9 Responses to “Emmerich Heads Back In Time For ‘10000 B.C.’”

1. Charlie James says:

   4:05 on 01/26
   10,000 BC Racist Historical Crap
   
   Director Roland Emmerich should be ashamed of himself.
   
   When will we get it right and stop putting this racist crap on the movie screens? Any historian will tell you that Egypt ( its part of Africa not the middle East) and the Tigris/Euphrates Valley has well-developed civilizations, even 12,000 years ago. And yes African or descendants of Ham first settled both of those societies. That’s why the original settlers in Mesopotamia were called the black-headed people.
   
   We have used the image of white people in furs, i.e. cavemen and women, as the image of early man so much that its hard to contemplate that African and Asian people were never cave people and yet their lineage is much older than Caucasians.
   
   We have an ongoing series about caveman where they boast of giving man the wheel and fire as they none of these things happened before whites appeared. Bull
   
   Our information about the history of man was put together during the early part of this century when white anthropologist were convinced that Africa and African people were insignificant. Even in this picture there does not appear to be any Black people other than faces in the crowd.
   
   The movie says that this was the first hero and implies that this was the beginning of man’s rise to civilization. Then it leads to pyramids and still no Black or brown faces.
   
   Caucasians had nothing to do with pyramids and nor were their any proof of any Caucasian presence in the early history of anywhere pyramids can be found.
   
   I don’t care about the Saber tooth tigers but I am tired of this racist twisting of history that refuses to acknowledge that Europe was actually the last continent to get civilization in 50 BC when Julius Caesar and the Romans invaded. Most of the Roman army was North Africans and blacker than I am because most of the original Roman territory was North Africa. Remember Hannibal a Black General of Carthage. The barbarians were originally the white tribes of Europe.
   
   Every scientist will tell you that man was in Africa first and was Black. Yet we still use the old anthropology scales that show the rise of man from ape to *@%@ sapiens and the *@%@ sapiens is always a white man in furs. My kids are very confused when I show them the truth.
   
   Why is all they can say? Why?
2. Dave Brown says:

   6:24 on 02/03
   You're right about a tendency to Eurocentrize history, but mistaken about some of the facts. Civilization flourished in Europe WAY before 50 BC. Classical Greek civilazion was flourishing in 350 BC, but can be traced much earlier. Hittite civilization preceded the Greeks by centuries. Rome wasn't formed in North Africa. It formed from an agricultural community in the Italian Penninsula in the ninth century BC. Some of the legions fighting under Caesar were indeed North Africans, but certainly not "most" of them. Indeed, much of North Africa aligned with Caesar's enemies, Scipio and Cato the Younger, who were defeated. I too bemoan the skewed history that has been promoted in the past, but lets get our facts right first.
3. david montoute says:

   5:34 on 02/04
   It looks as if it'll be even more inaccurate than Gibson's Apocalipto. Sure, there were civilizations in North Africa and the Levant in this general time frame (Jericho, plus recent evidence of a much older Sphinx) but nothing, i think, on the scale depicted here. Of course, we have the typical, well-manicured europeans representing the "leap forward" to civilization (read: agricultural slave societies) so intrinsic to Hollywood epics. Quite aside from the outrageous distortions, it simply looks like a terrible film.
4. John Severio says:

   11:57 on 02/11
   Its just a movie, and widely innaccurate as it is. For starters,, outside anything that could attributed as raciest is the fact that for all the imagery of Pyramids and such shown in the trailers, is the fact that both the Saber Toothed Cat(Smilodon) and what appears to be a type of Phorusrhacos bird are displayed. Both of these animals only appeared in North and South America, so that would lead one to assume this movie takes place in that region, so we should see no whites or blacks and instead Clovis people or some other form of primitive Native Americans.
   
   
   And Hannibal was not a Black General at all, Carthage was founded by Phoenician sailers so Hannibal was a semite. Though is possible he had some North African Blood in him, that cannot be for certain while the fact that he had Semite blood can be. Also it bears mentioning that roman paintings of him show him as being Arab or Semitic looking as well, and not black.
5. Andy Lea says:

   11:32 on 02/27
   Charlie James - no wonder your kids are confused if you've been telling them that Rome is in Africa.
   And "the descendants of Ham?" C'mon man, you can hardly criticise Hollywood for blurring history when you're using the Bible as your reference.
   If you want to enlighten your little un's get them to read Pope. "A little learning is a dangerous thing" might help explain both your misguided rantings and Emmerich's bonkers film.
6. John severio says:

   10:54 on 03/03
   The best that he said was that Ceaser and Rome invaded Europe, what a hoot. The Roman Republic had already been in creation for nearly 700 years when Ceaser took power, and he himself was a native of the Italian Region. When Ceaser took power, Rome had already grounded North Africa, the Middle East, Greece, and Egypt underneath its boot. And Rome itself was founded under even older European civilizations, such as the Estruceans and hmmm, the Greeks. Europe didn't see civilization till 50BC, what a crock, Europe has some of the oldest known civilizations known within its borders such as the Scythains, Greeks, Celts, etc, and who could forget Alexander the Great from Macedonian, a European country. Its not like he didn't conquer much of the known world by 333 BC or anything.
   
   Here is a clue Charlie James, next time you want to spew crap as fact, at least open up a history book and get a clue, Your history knowledge is as skewed as the one your trying to blast, Emmerich.
7. Tired of the Klan Klux Klu says:

   9:29 on 03/07
   actually egypt was founed around 10,000 bc so basically who knows mabye thi stribe found sit beforte you writeof things as arcist do your home work egypt stsrted when some cavemen said "heh why cahse animal;s and pick plants when we can pput them in an area and let them grow " this could happen ANYEHWERE and when you are taking history in the thonds there sno way to be that acuurt eegypt couldhav ebeen founed from any hwere from 10,567 bc to 10,001 bc and agin if you are going to uys eham as an exmple relize that hi srothersd shem and jpth spred out the sam etime he didi makign all thje rcaess of the smae age (unless ytou count the yer sbetween the three brothers in which case we dont know who was the oldest but sisnc 3they all stred colonizing at the same time i dont think that simportant )sand seroisuly even if they IDI stelle firstr the "black" features woukdnt ven kick in until a few gnertaions of naturl selction AFTER they setlled down since the humns ar estill wandereds in this movie who KNOWS what colr they were an drelly "race" dosnet even exist im mor eclosy realted to a random whit ewoman than my own 7th cousin (proived it )and if the romans invaed WHO did they invade you constrdict your self why dont you just adm,it your just as mucgh a racist as the klu klux klan or jim crow and IF men evolved that would mean they spred out FROM africa so tghey would get LIGHTER as they evolved an dye si know my typing sucks
8. mitsubishi says:

   5:49 on 03/08
   *#@$@%~~~*#~. I am an asian but u cunts have to understand that the director is making a movie, not a science project. hollywood focuses more on entertainment rather than historical facts. You people are what we call in urdu, PANCHOD. so stop talking about whether the cast should have been black or white or it should have been rome or sanfransisco and try to enjoy the effects, screenplay and the story line. Panchodo.
9. Fred P. says:

   11:12 on 03/09
   I appreciate your dislike of rascism in the movies, but unfortunately I must say that I don't think you saw the film. Admittedly, the European tribe depicted is clearly central in the film (note, however, that the tribe does not consist of the most European-looking Europeans).
   The African tribes depicted here are clearly at a significantly higher stage of development, and they even help the Europeans to go beyond the hunter-gatherer stage by introducing them to agriculture! The Africans are clearly presented in a sympathetic light.
   The Egyptians here are shown as a brown people.
   I will not defend the author's "free hand" in relation to scientific and historical principles, but this does not seem to be a rascist film.