MovieChat Forums > Roots (2016) Discussion > This is all a work of fiction...Alex Hal...

This is all a work of fiction...Alex Haley was a plagiarist


This is all a work of fiction...
THE CELEBRATED 'ROOTS' OF A LIE

http://www.nypost.com/cgi-bin/printfriendly.pl
January 16, 2002 -- ON Friday, NBC will air a special commemorating the 25th anniversary of the landmark miniseries based on Alex Haley's book "Roots." Ironically, the original series aired on ABC - but officials at that network took a pass on broadcasting the tribute.

What's truly amazing, however, is that "Roots" is receiving a reverential tribute at all. For while the miniseries was a remarkable - and important - piece of television,
the book on which it was based has now been widely exposed as a historical
hoax.

Unfortunately, the general public is largely unaware of how Haley's monumental family autobiography, stretching back to 18th-century Africa, has been discredited.

Indeed, a 1997 BBC documentary expose of Haley's work has been banned by U.S. television networks - especially PBS, which would normally welcome such a program.

Coincidentally, the "Roots" anniversary comes amid the growing scandal over disclosures of historian Stephen Ambrose's multiple incidents of plagiarism. Because as Haley himself was forced to acknowledge, a large section of his book -
including the plot, main character and scores of whole passages - was
lifted from "The African," a 1967 novel by white author Hal Courlander.

But plagiarism is the least of the problems in "Roots." And they would likely have remained largely unknown, had journalist Philip Nobile not undertaken a remarkable study of Haley's private papers shortly before they were auctioned off.

The result was featured in a devastating 1993 cover piece in the Village Voice. It confirmed - from Haley's own notes - earlier claims that the alleged history of the book was a near-total invention.

"Virtually every genealogical claim in Haley's story was false," Nobile has written. None of Haley's early writing contains any reference to his mythic ancestor, "the African" named Kunta Kinte. Indeed, Haley's later notes give his family name
as "Kante," not "Kinte."

And a long-suppressed tape of the famous session in which Haley " found" Kunta Kinte through the recitation of an African "griot" proves that, as BBC producer James Kent noted, "the villagers [were] threatened by members of Haley's party.
These turn out to be senior government officials desperate to ensure that things go
smoothly."

Haley, added Kent, "specifically asks for a story that will fit
his predetermined American narrative."

Historical experts who checked Haley's genealogical research discovered that, as one put it, "Haley got everything wrong in his pre-Civil War lineage and none of his
plantation ancestors existed; 182 pages have no basis in fact."

Given this damning evidence, you'd think Haley's halo would long ago have vanished. But - given this week's TV tribute - he remains a literary icon. Publicly, at least.

The judge who presided over Haley's plagiarism case admitted that "I did not want to destroy him" and so allowed him to settle quietly - even though, he acknowledged, Haley had repeatedly perjured himself in court.

The Pulitzer Prize board has refused to reconsider Haley's prize, awarded in 1977 - in what former Columbia President William McGill, then a board member, has acknowledged was an example of "inverse racism" by a bunch of white liberals
"embarrassed by our makeup."

Yet the uniqueness of "Roots" is that it was presented as factual history, albeit with fictional embellishments. Haley himself stressed that the details came from his family's oral history and had been corroborated by outside documents.

But Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, a Haley friend, concedes that it's time to "speak candidly," adding that "most of us feel it's highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village from whence his ancestors came

reply

Roots was plagerized!!!

Slavery didn't really happen!!!!

I'm so relieved!!!!!

White people can feel better!!!!

http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=)

reply

"ROOTS" was plagiarized. Why do you have a problem with this truth?

Slavery did in fact occur, and the fallout is still felt in this day and age. I have yet to see someone dispute that.

I'm glad you're relieved. That's a load off my mind.

As a "white person" I don't feel relieved or distressed. I was never involved in slavery, I've never owned, bartered or traded slaves. I never oppressed you nor anyone else - of any colour. Slavery and racism appall me as a HUMAN BEING.

Calm down....

reply

It doesn't MATTER!!! That's the point. Everyone by now knows that. It's old, old news. Historical fiction is written everyday, but it is researched and based on facts. Entire Oscar winning movies have been made up but "inspired" by some historical fact. Was "JFK" completely fact-based, "Platoon", John Wayne westerns? Movies about the Romans?

Was the original source material made up? Did slavery not exist? Are there not original documentation as to the brutality of it? Are there not photos of people hung from trees? Pictures of slaves with the backs crisscross with scars from beatings?

If he said it was entirely fiction but based on historical facts, would it have not had the same impact? No one cares if anyone says its plagiarized, but its the reasons for constantly bringing it up. Its because no one can say slavery didn't happen. Somehow, they reason, by saying this particular story was plagiarized, it lessens the nasty facts of slavery - it doesn't, so stop beating that dead, dead horse.

Want some real history? Take a look at this: http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

Happy now?


http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=)

reply

The point is it was presented at the time as a TRUE STORY, not inspired by actual events, based on a true story, etc. In that context it DOES matter.

Did it misrepresent what actually happened back then. In fact yes it did. the truth was way worse.

reply

No, it was put in the form of a novel, a novel is fiction. They can be based in facts but at the end of the day it's fiction. If he wanted to portray it as fact, he would have called it "Roots: A History of a Slave Family" or something like that and not a novel.

reply

[deleted]

So what?

reply

The people who go on and on about the Roots plagiarism issue are doing so because they really want to discredit Alex Haley and the history of slavery as he presented it in the novel and the TV show that was one of the most watched shows of all time.

Please look between the lines and do not fall for their deflection tactics.

Do not be misled.

Roots was always presented as historical FICTION even back in the 1970's so all these long posts about plagiarism and that it was a lie are really moot. He said it was fiction.

Also , the plagiarism case was overstated. Haley settled out of court for only $625,000 dollars. He was not found guilty. Haley made millions--and Courlander received none of those royalties.

Haley said it was ficitionalised but lets be real--Haley really was a descendant of Chicken George and he was an African American in Tennessee so hell yes, someone in his family made the Middle Passage and if you look at Haley's color, hell yes, a white man raped a female relative.

Do not get it twisted--the plagiarism argument is an attempt to invalidate Haley telling about slavery from the Black man's persepective.

reply

I remember the Civil Rights movements, marches, etc., that took place when I was a tiny boy.
I don't see people discrediting the history of slavery. I certainly don't.

I present no deflection tactics. None of the arguments are diminishing or belittling slavery and its impact that is still felt by descendants of slaves today.

Roots was NOT always presented as historical fiction. Not until Haley was called out for ripping off 3/4 of his story from other writers. It was presented in its debut as a biographical drama. Fiction is NOT biographical. He only started calling it "Faction" after he first started being looked into for possible plagiarism.

the main argument is HE STOLE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK, not that he made slavery up. And he paid more than $630- in an out-of-court settlement. That settlement was agreed to by the way to keep him from facing criminal charges. He also paid by not being able to secure jobs afterwards. People did not want to hire a plagiarist.

Sure there was a fair amount of historical truth to his telling of his family history, but not enough for it to stay on the New York Times list of NON-FICTION work, again AFTER he ADMITTED TO STEALING over half of, the story.

The complaint is not slavery-denial. The complaint boils down to passing stolen fictional work off as original written fact.

reply

This post is a DEFLECTION.

It is EXACTLY what other posters have said it is.

It is an attempt to discredit the story that Roots told of how African Americans were forced to this country and the ways they were dehumanized into slaves.

And this is NOT a board about plagiarism and about this other author who had 81 sentences in common with Haley in the opinion of a probably Biased Judge--it is a board about the current Miniseries Roots 2016.

Your purpose is to distract people from finding anything good or uplifting about Roots 2016, and who really gives a damn about that plagiarism suit that was settled for a dinky 600K when if it was legit, no settlement would have been possible, it would have gone to trial for MILLIONS. Both parties have to agree to settle you know. If the man who wrote the African took the money and ran, then you can believe that it was not a strong case, Roots made millions, close to 30 million when TV royalties etc come in play.

Nice try, but you lose, we know this tactic. Stop posting on it, we are trying to talk about Roots!

reply

tim-stein.

Alex Haley did not rip off 3/4 or even 1/2 of his story from someone else. There were supposedly only 81 sequences that showed similarity--mostly in the passages on the Middle Passage--and that according to the Nixon appointed judge's opinion.

the two novels differ in many plot points.

Courlander's novel depicts a successful revolt on the slave ship, a shipwreck on the French island of Saint-Domingue, a fugitive life as escaped slaves, recapture by French troops, and then transport to New Orleans in 1802.

Haley's novel begins before the American Revolution, depicts disease striking down the slaves before they could revolt, and shows the ship arriving successfully in the British colony of Maryland.

Since the Middle Passage has many similarities in many sources many have ? this allegation's validity in particular.

All the accusers were white and so was the judge who was a Nixon appointee.

Haley was NOT found guilty of plagiarism. He settled out of court for only $625,000--and no royalties were ever paid to Courlander.

It was said that his publisher at the time recommended the out of court settlement.

If Haley was truly found to have plagiarized his whole work--why were no royalties ever paid?

Why did Courlander settle?

keep in mind that Haley sold over 500,000 books in 1977.

$625,000 was a drop in the bucket and a minor settlement compared to the huge amount of royalties that amount of books generated.

The plagiarism case was full of holes and that is why it did not stick in the public's mind.

Haley and Roots and the saga of Kunta did and no amount of this trumped up plagiarism charges can change that in the public's mind.

Also your allegation that Haley settled to avoid criminal charges is ludicrous. Plagiarism is not a crime per se.


reply

everything pre-Chicken George was fleshed out... I thought this was known.

reply

This post is a DEFLECTION.

It is EXACTLY what other posters have said it is.

It is an attempt to discredit the story that Roots told of how African Americans were forced to this country and the ways they were dehumanized into slaves.

And this is NOT a board about plagiarism and about this other author who had 81 sentences in common with Haley in the opinion of a probably Biased Judge--it is a board about the current Miniseries Roots 2016.

Your purpose is to distract people from finding anything good or uplifting about Roots 2016, and who really gives a damn about that plagiarism suit that was settled for a dinky 600K when if it was legit, no settlement would have been possible, it would have gone to trial for MILLIONS. Both parties have to agree to settle you know. If the man who wrote the African took the money and ran, then you can believe that it was not a strong case, Roots made millions, close to 30 million when TV royalties etc come in play.

Nice try, but you lose, we know this tactic. Stop posting on it, we are trying to talk about Roots!


Rxcellent post!!!

reply

THANK YOU.

reply

Cut and paste a piece about plagiarism.....

reply

He was a Negro Jive Talker.

reply