re: From a Historical Perspective, is Dunkirk “White-Washed”?

quote:

---

For frick's sake man? For actual frick's sake...

---

Forget it man.


He's on a roll

quote:

---

Russians had a lot of asiatic peoples

---

Western Chinese people are Caucasian.


That country is huge

quote:

---

Are you ok with all Romans speaking with a British accent?

---

Stupid comparison.

quote:

---

Western Chinese people are Caucasian.

---

That's not accurate. They are Turkic, not Caucasian. They may be white in skin color, but when discussing ethnicity, the color designation does a disservice to reality.

quote:

---

It might have been more accurate to make Slavic and non-Slavic distinctions, as I don't know if the Soviets would use the term "white," and thus finding records of the armed forces by that designation alone would be difficult.

---

I don't know what else to tell you - I have 60+ undergraduate credit hours in Russian language, history and culture. I had a working knowledge of the language for 5+ years and retain a residual familiarity. I studied with native speakers (Great Russians and Russian Jewish ex-patriates) for a year. I've translated for Russians. I've worked with Russians, Ukrainians and a couple of Byelorussians (White Russians, but don't let that throw you).

More expansively, I've worked with and around Southern and Western Slavs (although not as much as the Eastern Slavs, particularly Great Russians) - I can tell you, unequivocally, unhesitatingly that Slavs are white, they consider themselves white, and there is nothing to debate about it beyond that. Insofar as it even matters in the 21st Century.

Let's not try to make this something that it's not. Subcontinent folks are caucasian - I don't know if that makes them strictly "white" in modern PC culture's drive to make everybody in a minority box. Certainly there are many Indians, Pakis, Sri Lankans, etc., that are downright dusky. Ditto for Arabs and Persians - over there, they generally run the range, as do many groups in Europe that are on the Med.

But, if Slavs are non-white, there is no such thing as "white" people - unless you're using Hitler's Aryan definition, which is essentially limited to only Nordic and Germanic. This is widely rejected by anyone who is educated on this subject.

quote:

---

I was supporting what you were saying.

---

Sorry - I'm picking up on it now. For argument's sake, let's say "non-Slav" was all "non-white" which is, of course silly, because Georgians (Stalin wasn't Russian - he wasn't even a Slav), Armenians, etc., weren't Asian either. Even the Central Asian Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Kazazhs, etc., were not strictly East Asian (or they all weren't East Asian, for sure) - and those forces would have been heavily concentrated in the Asian part of the USSR during the war.

Now, did the Soviets have troops from the East serving in Europe? Certainly. Was it a very small percentage that went up against the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS? Yes, very small.

No, but he focused so much on the individual battles that it leaves out the real story of Dunkirk.

quote:

---

quote:
I can find no direct examples of people of color involved in Operation Dynamo,
==========
because there weren’t any

---

All the more reason for modern day pearl-clutters to write some into the script and make the whole thing a 'fight against white-privilege' thing.

Nothing that ever happened in history is allowed to not have the battle agains racism as its central theme.

quote:

---

Are you ok with all Romans speaking with a British accent?

---

Are you okay with movies like Braveheart where actors are speaking understandable English? Where do we draw the line?