Well done Lawrence Fox!

That’s a bit of an exaggeration Chestnut but on LF I’m a 100% right.?

Well of course you're right suziewoozie. Anyone who thinks differently to you is ignorant, stupid, ridiculous, uniformed, and should be ashamed of themselves. This is what you regularly accuse other GN posters of. You are without question the only person who talks sense, is intelligent and informed and is always right.

The whole point of this thread sadly Iam is about defending LF because he trashed the idea that there was any racism in the coverage of MM. Any facts or rational arguments will cut absolutely no ice at all as the support for LF is based on prejudice and ignorance.

At lest 74,000 Indian troops died in WW1.
Trisher is absolutely right to criticise those who accuse Sam Mendez of tokenism. His film showed a number of black troops, as well as the Sikh travelling in the wagon with other troops.
Until relatively recently history was largely written by white men, from middle/upper class, that is, privileged backgrounds.
I applaud attempts to show that black, ethnic, minority soldiers were fighting with Britain in WW1 and WW2

Syc ????

The fact is that much of history has been witten by white people and the role of anyone of colour has been totally overlooked. It ties in unfortunately to the right wing idea that there was once a time when some societies were exclusively white, whereas in fact there have been all sorts of people living in this country for a very long time. You only have to look at the history of Mary Seacole and you realise so much has been wiped out. What you are calling tokenism is in fact an attempt to portray society as it actually was.

Suziewoozie your post is contradictory - read it

I also think tokenism is patronising.
I've seen 1917 and the Sikh soldier in question.
I assumed that his inclusion was historically accurate and did not question it.
It's a fact that Sikhs fought in WW1 so why SHOULD we question it?

And LF should keep his mouth shut now as he's looking more ill-informed and foolish by the day.

I think a lot of people think that putting a 'token' person of colour in dramas is patronising.

LF has already said that he didn’t realise Sikhs had fought in WW1 - that was the basis of his original stupid comment. And why is it patronising to portray diversity? Your white privilege is showing Sycamore

Terribull going back a few posts to your latter remarks re: Sikhs in ww1 I think what Laurence Fox was objecting to was tokenism in films accurate or not, it was the same in Darkest Hour concerning Churchill, it’s patronising!!!

In a small village in Normandy - S. Riquier- there is aWW1 graveyard, with row upon row of young men killed in a nearby battle. They are from a regiment known as Skinner’s Horse. The headstones have symbols for Sikh, Muslim and Hindu soldiers. I felt very sad, as I imagine few of their relatives were ever able to visit their final resting places.

It is dreadful jura2 but reading the comments under it is hilarious. I advise anyone to turn the volume down and just read. It's a great laugh.

Oh my- irrelevant to his racism, perceived or otherwise, but ...

youtu.be/BLkvtHwSyM4

how awful

So LF knows as much about racism as he does about WW1! There is a saying "Empty vessels make the most sound" LF personified!

Iam64 Today he's continuing to justify his nonsensical comments about WW1
Don't know where you heard that. I've just read that he has apologised on social media for the WW1 remarks.

He said: 'Fellow humans who are #Sikhs. I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour. Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.'

I am not defending him because as I said earlier I think he comes across as arrogant and entitled, but I think sometimes we all make throw-away remarks we regret and it shouldn't justify being abusive towards him. He made a mistake as we all do.

This is the problem, he has nothing of substance to say. Many people are interesting around this subject but he is not one of them.

He gets worse by the day. Today he's continuing to justify his nonsensical comments about WW1 and insisting he's the one being subjected to racism.
He's also looking worse by the day. I still think he needs a tonic - it may do him good to book himself into one of those lovely alternative therapy places, no substances, alcohol etc, lots of healthy organic vegetables and enforced relaxation. Fabulous. May be just a tad to woke for him though.

Persona non grata now National Treasure?
Taken over the role from Stephen Fry.

As a rule, actors’ careers survive anything.?
Remember Hugh Grant?

I wondered on QT whether he needed a tonic



Too many pre show gins in the green room maybe?

Although I agree with joelsnan regarding what he said. He did say why place one Sikh soldier in a film as it’s tokenism. However, I think he should have kept quiet on that one,

I think he’s shot himself in the foot with the Sikh comments.

There's another piece in the DM on line this morning. Mr Fox now says he didn't know that Sikh's fought in WW1 because "I'm not a historian".

The DM piece includes a number of photographs showing Sikh's, Indians, Black soldiers from African colonies. Some of the photographs show them in their own regiments, others show them standing with white soldiers. The Manchester regiment, amongst others, included Sikh soldiers rather than them be put into a different Regiment.

Mr F is out of his depth as a social or historical commentator. As an aside, am I alone in thinking he's looking rough. I wondered on QT whether he needed a tonic

about