I know that this is based off a fictional account of the history of New York, but... this had almost NO fact in it whatsoever, aside from mentioning that the civil war was going on. But wait, literally... I learned nothing from this film. I was hoping it had some basis in real chronological events or something. Nope. I would have learned much more watching Gone With The Wind. This movie was a complete waste of time.
shareSome of what was portrayed in the draft riots was accurate (i.e. mobs attacking the Colored Orphan Asylum).
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
that wasn't portrayed, that was relayed.
all we got was one shot of a lynching. Scorsese COMPLETELY dodged the fact that his precious Irish (and it was just the Irish, the Germans & Poles took no part in the riot) were racists and spent the vast majority of the riots torturing and killing black people wherever they found them.
but this is Marty "A *beep* Lives There" Scorsese, so we shouldn't be surprised that he's willing to gloss over massive racism to portray a white Catholic minority in a positive/heroic light.
together the ants can crush the elephant.
I could have sworn I remembered some scenes of the mobs attacking the asylum and some lynching but i may be remembering something else. But yes, what you said just about hits the nail on the head. I have nothing against the Irish but it is a fact they started the riot and took the msot part in it.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
[deleted]
Do you have any links? That would be interesting.
shareTommy Jefferson loved black chicks
shareBlack on white crime rates are relatively low. And your inaccurate claims are not relevant to the discussion.
share448 Whites killed by Blacks vs 193 Blacks killed by Whites in 2011. Furthermore, black-on-white rape is at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape.
sharewhere the hell did you get those numbers from? stop spewing stormfront BS
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
Here's your source.
Population
Whites 77.7%
Blacks 13.2%
Murder Rates
Whites 4,396 31.1%
Blacks 5,375 38.0%
Interracial crime rates
White on black murders: 189 out of 2491 (7.59%)
Black on white murders: 409 out of 3005 (13.61%)
409/365= 1.1 whites murdered by blacks every day
365/409= 0.9 days between murders, one murder every 21.6 hours
189/365= 0.5 blacks murdered by whites every day
365/189= 1.9 days between murders, one murder every 45.6 hours
Intraracial crime rates
White on white murders: 2509 out of 3005 (83.49%)
Black on black murders: 2245 out of 2491 (90.12%)
2509/365= 6.9 whites murdered by whites every day
365/2509= 0.15 days between murders, one murder every 3.6 hours
2245/365= 6.2 blacks murdered by blacks every day
365/2245= 0.16 days between murders, one murder every 3.9 hours
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Population
Whites 77.4%
Blacks 13.2%
Murder Rates
Whites 4,396 31.1%
Blacks 5,375 38.0%
Interracial crime rates
White on black murders: 189 out of 2491 (7.59%)
Black on white murders: 409 out of 3005 (13.61%)
409/365= 1.1 whites murdered by blacks every day
365/409= 0.9 days between murders, one murder every 21.6 hours
189/365= 0.5 blacks murdered by whites every day
365/189= 1.9 days between murders, one murder every 45.6 hours
WHERE did you get those numbers from? because the murder rate is also BS. and if white cops were held accountable for the murders of black people, their numbers would be even higher. that chart that you posted makes no sense.
2008
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html
2009
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html
2010
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43/10tbl43a.xls
2011
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
2012
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
2013
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
white men make up just over 35% of population yet are responsible for over 70% of mass a shootings. if you want to get away from ''black'' crime all you have to do is move into a higher income neighborhood. since ''black'' crime is connected to lower economics. lower economics that white supremacists created. where can anyone go to get away from white crime?
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
http://melanoidnation.org/white-man-warns-all-black
FBI stats you morons
shareOh really? Here are some 2013 FBI statistics for you
Population
Whites 77.7%
Blacks 13.2%
Murder Rates
Whites 4,396 31.1%
Blacks 5,375 38.0%
Interracial crime rates
White on black murders: 189 out of 2491 (7.59%)
Black on white murders: 409 out of 3005 (13.61%)
409/365= 1.1 whites murdered by blacks every day
365/409= 0.9 days between murders, one murder every 21.6 hours
189/365= 0.5 blacks murdered by whites every day
365/189= 1.9 days between murders, one murder every 45.6 hours
Intraracial crime rates
White on white murders: 2509 out of 3005 (83.49%)
Black on black murders: 2245 out of 2491 (90.12%)
2509/365= 6.9 whites murdered by whites every day
365/2509= 0.15 days between murders, one murder every 3.6 hours
2245/365= 6.2 blacks murdered by blacks every day
365/2245= 0.16 days between murders, one murder every 3.9 hours
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Then read FBI statistics regarding the real numbers with regard to the devastating number of gangs of blacks raping,murdering,torturing and mutilating individual Whites.....every 45 seconds.
2013
Population
Whites 77.7%
Blacks 13.2%
Murder Rates
Whites 4,396 31.1%
Blacks 5,375 38.0%
Interracial crime rates
White on black murders: 189 out of 2491 (7.59%)
Black on white murders: 409 out of 3005 (13.61%)
409/365= 1.1 whites murdered by blacks every day
365/409= 0.9 days between murders, one murder every 21.6 hours
189/365= 0.5 blacks murdered by whites every day
365/189= 1.9 days between murders, one murder every 45.6 hours
Intraracial crime rates
White on white murders: 2509 out of 3005 (83.49%)
Black on black murders: 2245 out of 2491 (90.12%)
2509/365= 6.9 whites murdered by whites every day
365/2509= 0.15 days between murders, one murder every 3.6 hours
2245/365= 6.2 blacks murdered by blacks every day
365/2245= 0.16 days between murders, one murder every 3.9 hours
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
The Draft riots were a pretty small part of the movie. He did kinda gloss over the racist acts in it because he glossed over the whole thing.
This movie wasn't about the draft riots, maybe someone will make a movie about it.
But for the few minutes the riots were in the movie they did show lynching and blacks getting beaten up and mentioned the orpanage getting attacked.
So there's all that.
The Irish themselves were victims of racism; I think Scorsese went to great pains portray/relay/whatever verb floats your boat/ that aspect of being Irish in the 19th century quite carefully. The lynchings of black citizens were included in the film, but almost as an aside - this was a story of racism against the Irish.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
they were not victims of ''racism'', it was because of religion. and let's talk about how white irish treat black irish back in their homeland
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
Actually, the Irish were regarded as a separate race by many.
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/salinas/students/student_sites/Fall2005/Irish-American/Index.html
oh dear...
http://sapphosistah.tumblr.com/post/95876059053/koreaunderground-globalpoetics-the-violent
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
So, because racism exists in Ireland, racism against the Irish cannot exist? Oh dear indeed. *beep* idiot.
~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
you're the idiot. irish is not a race. you don't even know the difference between xenophobia and racism.
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
http://melanoidnation.org/white-man-warns-all-black
straightcurve wrote: "Scorsese COMPLETELY dodged the fact that his precious Irish (and it was just the Irish, the Germans & Poles took no part in the riot) were racists..."
Speaking of historic innacurracies, the term "racist" wasn't coined until the 1920s, dreamt up by a British scientist and Marxist to use specifically as a weapon against the West. Now its used by everyone as a method of dodging rational debate in order to win an arguement. Use of the word "racist" to describe people a century and half ago who had a completely different outlook on life from those of us today is just plain foolish. So let's get beyond the calculated use of that nonsensical word to judge a film that is not and was never intended to be an historical documentary.
The key to GoNY lies at the very beginning of the film when Amsterdam's voiceover says "Some of it I half remember; and the rest? The rest I took from dreams." That's the whole film in a nutshell. It immediately defines itself as a half-remembered dream. We see flashes of actualy history, but they are out of context or in the wrong chronological order. When is a dream meant to be historically accurate or ever a mirror reflection of the real world? Never.
Scorsese made the film he wanted. If you don't like it fine, but take your petty "racist" argument about the 19th century Irish to someone who really cares. Good luck finding any. You'll need it.
Speaking of historic innacurracies, the term "racist" wasn't coined until the 1920s, dreamt up by a British scientist and Marxist to use specifically as a weapon against the West. Now its used by everyone as a method of dodging rational debate in order to win an arguement. Use of the word "racist" to describe people a century and half ago who had a completely different outlook on life from those of us today is just plain foolish.
He was talking about the word, not the practice, which has been going on since time immemorial.
Quit nit picking.
Any day above ground is a good day.
Well said my man.
shareYou do know that the only real role that Scorsese played in the making of this movie was the directing. He didn't write the screenplay, so I don't think he's to blame for any historical inaccuracies.
shareScorsese had a part in the film. When Amsterdam refers to Jenny Everdeane as a "Turtledove" and she enters the rich mansion Scorsese is seen dining, as if portraying the master of the house.
share
And I must believe that you're willing to overlook every point you mentioned actually *being* in that movie because you must have some sort of vendetta against Scorsese. Either that, or you took a restroom break during the riot scene.
I can see your username in the header on your post. Why use it as your sig?
This movie wasn't meant to be a 'race relations' drama, as you imply. It was about the turf battles of NY at that time. It's worth noting that the gang names used in the movie (i.e. "The Plug Uglies", "Dead Rabbits") were used in real life, at the time. So in that regard, it IS historically accurate.
sharewait, one line BY A FICTIONAL CHARACTER in Taxi Driver and MS is a racist? Are you that dumb?
shareOh sweetie nothing in the north like that happened .. all that kill blacks was them sorry low down southern people ... sarcasm .. but .. you are so right about this movie .. dead on .
"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".
Actually you are right. Many of what happens in that movie really took part in Montreal. I hope you could read French, or that French could be translated in english for not that much money...
shareI know that this is based off a fictional account of the history of New York, but... this had almost NO fact in it whatsoever,
OP: I take it as a given that movies bear no significant correlation to historical reality.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
Ha,...if you want to learn something about history then you should go back to school and get your GED or watch a documentary,...not a fictional based film.
shareIt depends on the intent and claims of the film makers. They can either overtly claim historic accuracy, or covertly insinuated it.
If the film dies indeed at the beginning say "this is my memories and dreams"...then well, it could be an "out". But then again it depends on other statements and tactics as well.
At the end of it- despite any intent- these big Hollywood films are fables at best, ,mindless entertainment at worst.
If you are concerned about real historic accuracy- pick up a history book and be very careful about THAT too!
'
OP - you watched "Gangs of New York" for historical accuracy? I'd read a good historical book about old New York before relying on ANY Hollywood movie. The fact that this film wasn't historically accurate doesn't bother me in the least - it's called mythmaking, and some of our best filmmakers out there (Scorsese, Herzog, et al) do it with the best of them - blurring fantasy and reality. Any so-called 'historical' film will contain numerous errors almost by proxy.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
I agree with dyahrmarkt. When asked what leads him to do a film, Scorsese instantly said, Character. Character is story after all. Movies don't always have to be politically and historically accurate. I think story should always come first. That has always been the main reason we are drawn to movies.
shareI felt the movie was like watching a weird poorly done play, with Diaz and DiCaprio trying to act 19th century but being completely unable to pull it off, while Day-Lewis acted like an intense weirdo the whole film for his ego.
The only thing accurate was the historical names, and historical facts that were dropped throughout the movie, but was impossible to pay attention to because the whole film seemed fake.
[deleted]
That's similar to saying The Flintstones is only partially based on fact. The film is fictional, not a documentary.
“When I die, Dublin will be written in my heart.”
James Joyce
The Draft Riots were entirely real. At least 120 civilians were killed, a number of black men were lynched, an orphanage for black children was burned to the ground, and an estimated 2000 people were injured.
No, it didn't go down quite the way it did in the film, but it really did happen, and it's the culmination of the entire film, it's the big event of the final act.
Another "true fact" in the film was the large number of newly arrived Irish who were rushed through naturalisation so they could serve in the war. The way it's portrayed in the film is a little over the top to make a point, but if you look at the lists of names of Union soliders, you'll see an awful lot of Irish names in the roles.
I actually study history as my academic specialty. I find history fascinating, but, quite frankly, most of it wouldn't make a good movie. Life is not a movie. Imagine seeing a film where you watch people go about their daily life: showering, taking the subway to work, staring at a computer screen, eating lunch in the breakroom, coming home again.... Pretty boring. Most lives are boring, even ones with lots of exciting bits in them. Fiction requires taking some artistic license and telling an engaging story, editing out the boring bits, as it were.
If you want to know New York history, there's a lot written on the topic. I don't recommend anyone get their historical knowledge from a Hollywood film. Ever. And for what it's worth, the book on which the film is (loosely) based isn't particularly historically accurate, either, but it's a damned entertaining read, and I can certainly see why Scorsese bought the rights to the book and adapted it to a film.
Here's what a professional historian, an expert in the history of New York and especially the Five Points neighborhood, had to say about it:
"Though historian Tyler Anbinder has quibbles with Gangs of New York's Five Points, he gives the film points for overall accuracy.
'The overall theme of the movie Scorsese gets exactly right: When the Irish first came to America they were persecuted and they literally did have to fight for their fair share of what America had to offer,' Anbinder says.
And as they say, it's only a movie. 'Scorsese knows much more history than is portrayed in the movie,' Anbinder says. 'He wanted to make a dramatic statement, he didn't want to make a documentary.'"
That pretty much sums it up.
^ correct. Scorsese is an accomplished documentarian as well as fictional storyteller - the final passages during the draft riots show his documentarian tendencies with dates, times, still photographs, etc. But he keeps this to a minimum in order to concentrate on the main themes of the story. If he wanted to make a full-on documentary on the five points, as a multi-part TV special or whatever, I'm sure he could make an amazing one that would bear little resemblance to what we saw in this movie. Scorsese isn't an aloof filmmaker - he's a critic, historian, and "fan" of cinema as much as the rest of us. He knows what he's doing.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -