So how is it a 'retelling of history' when the portrayal of a particular culture is wrong?

It is a comic adaptation. And the storyline of the comic itself (like all graphic novels and comics) is really based very loosely on actual facts, with a heavy dose of fact-twisting in play (I am an avid comic/graphic novel reader myself).

People are incensed with the movie not because of what they are wearing, as your earlier example, but rather the portrayal of a particular mindset that wasn't true.

As to your assertion that it is not political - modern propaganda machines are far more subtle than your typical Stalinistic efforts.

I am now in a position where I deal daily with older teens, and I can safely say that a mindset bred on Hollywood movies and MTV doesn't really add much to the grey matter, nor do they possess the capability of separating the impression gained on a certain topic in the movies, from actual fact.

One can identify that a particular movie isn't actually factual, but the deeper psychological effect that takes root is harder to identify and it most often results in shaping one's idea of a certain topic - isn't that what propaganda is all about?

Additionally, as someone who is fortunate enough to be in the know of certain political agendas, I can most certainly say that EVERYTHING is political (not only in ours). A tool is a tool, regardless of whether it is a movie shown to the public. Taking entertainment as just that, is a fallacy.

You can disagree all you want, which you will doubtlessly do in the next few posts, but until I see sociological, psychological and political studies/reports that tell me differently, I will be inclined to hold a contrarian view to yours.

Have a nice day.

I did not call 300 pro-American.

In case you missed it, my post was a broadbrush sweep in general. It could be pro-Middle Eastern, pro-Singaporean, pro-Malaysian - whatever.

And good then, we'll agree to disagree.

'Rebuke' my post? You're joking, right?

Are we resorting to name-calling now?

Is it an assumption on your part or do you have concrete proof of my role as a 'propagandist'? I don't believe we've even had any sort of internet communication prior to this.

Yes, I have already said that I WILL hold a contrarian view to yours.

Again, I am unable to understand how you can assume so much with so little information about me.

Yes, to have them not equate it to politics is the general intention.

Yet again.

I did not bring politics to anything, did I? I was responding to your post that was already laden with politics.

And yet again. Do you even know me? Who ARE people like 'me'?

And you know that I don't because? And you know I 'hatch endless political skews' because?

---

It is pretty obvious that you are unable to have a civil discussion with a divergence of opinions without resorting to an infantile need to name-call and to assume based on a shallow intepretation of what have been posted.

As a 'peace-loving people', do you not find that neutrality is needed? Should you have any problems comprehending my earlier post, may I suggest that you read it again with an open mind - and not one tainted with your own personal bias.

I specifically said to YOU that you will doubtlessly disagree and that you will attempt to reply precisely because of the kind of response that was forthcoming - I have read your other posts in this forum. If I was as confident about the others' inability to hold a civil discussion, I would have addressed it to everyone - which I didn't. Nor did I feel that no one else would post replies to my post.

Unlike you, I do not feel the need to lambast every single reply that are polar opposites of mine, so please do note that I have mostly chosen to question/reply you on statements that have been directed towards me at a personal level, which I feel should have been unnecessary, given your self-admitted bias towards 'peace'.

Once again, have a nice day.