NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9191643" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I want to briefly address this. First, I don't think that it is only possible for a show to have a good or accurate depiction of people if those exact people wrote it and directed it. This is fiction, after all. I do think, however, that if we are going to talk about shows that are great shows (in general), and great shows (in terms of an accurate depiction of indigenous people) ... then Reservation Dogs should be the starting point, not Yellowstone.That wasn't really the thrust of what I was saying, however. It was more an observation that it was very strange to me that a person would invoke the depiction of indigenous people as a reason to make Yellowstone immune from criticism. Let's put aside the actual merits of the claim... which, if you look around, you will see is more controversial than your source is stating. The actual point is this- Yellowstone is not about indigenous people in any meaningful way. It's about ... well, it's about certain mythologies of the west, and of history, presented in a soapy fashion, and viewed primarily through the lens of white ranchers. Which is fine! Some people like that. And people are also welcome to discuss the merits of the inclusion (and the accuracy) of indigenous people. But it's not about, or for, them, is it? So invoking them is kind of weird. Again, representation is a good thing, and it matters, but it also doesn't mean a show is (or isn't) good.</blockquote>

Verification