"ventures" like a small business or is that a euphemism for taking bribes or said embezzlement?
"In 1767 the company bought off parliamentary opposition by donating £400,000 to the Crown in return for its continued right to govern Bengal. But the anger against it finally reached ignition point on 13 February 1788, at the impeachment, for looting and corruption, of Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the EIC on trial, and they did so with one of their greatest orators at the helm – Edmund Burke.
"Burke, leading the prosecution, railed against the way the returned company “nabobs” (or “nobs”, both corruptions of the Urdu word “Nawab”) were buying parliamentary influence, not just by bribing MPs to vote for their interests, but by corruptly using their Indian plunder to bribe their way into parliamentary office: “To-day the Commons of Great Britain prosecutes the delinquents of India,” thundered Burke, referring to the returned nabobs. “Tomorrow these delinquents of India may be the Commons of Great Britain.”
The revolving door between government and the corporations it was supposed to regulate, was also spinning:
"Lord Cornwallis, the man who oversaw the loss of the American colonies to Washington, was recruited by the EIC to oversee its Indian territories."
The above quotes are from "The Anarchy" by William Dalrymple.
I dunno. It just seems kind of sad, in a way, like we’ve dropped a whole entire way of being seen as intelligent.
Skip to the Historical Accuracy section of that page.
I said "drama" rather than "documentary" because I was sure there were storytelling compromises, but I agree with you that I think some of the compromises this section describes are not OK, when we're talking about real events and real people.
Knowing that the filmmakers made some choices that I think cross the line, I don't know whether I'd enjoy re-watching it, or just find the mistakes irritating to the point that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.
As the section goes on, it discusses some of the challenges (e.g., the need for composite characters), and some of the criticisms and dialogue around the filmmakers' choices.
There were historical inaccuracies, some of which I expected like timeline issues and things like that, as well some things which were actually true that I did not expect (John Glenn asking for the calculations personally). In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / science and tell a compelling story about people who helped us during a time before the Civil Rights Act. To call it "race baiting garbage" is overly dismissive and I think exposes an alarming personal bias.
No. Read the Historical Accuracy section. The movie made up a bunch of pointless racial conflict that literally didn't happen.
No it's not, the movie is virtually entirely about race relations at NASA and lying about what really happened there.
It's not merely the timeline but the substance, try reading it again. Nobody was every actually banned from bathrooms.