Why does every "historic" film these days feel the need to always have a token Nigger?

Why does every "historic" film these days feel the need to always have a token Nigger?

you know why

>these days

kek

Pretty realistic that there would be a nig, injun, and Chinaman acting as rogue criminals during that time period. Due to the recent abolishing of slavery and the railroads coming though. Actually I'd say if Pratt plays an Irishman that's a goddamn really accurate portrayal of who would have been willing to take on the job the 7 do during that time. I don't understand what the problem is.

Let Britain explain

If every black person takes every white role, will all the white actors just start taking black roles?

They'll all have to start committing crimes in black neighborhoods.

No. The ideal number of whites is zero.

>niggers everywhere is a better world
>white genocide is a better world

>One Asian and five white dudes

How is baseball not more diverse than the NBA? Why are people calling baseball a white man's game? Are they counting South Americans as white again?

...

>implying you're interested in truth or logic or plausibility and not just whining like the right wing version of a triggered feminist beached whale

Why do stupid randomly capitalize words incorrectly? I see Sup Forums and yahoo answers experts do this a lot.

Oh, you probably know the answer to that one already. However, on the off-chance that you don't, don't click the spoiler don't click the spoiler don't click the spoiler

>Pretty realistic that there would be a nig, injun, and Chinaman acting as rogue criminals during that time period. Due to the recent abolishing of slavery and the railroads coming though. Actually I'd say if Pratt plays an Irishman that's a goddamn really accurate portrayal of who would have been willing to take on the job the 7 do during that time. I don't understand what the problem is.
Well, is there a backstory like this to the 'diverse' characters in this movie? Because if not, it's just diversity for diversity's sake, which is pretty fucking stupid.

See? Now you understand Britain

You're right that there probably existed a few individuals with that background, but if you grabbed 7 random gunmen in the wild west you'd be unlikely to even find one of them. Squeezing all of them into the same group is just silly.

When you neckbeards swallow down this stormfront propaganda do you analyze it at all? That image is filled with about every different type of fallacy there is, including outright pretending that the rest of reality outside of it doesn't exist.

...

We're in peak cultural marxist mode right now.

Breathe it in, it may be close to an end and we can look back at this as the joke it is

Britain is like 85% white thou. USA is 60%.

>By believing that there were black people in places there weren't, we'll somehow retroactively change the demographics of people that have been dead for hundreds of years

When did the left start being this delusional? I don't remember it always being like this. This is like the mormons trying to baptize dead people on a societal level.

That just makes Britain's bizarre circlejerking over nonwhties even more inexplicable

The wild west being inherently diverse is now a jewish conspiracy

You read that wrong. As dumb as those people are, they've really never been able to hold a candle to anyone on Sup Forums. Christ it's amazing.

I'll take the American's 40% over the 15% that's all criminals we have any day m8. We're in the shit and you better believe it.

This, post-Civil-War Western Expansion is one of the few eras where it's actually more realistic to have an ethnically diverse cast of Chinks, Negroes, Injuns and Mexicans than to have a completely white cast

It was diverse in the sense that it had lots of european people from different nationalities and cultural backgrounds.

Diversity doesn't mean "not white".

Why does this shit bother you so much? Why can't the actors merit stand on its own? Why can't you see past skin colour?

Liberals actually believe this

It was diverse in the sense that it had blacks, chinese, mexicans, and white people. Why does the alt right continue arguing even when they're objectively wrong? You make SJWs look like reasonable people, and a couple of years ago I thought they were the dumbest people who exist. It's really stunning that not a single one of you possesses even a simple respect for truth, or the higher mental faculties to feel shame over being a piece of human garbage.

Facts are not determined by your feelings. Do you grasp that?

literally of all historical contexts the wild west is the one that is most likely to have a diverse group of people
>asians, blacks, whites, hispanics and native americans
it may very well be the only cultural context where it's appropriate

/thread

What fallacies? The fact that "The Melting Pot" and "A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century" were both written by Zionist Jews and that all of the Jews listed were involved in the NAACP is well documented fact that can easily be verified.

>travel to europe
>britain is only white people with maybe a few pakis
>germany is only white people with maybe a few turks
That was the moment I realized that maybe, just maybe, Sup Forums is absolutely retarded.

>SJWs whose words have been put through Sup Forums's Victim Complex Translator v1.0 actually believe this

Fixed for accuracy. When you have to exaggerate what SJWs say you know you're a really deluded piece of shit. Why distract from how dumb they are by drawing attention to how dumb you are? Why not just be honest about what they're saying?

>Why can't you see past skin colour?
Try asking all those nigs complaining about white actors being cast to play Egyptian in movies like Exodus:Gods and Kings

because even hollywood has finally realised that black people have no worthwhile culture and need everything creative thought up for them by whites

>crusty left wing bootlickers trying to call others neckbeards

why do they do this?

Again you're making the mistake of assuming that just because they existed they were a significant part of society. Just like when people argue that black people were prevalent in europe because there were in fact a few merchants and other individuals travelling the continent.

Yes, they existed. No one is arguing that. But how many? If you want to argue facts you have to actually give numbers. Saying that there was a handful of individual is anecdotal evidence at best. That doesn't mean there was a significant number of them. If there was 1 black cowboy, 2 chinese and 12 native american out of 10,000 that doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that they were negligible.

You're the one arguing from emotions and not facts.

>I went to a few affluent tourist areas that were also heavily patrolled by the police 24/7 and didn't see many non-whites so therefore all of Europe is the same

Spend a few days in Birmingham or Malmö and then tell me if you still think that Sup Forums is retarded

The article literally says that diversity is their goal, and it's clear that it's by far the most important aspect of the movie. Most liberals think this way; you're full of shit.

Where did you pull those bullshit numbers from? You are wildly inaccurate and either you have no idea what the American west was like during that time or you're just being willingly obtuse.

Oh, and I don't remember you faggots bitching when your gay hero Clint Eastwood had a nigger playing a cowboy in Unforgiven.

That shit is racist. We need some affirmative action to get more whites, Asians and latinos represented in basketball.

There were a shit ton of Black Cowboys though.
Of all the historically inaccurate shit that gets by in flicks, a black cowboy isn't really one of them.

>It was diverse in the sense that it had blacks, chinese, mexicans, and white people.

Almost every country in the world has at least 1 black person in it. The Old West certainly wasn't diverse in any meaningful sense, and yet you want to justify the blackification of every aspect of American history because there were a handful of black cowboys and lawmen in this period.

Playing the "anti-SJWs are SJWs" card won't hide your agenda either, you crusty sperglord

It's really tiring to refute your bullshit, which I suppose is the idea. You spam your lies, hope no one is willing to waste their time explaining 1 + 1 to an imbecile, and then proclaim victory over the crickets. Seems to be the main strategy employed by brainwashed Nazis and creationists.

The Melting Pot as a phrase was not coined by that person, it was popularized by him through no choice of his own. It also describes a pre-existing phenomenon -- a person who puts a word to something is not in any way responsible for that something. In fact, the only time I've ever seen anyone stupid enough to claim this is neo-Nazis desperately trying to hold a Jewish person responsible for something.

A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century is literally a hoax perpetuated by someone attempting to associate the Civil Rights Movement with Communism. Congratulations on that bit of gullibility.

As far as the NAACP goes, a minority of the contributors were Jewish. Their titles are mislabeled as well, if you look up the actual founders of the NAACP through actual research, it doesn't line up at all with that unsourced image you posted.

Sup Forums is an embarrassment. Utter fucking morons of horrible character, probably horrible genes as well. Never seen anyone as dedicated to lying as you abortions are.

M8 there were massive numbers of freed slaves, Mexican cattlemen and Chinese miners/railroad workers in the Wild West during the time period that "The Magnificent Seven" is set in, that was well established historical fact even before the SJW historical revisionism era

>Movie

That's an article about the British TV show Doctor Who. Great reading comprehension champ. Your fucking opinion belongs in the gutter next to your mother's last abortion.

America has almost been importing minorities for a good 400 years, the UK just started like 40 years ago.

Because most Hollywood writers are hacks who can't create interesting characters without resorting to making them different races.

They use race as the basis for the characters personality- what makes this character different from the others? He's black! It's uncreative and cheap.

If you're talented, you can make a diverse cast of characters without ever taking their appearance into consideration. You can make a wildly diverse cast even if all the actors are the same race.

The fucking 'wild west' was full of fucking chinks and other assorted migrants it was people building fucking railways

>ultra-pc nonsense

You're an idiot. The Muslims birthrates mean that they'll dominate those countries before this century is over.

>There were a shit ton of Black Cowboys though.

Really? how many were there?

Really? how many were there?

So their birthrates never adjust? They are set in stone?

That's dumb as hell. The movie doesn't need to explain to you the historical background of the setting to justify having minority characters.

Oh gee it's almost like you're completely missing the point.

If you want to argue facts, provide the facts. You have no idea what it was like either, you're just assuming things and the only difference here is that I'm actually admitting that the numbers I just pulled out of my ass are fake. If you want to provide me with the real statistics to help support your argument then you should do so.

Yeah, those people existed. But it would be almost statistically impossible to find this convenient modern racial lineup is pure bullshit. You might as well add a talking dog to the cast.

Wherein 15 year old fedora spergs google "black cowboys" and post the first images they see as evidence a significant proportion of cowboys were indeed black despite this not being the case, and will post some variation of "DAE think le anti-SJWs are just as bad as SJWs?"

>Playing the "anti-SJWs are SJWs" card

You're not anti-SJWs, you are SJWs. Anti-SJWs are centrist libertarians, individualists, secularists, other assorted intellectuals who recognize their stupidity for what it is and correctly place the alt right in the very same category, albeit brainwashed into another extremist ideology. If I could summarize what unites SJWs and Sup Forums into a single category, it's that neither group has ever admitted they were wrong about anything ever, not even when it's proven objectively. Absolutely shameless scum. Every single one of you ought to be removed from civilization.

I don't care about your stupid Western culture. It's completely meaningless that it's from Dr. Who, if that's the case, you colossal retard. You even managed to miss the entire article until I pointed it out.

>It's a liberals cherry pick examples episode

You do realize that you're attacking the image, not the argument? Almost makes me think that you can't counter the argument so you resort to ad hominem instead.

Oh, and please kill yourself, leftist human garbage.

>these days
its been federal law in the US to have black people in movies since the 60s.

You just only became sufficiently racist to notice/care recently

>You might as well add a talking dog to the cast.

I'm not sure what's funnier, that you're so mentally ill you think this was a valid comparison, or that you're too stupid to be ashamed of making this comparison. This is what having alcoholic religious parents does to you. You compare literal violations of the laws of physics to "humans of varying skin colors standing near each other." Absolutely reeks of a moron who believes in Jesus. Anti-intellectual garbage.

Muslims have kids. They have lots of kids. I've never met a married muslim who didnt have at least 3 kids.

Well if we base our figures on the number of black cowboys that we have record of dying during that era (other record of their existence tend to be pretty poor) then a whopping 20% of cowboys were black. Being a cowboy was actually a dangerous, shitty and very low paid job, in other words exactly the kind of job that tended to attract freed slaves that couldn't find employment anywhere else

The black crusaders...
>yfw tracy morgan was right

>anyone who opposes the forced placement of ethnic minorities into culturally distinct facets of American history belongs to the alt-right

do you realise how utterly thick and delusional you sound? You've actually, unironically fallen for the Clinton campaign's claim that anyone who is a social conservative or who opposes multiculturalism belongs to this fringe element of the right. You are simply incapable of thinking for yourself so you throw out meaningless platitudes and buzzwords, a classic SJW tactic, and then label anyone who disagrees with you an SJW.

Of course it doesn't if the background of the character fits the story and/or the setting. It's been pointed out in this thread that this is probably the case for this movie, here for example It's different when a character with a certain background is inserted into a historical/social setting solely because some we wuz kangz quota needed to be filled.