "political correctness" is most often used to not insult peoples cultures?

You have some interesting points but you have too much thinly veiled racist prejudice in your insight. Why is PC used as a defense shield to reject inclusion of non-whites? It is so bizarre. It's getting to the point where anybody who isn't white is accused of being in a movie for political correctness. People of color exist, get over it.

In real life he didn't have a son but he was very close to a tribe of Native Americans so it is not that far-fetched. I would say the wife and son were included more for dramatic American Hollywood fodder, not "liberal propaganda". What, was their choice to leave out the cannibals that he dealt with a liberal agenda to support consumption of human flesh?

Not everything is about political correctness and liberal bias. These are just buzz words for people who need to have something to feel angry and threatened about.

[–] Enlil-An 9 years ago

You do realize "political correctness" is most often used to not insult peoples cultures?

Yes, but you do realize that in less capable hands, political corrects does become insulting and just irks people.

You have some interesting points but you have too much thinly veiled racist prejudice in your insight. Why is PC used as a defense shield to reject inclusion of non-whites?

This "thinly veiled racist prejudice" is something you're reading into my post yourself. If you look at it more closely, you'll see that I never wanted Native Americans to be excluded. Just the opposite. I think they're being under-represented.

In real life he didn't have a son but he was very close to a tribe of Native Americans so it is not that far-fetched. I would say the wife and son were included more for dramatic American Hollywood fodder, not "liberal propaganda". What, was their choice to leave out the cannibals that he dealt with a liberal agenda to support consumption of human flesh?

I'm not familiar with the history behind the story so I couldn't say. Who were these cannibals? Why do you think they left the cannibals out?

Not everything is about political correctness and liberal bias. These are just buzz words for people who need to have something to feel angry and threatened about.

I don't believe everything is about political correctness and liberal bias. There are films out there with a definite conservative bias. But the fact that you jumped to so many wrong conclusions after reading my post makes me suspect that there isn't a film out there that you do believe is guilty of political correctness or liberal bias!

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

I love the film and have basically just come to terms with the Bias that runs Mainstream Filmmaking. It's just how it is.

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

You do realize "political correctness" is most often used to not insult peoples cultures?

On the contrary the most common use for it nowadays is to silence differing opinions by claiming they are racist, sexist or some other kind of -ist. Just like you did in the very next sentence.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

[–] ElPresidenteObamame 9 years ago

Very insightful, thanks for sharing!

Now, remember everyone, lunch is in 2 hours, and for those of you who have medicine to take this morning you can get your pills from Marge at the front desk... alrighty everyone have a nice morning now ok??? *buries head in hands*

[–] johnsonium 9 years ago

The type of people who would brave the frontier in 1823 weren't usually the religious type.

[–] Enlil-An 9 years ago

The type of people who would brave the frontier in 1823 weren't usually the religious type.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It has no historical basis whatsoever.

[–] Clatskanie 8 years ago

Seems like the Arikara fellow wouldn't of been belly aching about whites taking over his land in the 1820s. Weren't too many whites up around there then or so I recall.

The Arikara must of come to terms somewhat with their animosity towards the whites as at least three of 'em died while riding with Custer out on the Greasy Grass at the Little Big Horn fight.

LL

[–] Kyumonryu 8 years ago

The film industry's thought process is that in order to draw the crowd, they must cast well-known, white male actors for all the leading parts

Just like Idris Elba for Dark Tower, right?
Comeon get over the *beep* whitewashing whiny parade. There are fewer black actors nominated because there are fewer black actors.

...but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry.

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

compared to US demographics, there are actually more black actors with oscars than white ones. Its the Latinos that are truly underrepresented actually. And asians, but its ok to hate on asians because they dont whine i guess!

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

[–] Stigger 8 years ago

Democrats are simple-minded people, who strive to make unimportant issues, such as race and gender an issue whenever possible (i.e. Hillary Clinton reminds us that she's female every chance she gets and anyone who disagrees with her is labeled "sexist" by her fellow Democrats). Democrats don't concern themselves with important issues (i.e. national debt, national security, economy, terrorism), only differences in skin color and gender matter to them. That's why Democrats are quick to label any police shooting resulting in injury/death to a black person as "racist" (i.e. Michael Brown) even where race clearly isn't a factor (i.e. Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman). Democrats don't care about facts, such as the fact that Michael Brown was a lifelong thug who robbed a store, assaulted a store owner, disobeyed numerous police orders, assaulted a police officer, attempted to gain control of an officer's gun, charged at an officer with intent to commit bodily harm, etc. Democrats don't care about any of those facts, only that a white killed a black. Since Democrats lack moral values, they use such justified killings as an excuse to commit mass quantities of vandalism, arson, looting, theft, assaulting police and reporters, etc. to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to Los Angeles, Ferguson, Baltimore, et al.

Democrats will also go out of their way to cast Christians and white people in a negative light. That's why Obama often lectures us on the "atrocities" by Christians from hundreds of years ago, yet fails to even acknowledge present-day "atrocities" by Muslims. Unbelievable!

Oh, and Democrats don't believe in our Constitution and your right to free speech. Democrats are an emotional people who find everything offensive and therefore believe "political correctness" should trump your Constitutional right to free speech (unless what you say supports the leftist ideology).

[–] JdgMoonbox 8 years ago

Democrats don't concern themselves with important issues (i.e. national debt,

Interesting. So how is it that Obama cut the deficit by nearly a trillion? The last 4 Democrats had left lower deficits than they inherited, the last Republican to do that was Ford.

People who are genuinely concerned about the debt remember that under Clinton, taxes were higher, the budget was balanced, and the unemployment rate reached a post-Vietnam War record low. Supply siders talk about the "Laffer Curve," which says that beyond a certain point, tax increases so burden the economy that tax revenues actually drop. I can be persuaded that taxes were that high back in the 1970s (I support a different theory). After the tax increases under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made it clear that we were on the good side of the Laffer Curve, the Supply Siders resorted to the absurdity that ANY tax cut will bring in more revenue, as if we could abolish taxes and so much money would just drift into the government's nets that we wouldn't know what to do with it.

When you look at how the Republicans talk a good game about lowering the National Debt but refuse to touch a vital tool, they're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater because they don't like the movie.

Oh, and Democrats don't believe in our Constitution and your right to free speech. Democrats are an emotional people who find everything offensive and therefore believe "political correctness" should trump your Constitutional right to free speech

And that's a problem because...only conservatives whining about how Reality has a well-known liberal bias are the only ones entitled to suppress free speech? Even at the height of the Political Correctness movement in the late 1980s-early '90s, they were much less powerful than the Republicans who whined about liberal bias but in the 46 years I've been watching, have virtually never warned other Republicans that certain actions would give ammunition to this purported enemy. Listen to Republican complaints about the media and you'll think they want an equality of ends. Listen closer and you'll know that they want their ends to be more equal than others'.

This picture contains no physical depiction of the Godhead.

[–] Stigger 8 years ago

Stigger (as quoted by JdgMoonbox):

Democrats don't concern themselves with important issues (i.e. national debt,

JdgMoonbox:

Interesting. So how is it that Obama cut the deficit by nearly a trillion?

Evidently, you don't understand the difference between national debt and deficit. I'm not surprised.

But to answer your question about the deficit: Simple. He didn't. In fact, Osama (D) ran up a series of record-setting deficits. You don't get to go on a massive spending spree racking up record deficits then reduce your own excess spending and claim victory. Oh, and Barry Obama's deficits remain higher than ANY Bush deficit. Here, see for yourself...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

There's even a nice, pretty picture showing Osama's record-setting deficits for you to admire. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush’s highest annual budget deficit was $458 billion (~$25 billion less than Obama’s lowest deficit - $483 billion in the 2014 fiscal year). The average annual budget deficit during President George W. Bush's presidency was $250.7 billion.

King Osama (D) is a compulsive liar. He's lied to the American people more than 400 times (well-documented). You really need to learn that just because Osama (D) tells you to believe something doesn't mean you should. Sadly, that concept is lost on you. As such, you'll blindly believe anything and everything some other Demo tells you to believe.

But getting back to the topic of national debt, Hussein Osama (D) criticized President Bush for adding ~$4 trillion to the national debt. Osama Soetoro (D) called President Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" as seen here: https://youtu.be/DyLmru6no4U Funny how King Obama (D) will have essentially doubled our national debt from ~$10.5 T to more than $20,000,000,000,000, yet he's not "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic," huh?

Also funny how bin Barack rejected several GOP proposals to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt, huh? Osama bin Barack (D) has ALWAYS placed his ego and politics ahead of the American people.

People who are genuinely concerned about the debt remember that under Clinton, taxes were higher, the budget was balanced...

The economy thrived due to the dot.com boom. No one - not even you - could have screwed that up. The budget was balanced largely due to Newt Gingrich who fought to unite party lines in order to get it balanced. Clinton did, however, manage to leave our economy heading into a recession. His ego was go vast that he knew at least one full year in advance that gas prices would skyrocket, yet he did...nothing (because he knew he'd be out of office by then). Clinton only cared about himself and wanted to make himself look as good as possible by making the next president look worse - even if that next president was Algore.

Speaking of budgets, funny how King Soetoro (D) broke the law (several times, mind you) requiring him to submit a budget by a certain date. Oh, and why don't you look up how long it took Harry Reid (D) and his Democrats to pass a budget. Now, why do you think they went years...YEARS...without passing a budget? I'll give you a hint: they knew if you didn't pass a budget, then you couldn't be held accountable for surpassing said budget. Apparently, lack of honesty, integrity, accountability, responsibility, etc. are requirements for being a Democrat. Perhaps that's why both Slick Willie and Crooked Hillary have lied under oath.

When you look at how the Republicans talk a good game about lowering the National Debt but refuse to touch a vital tool, they're falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater because they don't like the movie.

Republicans are in a tough spot. If they do the right thing and all but eliminate entitlement spending, then they won't get enough votes to get/remain elected. After all, what do people (especially Democrats) value more than anything? Answer: handouts. Unfortunately, the Democrats' lazy attitude has even rubbed off on conservatives, who feel they shouldn't have to work in order to support lazy Democrats when they, too, can receive handouts. I can certainly see their point, but disagree with conforming to liberal laziness. What's even more troubling is how the Democrats actually encourage people to take government handouts. Their strategy is to get as many people (especially illegal Democrats) on the government dole as possible. "Let them all come here," said Nancy Pelosi (D). Yeah, imagine if she got her wish and our population doubled. Where would they work? Well, the Democrat never thinks that far ahead. In the mind of a Democrat, illegal Democrats can simply receive government handouts and everything will be just great. In reality, illegal Democrats are helping to destroy our country, but Democrats don't care. Under Barack Osama (D), we have a record number of people collecting food stamps, welfare and other handouts and a record number of people out of the workforce. That's not a good combination. But in the mind of a Democrat, Emperor Hussein Obama can do no wrong.

Even at the height of the Political Correctness movement in the late 1980s-early '90s, they were much less powerful than the Republicans who whined about liberal bias but in the 46 years I've been watching, have virtually never warned other Republicans that certain actions would give ammunition to this purported enemy.

Your comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

But I will say that liberal bias has existed for years - decades before the height of the "Political Correctness movement in the late 1980s-early '90s." Of course, the height of the "Political Correctness movement" is right now. Democrats now believe anyone who criticizes B. Hussein's policies must therefore be racist. Democrats also believe anyone who criticizes Hillary Clinton's policies (or any other female's policies) must therefore be sexist. As I said before, Democrats are simple-minded people and therefore lack the intelligence to distinguish between a person's race/gender and a person's stated policies. Democrats now believe males should be allowed to use the women's bathrooms. Democrats now believe school children should be allowed to use the changing and shower facilities of their choice. "Who cares about the vast majority?" says the simple-minded Democrat. 'We need to inconvenience 99.9998% of the population in order to appease a handful of Democrats' is their thinking. Emperor Osama (D) is trying to bring Section 8 housing [read: Democrats] into wealthy neighborhoods [read: Republican] in an attempt to be "politically correct" and ruin every neighborhood. Democrats recently rewarded a thug Muslim for lying about building a clock - one he intentionally opened up and rearranged to look like a bomb - and even invited that PoS to the White House and appear on shows such as Dr. Oz. In comparison, Democrats suspended students for taking a bite of a Pop-Tart, which the Demo said looked like a gun, and suspended others for making hand gestures in the shape of a gun. None of those events would have happened decades ago. Not one of our past presidents would have refused to call terrorists, “terrorists.” No other president would have called an obvious terrorist attack mere “workplace violence” as bin Barack has done in the name of "Political Correctness."

Listen to Republican complaints about the media and you'll think they want an equality of ends.

So you've been watching for "46 years" yet can't recognize liberal bias and the need to be fair, eh? Yep, you truly are the ultimate Democrat - not very intelligent, blindly believe everything some Demo tells you to believe without question, completely oblivious to reality, etc. I'll provide with you with some quick examples. CNN (aka the Clinton News Network) altered a pic of Hillary to show her glowing (as if she's a god), which can be seen here: http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Hillary-Clinton-Screen-Grab-CNN-6-8-2016-e1465414003812.jpg.

The Clinton News Network also conveniently cut coverage at the Republican convention just as Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw (who were victims of crimes committed by illegal Democrats) were speaking. The Clinton News Network didn't want you to hear the truth about the dangers illegal Democrats pose to our nation. They also don't want you to know how Hussein Osama (D) released tens of thousands of violent illegal Democrats back into our society. CNN and the leftist media as a whole have refused to report the dangers of sanctuary cities (controlled by Democrats, of course) which often harbor violent illegal Democrats (so they can commit more crimes). Gee, why am I NOT surprised?

Recently, a bunch of thug Democrats in Milwaukee behaved like thug Democrats for no legitimate reason. Typical. So the thug Democrats did what Democrats do best - commit crimes. These thug Democrats blocked traffic, threw bricks at police officers, shot at each other and cops/firemen, committed mass quantities of arson, vandalism, looted stores, etc. Oh, and since the Democratic Party has ALWAYS been the party of racism, it's no surprise that these thug Democrats specifically targeted and assaulted white people. That's typical, too. So how did the Clinton News Network cover the Democrat-induced riots? By intentionally editing the event to fit their racial narrative, of course. The sister of the dead lifelong thug Democrat (who refused to obey numerous police orders and refused to put down his stolen gun) recently spoke to the rioters. She encouraged people to stop burning down their neighborhoods, which CNN reported. However, CNN then immediately cut out her very next sentence, which encouraged her fellow thug Democrats to "Take that s**t to the suburbs! Burn that s**t down!” Not surprisingly, CNN praised her for her remarks.

CNN even cuts out their own reporters for making anti-Hillary remarks, as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhLXwkHtMns CNN obviously cut her feed on purpose, because they made absolutely zero attempt to bring the reporter back.

CNN got caught greatly exaggerating the attendance at a Clinton rally as seen here: https://sentinelblog.com/2016/08/03/media-exaggerates-size-of-crowd-at-hillary-clinton-rally/

Of course, CNN isn’t the only media outlet with a long history of liberal bias. Dan Rather worked at CBS until he got caught being a Demo and reporting false stories. ABC hired long-time Demo and Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos, who lacks the integrity to disclose donations he made to the Clintons (as if they needed any money). Peter Jennings got caught being a Demo at ABC. NBC intentionally edited George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call in order to fit their leftist racial narrative. Even ESPN has shown extensive liberal bias – fired a white male for exposing the stupidity behind the liberal gender laws [Democrats believe there are at least 29 genders in addition to male and female], yet had no problem promoting a black murderer. That's typical, too.

Leftist networks are catering to the stupid people. They want stupid people to just follow in line and blindly believe everything they're told. They don't want people to learn the truth - the truth that Democrats' policies have literally destroyed every city they control (i.e. Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Newark, Camden, Milwaukee, Baltimore, San Francisco, El Paso, Miami). Oh, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

Not surprisingly, the leftist network newscasts (ABC, NBC, CBS) devoted 50x more air-time to Khizr Khan [a Sharia-loving PoS thug Democrat who specialized in circumventing our immigration laws for wealthy Muslims] whose son was killed in combat in Iraq than to Pat Smith, who spoke at the Republican National Convention about her son who died in Benghazi. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/08/01/khizr-khans-trump-criticisms-receive-50x-more-time-pat-smith

But you don't see any that obvious bias or the need to be impartial, huh? I could go on and on and on and on and on and on...but since you’ve already demonstrated an inability to grasp reality, I’ll just stop here. But thanks for proving my point that Democrats don't care about important issues.

[–] jamalinoski 8 years ago

I see this kind of behavior on both "sides". Your bias is thick if you think conservatives don't stink from time to time. It's laughable how apologetic you are for Bush, he's a war criminal. I don't like Obama either, by the way.

[–] Stigger 8 years ago

Your bias is thick if you think conservatives don't stink from time to time.

Whatever you think some Republicans did, do, or will do, does NOT change the fact that Democrats lack integrity and moral values.

It's laughable how apologetic you are for Bush, he's a war criminal.

So you think Bush is a "war criminal," eh? That's hilarious! In reality, he's not, but that fact certainly won't change your mind. Oh, well...

[–] JdgMoonbox 8 years ago

In fact, Osama (D) ran up a series of record-setting deficits. You don't get to go on a massive spending spree racking up record deficits then reduce your own excess spending and claim victory. Oh, and Barry Obama's deficits remain higher than ANY Bush deficit. Here, see for yourself...

The link you give identifies the record as being the Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 2009. Almost 4 months of that was before Obama took office. The link doesn't say a thing about how much was in the budget passed before the 2008 election, and how much was added afterwards. I read elsewhere that for every dollar Obama added to the deficit, Bush was responsible for $5.30. I am not inclined to believe someone whose hatred is so overflowing that they can't get the President's name straight.

Also funny how bin Barack rejected several GOP proposals to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt, huh? Osama bin Barack (D) has ALWAYS placed his ego and politics ahead of the American people.

I am familiar with the Republican proposals. They always include cuts to popular programs when they can't sell the cuts on any other basis than the deficit is that urgent a crisis; yet they continue to call for tax cuts which WILL add to the deficit.

The economy thrived due to the dot.com boom. No one - not even you - could have screwed that up. The budget was balanced largely due to Newt Gingrich who fought to unite party lines in order to get it balanced.

So Gingrich's proposals made before the 104th Congress (1995-96) were responsible for the deficit reductions while the 103rd Congress was in session? The economy started growing under George H. W. Bush (unlike you, I can accept it when someone from the opposite party did something good.) and grew even faster before the High Tech Boom really took off.

So you've been watching for "46 years" yet can't recognize liberal bias and the need to be fair, eh?

I will recognize liberal bias when the Republicans start acting like they believe it. In all that time, don't you think that SOMEONE would have asked why the GOP keeps masochistically begging to be humiliated? The standard Republican attitude towards liberal bias is little better than Trump whining that people don't allow him to decide 24 hours after an outrageous statement that he was being sarcastic.

This picture contains no physical depiction of the Godhead.

[–] Stigger 8 years ago

The link you give identifies the record as...

The link I gave clearly disproved your claim about national deficit.

I read elsewhere that for every dollar Obama added to the deficit, Bush was responsible for $5.30.

And let me guess...you're dumb enough to believe that, aren't you? Be honest for change. As I've already shown, Hussein Obama's deficits have all been higher than Bush's highest deficit.

I am not inclined to believe someone whose hatred is so overflowing that they can't get the President's name straight.

You're kidding, right? Osama bin Barack can't even get his name right. He went by the name Barry Soetoro, which somehow became Barack Hussein Obama. So is Barry Soetoro his real name or is it Barack Hussein Obama? Evidently, he's so confused he doesn't know if he's afoot or on horseback.

Oh, and Barry Obama doesn't even know where he was born. Fortunately, Michelle Soetoro knows as seen here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHsSY1QQ0-g

I can't wait to laugh as you try to spin your way out of that one! 

I will recognize liberal bias when the Republicans start acting like they believe it.

Thanks for supporting my claim that Democrats simply aren't interested in facts.

[–] strawdawg 8 years ago

In case you got lost along the way, this is a discussion board about THE REVENANT. Not your angry right wing soapbox. So take your nonsense TO the soapbox.

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000044/threads/

give me a stage where this bull here can rage and though I can fight I'd much rather recite.

[–] Stigger 8 years ago

In case you got lost along the way, this is a discussion board about THE REVENANT.

Well, thanks for keeping this thread going. 

Not your angry right wing soapbox. So take your nonsense TO the soapbox.

If I'm spewing "nonsense" as you claim, then you certainly wouldn't have any trouble disproving even one of my claims. You had a golden opportunity to disprove anything I wrote, but failed. That's typical of your kind. But on the bright side, you did succeed at name-calling. That's typical, too.

[–] strawdawg 8 years ago

It is nonsense, but do you honestly think I want to argue with nutcase, windbag troll who loves to hear himself talk?

If there's one thing I can't STAND, it's one of these guys that has to make a dozen quotes from the poster he's arguing with to make his points.

Yeah, I'll pass, thanks. Argue with someone who gives a damn because I don't. We all know who's going to win the election anyway, and thank god.

give me a stage where this bull here can rage and though I can fight I'd much rather recite.

[–] firechicken 8 years ago

by Stigger

you're a fatboy who sits at home all day in his mom's basement typing up stupid *beep* try joining a gym, fatboy.

[–] sfrmiw 8 years ago

Cool story, bro.

[–] zpconn 8 years ago

I think that you make some good points which, nevertheless, don't really apply to this particular movie.

The Revenant happens to be based on source material where skin colors, etc., are already determined by historical fact. I'm not really sure what you're proposing they should have done. Surely you're not suggesting that the story of Hugh Glass shouldn't be filmed simply because it doesn't happen to fit into the race narrative that you want to see on the big screen?