On March 8, in the midst of the global Coronavirus crisis, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf offered a bright, glittering antidote to the fear and uncertainty of Covid-19 with the International Women’s Day (IWD) launch of the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Center on Women and Development.

The Monrovia-based center aims to advance women’s public leadership in Africa with an emphasis on political participation.

The launch was not a moment too soon for Angela O., still haunted by the memory of going to bed elated that she had won her primary but waking up  to read in the newspaper that her party had named her opponent as its election standard bearer.  Or for Catherine W., named one of the ten best finance ministers in Africa, but summarily dismissed from the cabinet for opposing corruption and having the audacity to argue with her president for needed reforms.

As the first and only democratically elected female African president, “President Ellen” remains an iconic role model and inspiration to countless women across the continent.  And she hasn’t let them down.  She is using her 2017 Mo Ibrahim Democracy Award of $500,000 a year for ten years and an additional $200,000 per year for public interest projects for up to ten years, to methodically develop a plan for a Liberia-based center with a mission to promote African women’s leadership in the public arena, especially in politics.

The Center’s first project, Amujae (a Kru word meaning moving up together), brings together 15 up-and-coming women leaders from across the continent–Anglophone, Francophone and Lusaphone– for a long weekend three times a year to meet with senior leaders and veteran women politicians to give the younger women new skills and deeper insights into the complex role of a female leader.

To underscore the gravity and urgency of the Center’s mission Ellen invited former Malawi President Joyce Banda and former Central African Republic President Catherine Samba-Panza to join her for the workshop and launch.

The workshop’s carefully curated curriculum was a rich mix of practical sessions and intimate meetings with the women presidents.  In one session on women and the media participants learned that the mere mention of what the candidate wore dropped her polling numbers by six to eight percent.  What to do!!

Listen to and learn from your elders:  The highlight of the weekend was the full participation of the three women presidents.  Each of them had been harassed, jailed and/or violently attacked.  Yet each has summoned the courage to face the unimaginable vitriol and ultimately prevail to manage complex post-conflict recoveries, govern democratically and advance their countries’ economies. Their willingness to spend hours with the younger women, patiently answer their questions and offer advice grounded in gritty experience gave the younger women concrete take-aways.  As a bonus, the younger women learned the power of storytelling and the importance of controlling their own narratives.

To launch the Center on international Women’s Day,  Ellen invited African leaders from across the continent, including Bineta Diop, AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security; Finda E.M. Koroma, the (first female) vice president of ECOWAS;  K.Y. Amoako, president and CEO of ACET, Africa’s premier economic think tank;  Antoinette Sayeh, the Liberian economist and former Minister of Finance, who has just been named Deputy Managing Director of the IMF;  and countless other high profile African dignitaries.

The three former women presidents were joined by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Liberian President George Weah and other senior Liberian officials including former Liberian President Amos Sawyer and Senator Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence, the only female Senator in the Legislature.

Former President Obasanjo spoke for the entire assemblage when he noted that Ellen had raised the bar for other African presidents’ post-office achievements.  Equally important, she inaugurated and ensured a stellar pipeline of accomplished, confident women ready for senior leadership for decades to come.

The second important component of the EJS Center is its archives, an ongoing effort to collect and preserve Ellen’s papers.  In an era that demands documentation, the archives will encourage female literacy as well as comprise a permanent record of her legacy.  The Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Foundation, a U.S.-based complement to the EJS Center, has been established to support the archives.

The IWD launch of the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Center for Women and Development was a watershed for Africa, especially its women.  When Angela, Catherine and their 13 counterparts departed Liberia, they left armed with a personal development plan, new strategies for enhanced political participation, a tensile network of likeminded women activists and a confidence that only caring former female presidents could bestow on their potential successors.

The weekend stretched and strengthened the 15 women participants in ways that not even the Coronavirus could tarnish, for the EJS Center is a gift that will keep on giving, continuously nurturing women leaders and enriching the continent.

Vivian Lowery Derryck is Founder and President Emerita of The Bridges Institute – Strengthening African Democracy through Global Partnerships. She previously served as Assistant Administrator for Africa of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of State, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Negro Women, Vice President of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and President of the African-American Institute.

Source

Trusted News Since 1995

A service for global professionals · Friday, March 20, 2020 · 512,544,607 Articles · 3+ Million Readers

Source

Equity apologised to Laurence Fox on Friday and agreed an out of court settlement for calling him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time interview back in January. 

But the UK actors union’s apology has sparked conflict within the organisation and the WHOLE of the Race Equality Committee have resigned. 

Tweets branded Laurence, 41, a ‘disgrace’ after he questioned the presence of Sikh soldiers in Sam Mendes movie, 1917, and said the media’s treatment of the Duchess Of Sussex was not racist.

They were posted by Equity’s Minority Ethnic Members’ Committee (renamed the Race Equality Committee).

Chairman Daniel York Loh announced that he has resigned from his position, saying the apology was ‘not in my name’.

He tweeted: ‘Equity and Laurence Fox can issue as many joint statements and apologies as they like. It’s nothing to do with me and I apologise for nothing #NotInMyName.’

The committee said that ‘all members of Equity’s recently renamed Race Equality Committee (formerly the Equity Minority Ethnic Members Committee) feel we have no choice but to resign as committee members’. 

Laurence received an apology from Equity, the UK actors union, on Friday, after they called him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time appearance in January. 

Equity apologised on social media and have agreed an out of court settlement with Fox writing that ‘it was a mistake for the organisation to criticise him in this way.’ 

They penned: ‘On 17 January a series of tweets were posted by the @EquityMEM Twitter account about Laurence Fox’s appearance on BBC Question Time. 

‘We are sorry that in the tweets he was called a ‘disgrace’ by Equity. It was a mistake for Equity as an organisation to criticise him in this way. 

‘Nothing in Equity’s later statement was intended as a slur on his character or views or to suggest that he should be denied the ability to work.

‘We would like to make that clear. Equity and Laurence Fox condemn prejudice unequivocally in all its forms.’ 

He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’.

He sparked controversy when he responded to a claim from an audience member that the media’s treatment of the Duchess of Sussex amounted to ‘racism’.

He said: ‘It’s not racism … we’re the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe. t’s so easy to throw the charge of racism and it’s really starting to get boring now.’

The audience member then described Fox as a “white, privileged male”, to which he responded: ‘To call me a white, privileged male is to be racist.’

The episode received more than 250 complaints and sparked a social media backlash, which Fox called ‘water off a duck’s back’.

Fox, who was previously married to actress Billie Piper, said he had received death threats and had suffered from ‘temporary insomnia’ after his appearance.

He later hit out at black and working-class actors for complaining about the industry once they have ‘five million quid in the bank’ before saying he was signing off Twitter because ‘I have to turn this noise off for a while’.

Meanwhile, a source close to Laurence also told MailOnline: ‘Equity have finally apologised and agreed an out of court settlement with Laurence after calls for him to be “unequivocally denounced” by the equity minority members committee. 

‘He is pleased and grateful to Equity for this decision. He looks forward now to moving on in his professional and personal life after what has been a very difficult period for him and his family.’

Laurence himself also took to Twitter on Friday morning ahead of the announcement, following a 19 day social media break. 

He said: ‘I thought I’d let you know that I have an update in regards to my situation that I will share with you at around 9am.’

Then, following Equity’s post, he wrote: ‘Hopefully this might an opportunity for us to continue to celebrate diversity in all its forms. Including diversity of opinion.’ 

Piers Morgan then wrote: ‘Finally… this was a shameful way to treat @LozzaFox for having the audacity to express an opinion. Good to see @EquityUK acknowledge how wrong it was. Free speech matters.’

Laurence had apologised to the Sikh community but in a follow up tweet said ‘I stand by everything else I said’.

The outspoken actor made the comment about the critically-acclaimed film and Sikhs in a podcast on Saturday while being interviewed by James Delingpole.

Mr Fox was a guest panellist on Question Time last week when an audience member called him a ‘white, privileged male’ and he called her description of him racist.

The actor has also previously said that ‘woke’ people are ‘fundamentally racist’.

Fox – who railed against identity politics on Question Time – told Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio that the country is tired of being told it’s racist in an appearance on Monday.

He also spoke about his dispute with singer Lily Allen who she was ‘sick to death’ of ‘luvvies’ like Fox who are guilty of ‘forcing their opinions on everybody else’.

She added: ‘He’ll never have to deal with what normal people have to deal with in his gated community.’

She concluded the rant by saying that he should ‘stick to acting mate, instead of ranting about things you don’t know about’.

Fox mocked her statement, saying that she had a ‘privileged’ upbringing herself and pointing out he doesn’t live in a gated community.

He said sarcastically on Talk Radio: ‘She’s had a pretty privileged upbringing but she speaks for the common man doesn’t she.’

Mr Fox also slammed ‘woke’ culture, a term that originally was used to positively convey an alertness to oppression but is now also used derisively as a term for those who argue that white privilege stops people like Fox being able to see racism.

Fox also said that it was the woke who are actually guilty of racism against the white people they accuse.

‘What they are accusing you of is what they are,’ he said. ‘They are everything they accuse you of. The wokist are fundamentally racist.’ He added: ‘Identity politics is extremely racist.’

When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the next day about whether the inclusion of the character was historically out-of-place, he replied: ‘I’m not a historian I don’t know.’

Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance told MailOnline that Fox should ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’ 

The Lewis star had then posted on his Twitter account and apologised for the ‘clumsy way’ he expressed himself. 

He had said: ‘Fellow humans who are #Sikhs. I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.

‘Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.’

But in a follow up tweet soon after, he said: ‘I stand by everything else I said and will continue to do so. Sleep well.’

The epic film follows two young British soldiers tasked with traversing no-man’s land with a message as the Germans pull back from the Western Front.

The Lewis star said that ‘forcing diversity on people’ is ‘institutionally racist’ after saying that the inclusion of Nabhaan Rizwan portraying Sepoy Jondalar was not in keeping with the film’s surroundings.

Speaking on podcast, The Delingpod, Mr Fox said: ‘It’s very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin because of the oddness in the casting. Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier.

‘Which is great, it’s brilliant, but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘ok’. You’re now diverting me away from what the story is.’

The truth behind 1917’s Sikh soldier: Troops from the Empire DID fight in same regiments as the British in WWI as top historian slams Laurence Fox over claim Sam Mendes’ blockbuster was ‘racist’ for including Indian recruits

By Mark Duell and Shekhar Bhatia for MailOnline

Soldiers from foreign countries served shoulder-to-shoulder alongside British forces in the same regiments during the First World War, military experts said today.

More than three million soldiers and labourers from across the British Empire joined the British Army in their own regiments during the conflict from 1914 to 1918.

But other foreign soldiers also fought within British regiments, it emerged after actor Laurence Fox criticised the ‘incongruous’ inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the film 1917.

Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance said Sikhs and other Indians fought with the British Army corps, such as the 1st Manchesters and the 47th Sikhs fighting as one. 

Mr Bance today told Fox to ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’

He told MailOnline: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.’ 

The details come after Fox questioned the storyline of 1917 over Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan, being in the ranks of British forces.

Fox, 41, told writer James Delingpole’s podcast that it causes ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’. 

Around 1.5million men were recruited from India, while Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland gave a further 1.3million soldiers.

Some men from the West Indies served in regular British Army units, but most of the 15,000 involved were in their own regiments and served in France, Italy and Africa.

Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine; African troops helped contain the Germans in East Africa; and Newfoundlanders fought at the Somme.

Mr Bance said of Fox’s comments: ‘This has nothing to do with diversity, history is history and we can’t distort it for a film. Over 1.5million Indians fought in World War One, over 80,000 Indians died.

‘Sam Mendes should be commended as finally World War One films are becoming historically accurate, as earlier films totally ignored the presence of Sikh and other colonial soldiers who fought for the Empire alongside the British

‘Laurence’s comments are totally out of context as the presence of one Sikh is not to distract the audience but to give historical accuracy which most World War One films lack.

‘When over 1.5 million Indian soldiers fought in this campaign, how can showing one Sikh soldier be distracting?’

Mr Bance added: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.

‘For example The 1st Manchesters were fighting with members of the 47th Sikhs brigade as one.

‘And the 7th Ferozepur Brigade consisted of 47th Sikhs and the London Brigade.

‘Sikhs not only fought from within their own Sikh regiments but they were also in the Punjabi Regiments, cavalry, sappers and miners regiments as well.

‘There was also Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who were present in British Army service corps working as labourers too.’

MailOnline has approached Sir Sam Mendes’s representatives for a comment. 

Britain started the war with 700,000 trained soldiers, before thousands of untrained volunteers also signed up in 1914 and conscription was introduced two years later. 

But the size of the military was also significantly bolstered by forces from across the Empire – which later became the Commonwealth – all of which had backed Britain after it declared war against Germany.

The Indian sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914.

In 1915, Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and alongside British, Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli.

Some 1.27million Indians voluntarily served as combatants and labourers, also helping Allied forces occupy former enemy territory in East Africa and the Balkans.

Dr Simon Walker, a military historian at the University of Strathclyde, said: ‘The remarks by Fox are very much ill informed.’

He said more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in service in the First World War, and claimed they were of ‘paramount importance’ at key battles including Ypres in 1914, Neuve Chappelle and Gallipoli.

The expert said soldiers from different races were mainly separate at the start of the war, but this changed as huge losses meant men were transferred around the various battle grounds.

Dr Walker added: ‘Therefore by the middle of the war it would not be unusual for sikh soldiers to serve side by side with their British comrades, as was necessitated by the demands of the war and losses.

‘This was visible in Britain, as burial practices were briefly changed to allow open air cremation for such soldiers.’

African troops were also involved in containing the Germans in East Africa and defeating them in West Africa – in an area where Europeans had struggled in the hot climate.

By the end of the war, the ‘British Army’ in East Africa was mainly soldiers from Nigeria, Gold Coast (Ghana), Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland (Malawi).

Some 60,000 labourers came from South Africa, but black South Africans were only allowed a logistical role because the country’s government feared arming them.

White South African units were sent to the Western Front and 3,153 were involved in a battle at Delville Wood on the Somme in July 1916, with only 750 left unharmed.

Around 15,000 men from the Caribbean enlisted, with a few serving in regular British Army units – although most were in the West India Regiment and the British West Indies Regiment. 

They served in France, Italy, Africa and the Middle East. 

Canada also made a huge contribution to the war, with the Canadian Expeditionary Force fighting in most of the major battles on the Western Front from 1915.

They were at the Somme, Passchendaele and in the Hundred Days offensives of 1918. Nearly 10 per cent of the 620,000 Canadians who enlisted were killed in the war.

Newfoundland, which only became part of Canada in 1949, fought at Gallipoli in 1915, but was almost wiped out at Beaumont Hamel on the Somme the next year.

And more than 410,000 Australians served in the war, suffering about 200,000 casualties in campaigns at Gallipoli, on the Western Front and in the Middle East.

New Zealand forces helped Australia capture Germany’s colonies in the Pacific and fought on the Western Front, with 5 per cent of the country’s men aged 15-49 killed.

The Sikh Network, a collective of Sikh activists and professionals in Britain, also hit out at Fox – saying his remarks were ‘offensive’ and needed retraction.

Manvir Bhogal from the organisation told MailOnline: ‘Thousands of Sikhs saw battle at the front line and many died. It is highly offensive and inappropriate for Laurence Fox to term the inclusion of a single Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes’ production in order to at least represent the extent of war with a microcosm of diversity of historic fact as ‘incongruous’ .

‘It is outrageous and of deep hurt to Sikhs not just in the UK but throughout the world and to the rest of those whose communities were forcibly sent to war.

‘His comments should be retracted with an apology immediately.’

‘Where this doesn’t take place, it marginalizes entire communities that, in this case, made a huge sacrifice and contribution to the welfare and protection of freedoms for all mankind despite the oppression being faced due to European imperialism itself back home.’

Earlier this week, Fox told Mr Delingpole’s podcast that the Sikh character distracted from what the story was about.

He questioned the credibility of the storyline and said the casting of Rizwan caused ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.

He praised the performance of Rizwan himself, saying it was ‘great’, adding that the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the ranks ‘didn’t bother me particularly’.

But he added that the inclusion ‘did sort of flick me out of what is essentially a one-shot film [because] it’s just incongruous with the story’.

Source

Equity apologised to Laurence Fox on Friday and agreed an out of court settlement for calling him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time interview back in January. 

But the UK actors union’s apology has sparked conflict within the organisation and the WHOLE of the Race Equality Committee have resigned. 

Tweets branded Laurence, 41, a ‘disgrace’ after he questioned the presence of Sikh soldiers in Sam Mendes movie, 1917, and said the media’s treatment of the Duchess Of Sussex was not racist.

They were posted by Equity’s Minority Ethnic Members’ Committee (renamed the Race Equality Committee).

Chairman Daniel York Loh announced that he has resigned from his position, saying the apology was ‘not in my name’.

He tweeted: ‘Equity and Laurence Fox can issue as many joint statements and apologies as they like. It’s nothing to do with me and I apologise for nothing #NotInMyName.’

The committee said that ‘all members of Equity’s recently renamed Race Equality Committee (formerly the Equity Minority Ethnic Members Committee) feel we have no choice but to resign as committee members’. 

Laurence received an apology from Equity, the UK actors union, on Friday, after they called him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time appearance in January. 

Equity apologised on social media and have agreed an out of court settlement with Fox writing that ‘it was a mistake for the organisation to criticise him in this way.’ 

They penned: ‘On 17 January a series of tweets were posted by the @EquityMEM Twitter account about Laurence Fox’s appearance on BBC Question Time. 

‘We are sorry that in the tweets he was called a ‘disgrace’ by Equity. It was a mistake for Equity as an organisation to criticise him in this way. 

‘Nothing in Equity’s later statement was intended as a slur on his character or views or to suggest that he should be denied the ability to work.

‘We would like to make that clear. Equity and Laurence Fox condemn prejudice unequivocally in all its forms.’ 

He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’.

He sparked controversy when he responded to a claim from an audience member that the media’s treatment of the Duchess of Sussex amounted to ‘racism’.

He said: ‘It’s not racism … we’re the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe. t’s so easy to throw the charge of racism and it’s really starting to get boring now.’

The audience member then described Fox as a “white, privileged male”, to which he responded: ‘To call me a white, privileged male is to be racist.’

The episode received more than 250 complaints and sparked a social media backlash, which Fox called ‘water off a duck’s back’.

Fox, who was previously married to actress Billie Piper, said he had received death threats and had suffered from ‘temporary insomnia’ after his appearance.

He later hit out at black and working-class actors for complaining about the industry once they have ‘five million quid in the bank’ before saying he was signing off Twitter because ‘I have to turn this noise off for a while’.

Meanwhile, a source close to Laurence also told MailOnline: ‘Equity have finally apologised and agreed an out of court settlement with Laurence after calls for him to be “unequivocally denounced” by the equity minority members committee. 

‘He is pleased and grateful to Equity for this decision. He looks forward now to moving on in his professional and personal life after what has been a very difficult period for him and his family.’

Laurence himself also took to Twitter on Friday morning ahead of the announcement, following a 19 day social media break. 

He said: ‘I thought I’d let you know that I have an update in regards to my situation that I will share with you at around 9am.’

Then, following Equity’s post, he wrote: ‘Hopefully this might an opportunity for us to continue to celebrate diversity in all its forms. Including diversity of opinion.’ 

Piers Morgan then wrote: ‘Finally… this was a shameful way to treat @LozzaFox for having the audacity to express an opinion. Good to see @EquityUK acknowledge how wrong it was. Free speech matters.’

Laurence had apologised to the Sikh community but in a follow up tweet said ‘I stand by everything else I said’.

The outspoken actor made the comment about the critically-acclaimed film and Sikhs in a podcast on Saturday while being interviewed by James Delingpole.

Mr Fox was a guest panellist on Question Time last week when an audience member called him a ‘white, privileged male’ and he called her description of him racist.

The actor has also previously said that ‘woke’ people are ‘fundamentally racist’.

Fox – who railed against identity politics on Question Time – told Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio that the country is tired of being told it’s racist in an appearance on Monday.

He also spoke about his dispute with singer Lily Allen who she was ‘sick to death’ of ‘luvvies’ like Fox who are guilty of ‘forcing their opinions on everybody else’.

She added: ‘He’ll never have to deal with what normal people have to deal with in his gated community.’

She concluded the rant by saying that he should ‘stick to acting mate, instead of ranting about things you don’t know about’.

Fox mocked her statement, saying that she had a ‘privileged’ upbringing herself and pointing out he doesn’t live in a gated community.

He said sarcastically on Talk Radio: ‘She’s had a pretty privileged upbringing but she speaks for the common man doesn’t she.’

Mr Fox also slammed ‘woke’ culture, a term that originally was used to positively convey an alertness to oppression but is now also used derisively as a term for those who argue that white privilege stops people like Fox being able to see racism.

Fox also said that it was the woke who are actually guilty of racism against the white people they accuse.

‘What they are accusing you of is what they are,’ he said. ‘They are everything they accuse you of. The wokist are fundamentally racist.’ He added: ‘Identity politics is extremely racist.’

When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the next day about whether the inclusion of the character was historically out-of-place, he replied: ‘I’m not a historian I don’t know.’

Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance told MailOnline that Fox should ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’ 

The Lewis star had then posted on his Twitter account and apologised for the ‘clumsy way’ he expressed himself. 

He had said: ‘Fellow humans who are #Sikhs. I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.

‘Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.’

But in a follow up tweet soon after, he said: ‘I stand by everything else I said and will continue to do so. Sleep well.’

The epic film follows two young British soldiers tasked with traversing no-man’s land with a message as the Germans pull back from the Western Front.

The Lewis star said that ‘forcing diversity on people’ is ‘institutionally racist’ after saying that the inclusion of Nabhaan Rizwan portraying Sepoy Jondalar was not in keeping with the film’s surroundings.

Speaking on podcast, The Delingpod, Mr Fox said: ‘It’s very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin because of the oddness in the casting. Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier.

‘Which is great, it’s brilliant, but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘ok’. You’re now diverting me away from what the story is.’

The truth behind 1917’s Sikh soldier: Troops from the Empire DID fight in same regiments as the British in WWI as top historian slams Laurence Fox over claim Sam Mendes’ blockbuster was ‘racist’ for including Indian recruits

By Mark Duell and Shekhar Bhatia for MailOnline

Soldiers from foreign countries served shoulder-to-shoulder alongside British forces in the same regiments during the First World War, military experts said today.

More than three million soldiers and labourers from across the British Empire joined the British Army in their own regiments during the conflict from 1914 to 1918.

But other foreign soldiers also fought within British regiments, it emerged after actor Laurence Fox criticised the ‘incongruous’ inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the film 1917.

Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance said Sikhs and other Indians fought with the British Army corps, such as the 1st Manchesters and the 47th Sikhs fighting as one. 

Mr Bance today told Fox to ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’

He told MailOnline: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.’ 

The details come after Fox questioned the storyline of 1917 over Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan, being in the ranks of British forces.

Fox, 41, told writer James Delingpole’s podcast that it causes ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’. 

Around 1.5million men were recruited from India, while Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland gave a further 1.3million soldiers.

Some men from the West Indies served in regular British Army units, but most of the 15,000 involved were in their own regiments and served in France, Italy and Africa.

Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine; African troops helped contain the Germans in East Africa; and Newfoundlanders fought at the Somme.

Mr Bance said of Fox’s comments: ‘This has nothing to do with diversity, history is history and we can’t distort it for a film. Over 1.5million Indians fought in World War One, over 80,000 Indians died.

‘Sam Mendes should be commended as finally World War One films are becoming historically accurate, as earlier films totally ignored the presence of Sikh and other colonial soldiers who fought for the Empire alongside the British

‘Laurence’s comments are totally out of context as the presence of one Sikh is not to distract the audience but to give historical accuracy which most World War One films lack.

‘When over 1.5 million Indian soldiers fought in this campaign, how can showing one Sikh soldier be distracting?’

Mr Bance added: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.

‘For example The 1st Manchesters were fighting with members of the 47th Sikhs brigade as one.

‘And the 7th Ferozepur Brigade consisted of 47th Sikhs and the London Brigade.

‘Sikhs not only fought from within their own Sikh regiments but they were also in the Punjabi Regiments, cavalry, sappers and miners regiments as well.

‘There was also Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who were present in British Army service corps working as labourers too.’

MailOnline has approached Sir Sam Mendes’s representatives for a comment. 

Britain started the war with 700,000 trained soldiers, before thousands of untrained volunteers also signed up in 1914 and conscription was introduced two years later. 

But the size of the military was also significantly bolstered by forces from across the Empire – which later became the Commonwealth – all of which had backed Britain after it declared war against Germany.

The Indian sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914.

In 1915, Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and alongside British, Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli.

Some 1.27million Indians voluntarily served as combatants and labourers, also helping Allied forces occupy former enemy territory in East Africa and the Balkans.

Dr Simon Walker, a military historian at the University of Strathclyde, said: ‘The remarks by Fox are very much ill informed.’

He said more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in service in the First World War, and claimed they were of ‘paramount importance’ at key battles including Ypres in 1914, Neuve Chappelle and Gallipoli.

The expert said soldiers from different races were mainly separate at the start of the war, but this changed as huge losses meant men were transferred around the various battle grounds.

Dr Walker added: ‘Therefore by the middle of the war it would not be unusual for sikh soldiers to serve side by side with their British comrades, as was necessitated by the demands of the war and losses.

‘This was visible in Britain, as burial practices were briefly changed to allow open air cremation for such soldiers.’

African troops were also involved in containing the Germans in East Africa and defeating them in West Africa – in an area where Europeans had struggled in the hot climate.

By the end of the war, the ‘British Army’ in East Africa was mainly soldiers from Nigeria, Gold Coast (Ghana), Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland (Malawi).

Some 60,000 labourers came from South Africa, but black South Africans were only allowed a logistical role because the country’s government feared arming them.

White South African units were sent to the Western Front and 3,153 were involved in a battle at Delville Wood on the Somme in July 1916, with only 750 left unharmed.

Around 15,000 men from the Caribbean enlisted, with a few serving in regular British Army units – although most were in the West India Regiment and the British West Indies Regiment. 

They served in France, Italy, Africa and the Middle East. 

Canada also made a huge contribution to the war, with the Canadian Expeditionary Force fighting in most of the major battles on the Western Front from 1915.

They were at the Somme, Passchendaele and in the Hundred Days offensives of 1918. Nearly 10 per cent of the 620,000 Canadians who enlisted were killed in the war.

Newfoundland, which only became part of Canada in 1949, fought at Gallipoli in 1915, but was almost wiped out at Beaumont Hamel on the Somme the next year.

And more than 410,000 Australians served in the war, suffering about 200,000 casualties in campaigns at Gallipoli, on the Western Front and in the Middle East.

New Zealand forces helped Australia capture Germany’s colonies in the Pacific and fought on the Western Front, with 5 per cent of the country’s men aged 15-49 killed.

The Sikh Network, a collective of Sikh activists and professionals in Britain, also hit out at Fox – saying his remarks were ‘offensive’ and needed retraction.

Manvir Bhogal from the organisation told MailOnline: ‘Thousands of Sikhs saw battle at the front line and many died. It is highly offensive and inappropriate for Laurence Fox to term the inclusion of a single Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes’ production in order to at least represent the extent of war with a microcosm of diversity of historic fact as ‘incongruous’ .

‘It is outrageous and of deep hurt to Sikhs not just in the UK but throughout the world and to the rest of those whose communities were forcibly sent to war.

‘His comments should be retracted with an apology immediately.’

‘Where this doesn’t take place, it marginalizes entire communities that, in this case, made a huge sacrifice and contribution to the welfare and protection of freedoms for all mankind despite the oppression being faced due to European imperialism itself back home.’

Earlier this week, Fox told Mr Delingpole’s podcast that the Sikh character distracted from what the story was about.

He questioned the credibility of the storyline and said the casting of Rizwan caused ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.

He praised the performance of Rizwan himself, saying it was ‘great’, adding that the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the ranks ‘didn’t bother me particularly’.

But he added that the inclusion ‘did sort of flick me out of what is essentially a one-shot film [because] it’s just incongruous with the story’.

Source

Source

American actress Luaren London has opened up on claims that she’s now dating music mogul, Puff Diddy almost a year after her husband Nipsey Hussle was killed.

The actress was quick to shut down rumors that she is now dating Diddy after the death of the boyfriend who was also a Grammy-winning rapper.

The hoopla began when 50-year-old Diddy shared a photo of himself with London, 35, during the Roc Nation pre-Grammys brunch, captioning the black-and-white flick, “More lost files…me and my sister @laurenlondon at the @rocnation brunch.”

Despite calling her his sister, fans began to question the state of Diidy and London’s relationship, which immediately set the actress off.

She initially responded with a cool head, posting a photo of Hussle — whose birth name was Ermias Asghedom — alongside the caption, “Still His! King Ermias! Never Forget!”

London followed that up, however, with a more aggressive post demanding the public “stop f–king playing” with her while she continues to mourn the death of her longtime partner.

“I’m all love and peace but never forget….I’m a woman in grief and I don’t play about Nip, my family, my character and code,” she captioned the Instagram message. “Bout to drink a green juice to start the day though 🏁🏁🏁🏁🏁.”

Hussle was killed in March last year outside his clothing store in the Hyde Park neighborhood of his native Los Angeles.

He is still regarded as a legend and one those people who contributed positively among African Americans.

Source