MovieChat Forums > The Patriot (2000) Discussion > Why, look at the peaceful, happy Negros,...

Why, look at the peaceful, happy Negros, living an idyllic life

posted 9 years ago by jgroub
58 replies | jump to latest

. . . far removed from any fighting, hard work, or enslavement. Why, I'll just send my family there to live with them. Those happy Negroes will just take care of my family out of the goodness of their kind hearts - feed them, clothe them, put them up in an extra hut with extra furniture that just happens to be here. And all this for no money whatsoever!

Oh, and look, here are some of my sharecropping Negroes, who were free, but worked the land with me, instead of for me. Me, a nasty evil slaveholder? No, even though I can't build a stupid rocking chair, I invented sharecropping Negroes 80 years before the Civil War!

Why, practically no one in this entire movie is a slaveowner! Look at all the darkies, well-dressed, free, making their own decisions about their lives, happily earning their own money!

Yeah, right. What a complete whitewash. (Pun intended.)

The portrayal of the black/white relations in this movie is beyond laughable. As if Washington would ever issue an order permitting blacks to gain freedom by fighting for a year. As if Southerners would ever stand for armed slaves - that was their absolute greatest fear, an armed slave uprising!

What a gigantic crock of sh!t.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] Queen_Beth_the_Fair 9 years ago

It might interest you to know that there were a few free Black slaveholders.

The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

Yes. What and what a terrible pity they did not make it into the movie either.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] Tapfanfool 9 years ago

It might interest you to know that the number of blacks that "owned" slaves was miniscule and most of those who did, had merely purchased family members in order to free them.

Stormfront, WND and VDare keep trolling message boards reporting about free blacks owning slaves as if they think that makes slavery okay.

I'm sure that in their minds, it does.

They need better racist talking points.

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

It might interest you that there are more blacks in prison today than there have EVER been slaves. Also miniscule. And the majority of former slaves talk well of their masters, even that schizophrenic child murder Nat Turner.

[–] Ismailov (139) 2 years ago

1. Even if you want to claim that "there are more blacks in prison today" (the actual statistics are more complicated: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8088989/john-legend-oscars-speech-quote), that's irrelevant unless you think serving a prison sentence after being found guilty of a crime is equivalent to being considered subhuman and therefore "naturally" fit for slavery your entire life with no ability to legally marry, being subjected to laws that made it illegal to learn to read or write, etc.

2. Turner served under multiple masters throughout his life. In his confessions he only speaks well of the last of these, and he evidently didn't think that because an individual master happened to be a "good" man that this somehow justified the institution of slavery and made revolt against it unjust. I don't know where you got "the majority of former slaves talk well of their masters" from.

3. There have been innumerable figures throughout history who claimed to receive visions from God. In conditions where religious belief is practically omnipresent and superstitions widespread (as was the case in 19th century America), Turner doesn't stand out too much in this regard. He was evidently able to gain followers who did not see such visions but who trusted Turner as a leader capable of achieving their own freedom.

4. The killing of children was done because the small band of rebels did not want anyone potentially capable of raising an alarm and thus allowing for the crushing of the revolt before it gained momentum. On the other hand, when Turner's men came across the residence of an impoverished white family, it was decided these were so poor that they'd have no interest in assisting the slaveowners and therefore weren't killed.

[–] legnadibrom (5702) a year ago

you just linked vox for facts

[–] Ismailov (139) a year ago

The person I was replying to cited nothing. Vox's article cites a bunch of sources. Do you have anything that disputes any of the sources used?

I assess articles on the basis of their content, not whether they're on a site whose politics I don't share.

[–] legnadibrom (5702) a year ago

i'd have the same reaction if you were to link cnn or fox,

kick it downstream

[–] Ismailov (139) a year ago

And I'd say about them what I just said about Vox: if the article itself seems fine, I don't really care where it's hosted.

I cited Vox in this one specific instance, much like I might very well cite an article from Fox News or CNN if I thought it informative.

[–] fc31 (4558) 2 months ago

Prisoners are slaves as defined by law in US, though most are temporary.

Lincoln abolished slavery except in form of punishment, I think that is why in "The Shawshank Redemption" prisoners were told they were the properties of the state.

[–] PaladinNJ (20309) 3 years ago

There were more than just a few black slave owners. And percentage wise they had more slaves than white owners per capita. But that was probably moreso due to the number of whites vs. fewer blacks.

Also SOME not MOST of them purchased just family members. Most did it for the same reason the White slave owners did. Cheap labor and higher profits.

[–] imajestr 9 years ago

Agreed! It is a whitewash, but I see why the filmmakers made this choice, creatively. They needed to emphasize that the main character is a decent guy. They needed to portray the Americans as definitively "the good guys." If they brought in any of the truth--the ethically deplorable norms of that time--they knew they'd both lose the audience's trust in the good guys and the focus of the film.

This movie is pure fantasy. I mean, it is made my Roland Emmerich, after all. Sadly, there is no room for messy moral question in mainstream pop culture, just good guys in white hats and bad guys in black ones.

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

Sorry, but an intelligent mature movie- The Patriot isn't one- can and should have grey characters and/or flawed heroes. What's wrong in having some people's motives not entirely clear? It makes it more satisfying in some ways for a character who isn't necessarily a good guy to actually choose the do the right thing.
Black hats/white hats moralising is frankly, ah, old hat and best left to old movies and modern crap movies who can't be bothered to develop decent believable characters.
Most real heroes were often flawed and often even unpleasant people Wing Cmr Guy Gibson and Douglas Bader of the RAF spring to mind. Makes them more interesting if you ask me than if they were saints and makes their actual heroism greater.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] imajestr 9 years ago

Hotrodder - I personally agree with you, but you've got to remember that this movie was shooting to be a popular hit, which, in a lot of ways, it was. The studio never would have greenlit such an expensive project if it involved morally gray characters because, frankly, most people are idiots, and don't want to take the time to understand true history without the whitewashing. For something to be palatable to the masses, it must first be stripped of anything challenging, including difficult ethics.

That's why all the intelligent films [and novels] are usually reserved for smaller studios with a limited release and a much smaller budget. I mean, why do you think comic book movies have taken over Hollywood? Pop culture has always been overrun with two-dimensional stories; only today, it's literal.

For a dose of hard-hitting reality, just rewatch Twelve Years a Slave and be glad it received as much attention as it did, because a film like that getting buzz is pretty damn rare.

As for The Patriot, take or leave it, but keep in mind that it's a fairy tale.

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

most people are idiots

Yup, and they'll believe the events depicted are based on real events, and that the British regularly indulged in atrocities. These same idiots will never read a book on the subject, they probably never read any book.
It's ironic that a German director chose to transpose the actions of a German military unit- ie the murder of civilians at Oradour-sur-Glane by 2nd SS Panzer Division to the British, and rather bloody insulting to boot.
Not claiming the British Army never committed wrongdoings but IIRC the Rebels actually committed more atrocities in that war than the British did.
A good movie should make someone think. Sadly for many people their entire knowledge of history was supplied by Hollywood. A very warped history at that.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] imajestr 9 years ago

Agreed!

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) a year ago

There is truth in this discussion, but the level of egoism by the posters (who are thankfully long gone due to IMDB closing its message boards) is grating. There's a way to post historical facts about something without sounding holier than thou. Sadly, these posters lacked those skills.

[–] Koosh_King01 8 years ago

At one point, a black servant is brought before Colonel Tavington, who of course blows him away. He is referred to as "the head of the house slaves."

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

[–] The LA Baker (799) 4 years ago

All the black people in the film are also made out to be perfect.
The villains were the British. The Americans, regardless of race, were the heroes.

It seems OP doesn't understand film making 101 and prefers to view the world through a racial lens.

[–] brucewayne (319) 3 years ago

what are you talking about... No its not the OPs fault. there were obviously going to be inaccuracies but showing it as if blacks were living a prosperous, peaceful idyllic life at the time is beyond insulting.

its akin to having a movie with jews enjoying ghettos in nazi Germany and living a "peaceful structured life under their German custodians"

[–] UncleRuckis (2550) 3 years ago

Just picture trains packed with smiling Jewish people dancing and singing on their way to Auschwitz! That would be the equivalent of this bullshit movie!

Though if Republicans have their way, the narrative presented in this movie will be what's taught in schools.

[–] Bolchevik (369) 3 years ago

Comparing people aiming for gas chambers in 5 minutes and people enslaved is not a proper comparison. Slavery wasn't the purpose of the movie. If you want to make a movie on that topic, feel free to do it.

[–] UncleRuckis (2550) 3 years ago

Slavery wasn't the purpose of the movie.

That doesn't make it okay to present a false narrative and completely whitewash a horrible institution. It's insulting!

[–] Corbell (8137) 3 years ago

Not every story has to be about you. We get to have some too. The British Empire was oppressive and we fought a war of independence. And we won, and it is good to celebrate that story.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

by showing the brits doing something the nazis did (the church burndown). utter nonsense

[–] Corbell (8137) a year ago

I'm sure there were plenty of atrocities and oppression by the British Empire.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

Lol and? I pretty sure every nation has. this doesn't mean you go make up and manufacture things they never did, esp one committed by the nazis. what's next you going to have them rounding up Americans for death camps.

[–] Corbell (8137) a year ago

So, hollywood wasn't historically accurate. Got it. I still enjoyed the film. It is important to remember that the imperalism the brits practiced, was still an oppressive and bloody system. IMO.

I assume your point is NOT, a defensive of Imperalism, correct?

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

I also enjoy the film and don't expect a Hollywood movie to be accurate. however

1. showing black people living a great life
2. the brits committing atrocities the nazis did

was just way too far and ridiculous

In your opinion sure and I care about that why? America wasn't seen as a slave colony or one simply to extract everything and subjugate the people as objects. the British colony was according to England full of brits, their family and cousins. the brits hardly waged a horrible war of pure malice and destruction.

"I assume your point is NOT, a defensive of Imperalism, correct?"

stop saying such stupid things please

[–] Corbell (8137) a year ago

Black people living a great life? The movie followed a white family getting draw into the war against the oppresive Imperalists.

i hope that not too many familes got as destroyed as the one in the film, in real life. But Hollywood is known for exaggeration.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

did you miss the literal title of the OP and complaint? that black people are showing living an idyllic great life in this film.

yes I know the point of the film. it doesn't mean they didn't show other ridiculous exaggerations outside this main storyline. like the one I mentioned above and had in my list. and the other one I said. portraying the brits committing an act the nazis literally did.

seriously you aren't addressing anything I said. just take your L and go away.

what are you even talking about"i hope that not too many family's got as destroyed as the one in the film, in real life."

we are talking about the films portrayal holy cow.

[–] Corbell (8137) a year ago

I disagree with the gist of the OP. This movie wasn't about the "negros" living in revolutionary era America. It was about the, or some of the, people fighting in the war.

Our victory against the largest Empire in the world and the gaining of our Freedom. A story worth telling, worth celebrating.

You want to see American stories told and celebrated, don't you?

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

it doesn't have to be about them, to show an incredibly inaccurate and ridiculous thing about them. what the hell kinda arguement is that?

"well if its not part of the main story then it doesn't matter". utter nonsense. if they showed people driving cars and with ak-47s in a quick scene would you say "This movie wasn't about the "car driving ak47 weilding people" living in revolutionary era America. It was about the, or some of the, people fighting in the war."

that's the point they didn't live in that era, nor did these idilic black people. we all expect artistic licence, but that's sooo absurd its insulting.

Our victory against the largest Empire in the world and the gaining of our Freedom. A story worth telling, worth celebrating.

and not going to such utter extremes of nonsense it just looks silly. you seem to be spineless and can't admit it was silly to present the brits as literal nazis. all just so you can lie and spread propaganda.

You want to see American stories told and celebrated, don't you?

again more utter nonsense. in other words "don't question these ridiculous scenes and portrayals. let us spread the nonsense or else you hate america

you are some tool man.

[–] Corbell (8137) a year ago

I asked a simple question, indeed, with a strong spin that I expected your answer to be YES.

ie You do want to see American stories told and celebrated, don't you?

That is hardly an attack, or accusation of "hating America".

That was certainly not my point.

You said you enjoyed the film. What did you enjoy about it?

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 months ago

He liked watching black people suffer(as he understood it). LOL

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 years ago

blacks were living a prosperous, peaceful idyllic life at the time

Idyllic? According to who? I saw black people working on farms. Is that "idyllic" to you?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I suspect you do not.

Slavery is not about race or racism. Your interpretation of history is so backasswards and idiotic it is laughable.

Slavey is basically a constant throughout human history and race has had little, if anything, to do with it.

Furthermore...

Black landowners in America owned *WHITE* slaves.

Black on black slavery is to this day common in the world(but not in USA).

Many "black slaves" were treated extremely well by their "owners" who often freed them.
Many "owners" bought slaves just to free them.
Many slave owners(even in the US) were black and they owned black and white people.

Get a fucking grip on reality.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

wow this has to be the dumbest post I have seen on this site so far

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 months ago

How so?

Perhaps you are the dumbest entity on this site.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) 2 months ago

You get it. I am a descendent of American white slaves. Most people have no idea that at one point there were more white slaves in this country than there were free American citizens.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

It is shocking how many young people think white people are responsible for slavery. Many/most have no idea white people were slaves at all, let alone the fact that there were more white European slaves traded by the Barbary than there were black slaves traded during the entire Atlantic slave trade.

[–] Gd5150 (11009) 3 months ago

Nailed it

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 2 years ago

Morons like you are the worse. If those movie portrayed Black people being miserable it would have been called racist. But if it portrays Black people as well dressed and well mannered, it's also racist. You just can't please anti racist far left ideologues.

[–] The LA Baker (799) a year ago

Seriously, these people are insufferable. They subscribed to the Anita Sarkeesian doctrine of "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic, and you have to call it all out".

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

who would have been mad if salves were accurately shown during the time period? no you are insufferable and your ilk. you just invent shit and make stuff up

[–] The LA Baker (799) a year ago

Slaves WERE accurately represented.
You clearly subscribe to the BS belief that all slaves lived miserable lives and that even free/freed blacks had no chance to succeed in the US.

Carry on with your willful ignorance.

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 2 years ago

Idiot. American slavery was nowhere near as bad as portrayed post civil rights movement. The average Black slave worked less hours than free White farmers.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

is this one of those "well the manager works more hours than you so your job isn't bad" things that lives out the shit pay and conditions of the average worker vs the manager

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 months ago

Your brain is worthless. A spinal cord would surely suffice.

[–] Jsully9 (377) 2 years ago

Tbey were all happy and lived a good life because they haven't met liberals who would end up, fucking everything up.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 months ago

HAH!
On point.
Based.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

this film just want to tell story of USA vs Britain war without ugly distraction of race to story.

it is most likely they wanted to have no black in film, just so they concentrate on main story, but were forced to put tokens in to appease racist like spike lee.

but then, spike lee still go ape shit when this film come out hahahaha. then agains, what would spike lee do without his grievance with white peoples hahahhaha.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) a year ago

It's a shame because early on in his career Spike actually made some decent films. Too bad he's a racist.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

Yeah, I used to like him early on. Then he went crazy with racist shit.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) 2 months ago

He was always a racist. He just hid it in the beginning. It's crazy that he made so many movies with Denzel Washington. Denzel is a conservative and doesn't take well to racists and race baiting.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

I didn't say he became racist. I said he went crazy with his racist shit.

Yes, he was always racist, but his expressions of that racism were tempered in the beginning and then spiraled out of control.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2122) 2 months ago

Yeah, I knew that that was what you meant. I guess that it didn't come across though. That happens on here a lot. Thanks for clarifying for anyone else that might read this thread.

He really did make some good films early on in his career. It's a shame that he went the way that he did. I don't have a crystal ball, so I have no idea how history is going to treat his (and other people like him) works. I'd like to hope that in the future we'll move past all this crap that we are dealing with now, but it may get even worse. I hope it doesn't but who really knows.

Are you actually from LA? I went there in the late 2000s. The traffic was unbearable.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I too hope for the best but plan for the worst.

I have lived in LA for most of my life, roughly twenty-five years accumulatively, but also moved around. As you mentioned, the traffic is horrific. My work was 23 miles away. I had to allot three hours of drive time. It was normally around two and a half hours but could be as much as three. Unbearable.
I also do not care for their politics and the homeless were/are out of control.
The cost of living there is also incredibly high.
I left about 6 years ago and I very much doubt I will ever go back.

I moved to a small college town in the middle of farmland. My commute is 3-6 minutes.
When locals complain about "traffic" it is always a few dozen cars at most. lol