Shaka Zulu vs. William Wallace pt 2
if yall remember i was hype for this episode and now having watched the episode im kinda blown Shaka lost. But I've heard some controversy talk and i fail to see it.
So there's been some controversy about this being a fair fight. Well fact of the matter is that it is a fight and generally fights arent fair. Its not about fair about who would win. Its not like we can go back and time give them some boxing gloves and let them have a fair one.
Frankly its like this. Deadliest Warrior is a show that takes warriors from different cultures and pits them against each other in the fairest way possible by analyzing their weapons and armor and well it was steel versus iron and ox-hide shields. From what i've watch from the show DW has been really fair with their representation by allowing the experts to come in and demonstrate. So i don't see how they could done better.
Remember its not a perfect system it is what it is.
But then again it could have been set up to that to reduce the prestige of Shaka Zulu and send the subliminal that african warriors were weak and reduce our pride in our culture.
*shrugs*
2 comments:
Hi.
Just stumbled on your blog and the DW site when looking up Scottish medieaval weaponry.
Have'nt seen any video footage only read your comments.
I know a bit about Wallace, but had to google king Shaka Zulu.
Couple of questions.
1.Why would the programme makers want to make african warriors look weak and infectual,you only need to look at the history and movies of the British/Zulu wars to know that this in not true. The Zulus's are portrayed as heroic, brave and skilled fighters, as they must have been.
2.why would you want heroise a king who slaghtered and tortured thousands of his people to satisfy his own ego?
thanks
Wish i would have found this site sooner, like after that show first aired. Anyway I'll make this brief my name is Mark Anthony and William Wallace though i liked the portrayal by Mel Gibson in brave heart. Would have stood no chance against Shaka at all. First the way Shaka would have fought would have been by the might and volume of his vast armies. Also they left out the most important aspect of Shaka and that is his intelligence. Before Shaka fought anyone he would have sent his spies to learn of his enemies and there fighting tactics among other things. He would have come up with new weapons as to meet this new challenge as he was used to coming up with new fighting styles and tactics as it was. So their conclusion is biased to the black warrior as history has been to the black man all along.
Post a Comment