There is no documented anti slavery movements in Sub-Saharan African before Europeans banned slavery there. This movie falsifies history by portraying the women and the king being anti slavery.
shareIt’s pretty much cultural appropriation of Europe’s anti-slave movement
shareOf course but then again you are dealing with post-modernists who don't even believe in the concept of objective truth. For them it is all about the narrative they want to push. They have no regard or historical accuracy.
shareThis film is an alternate take on history. You know like Inglorious Basterds, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood etc.
shareDoes the movie have a huge "not based on history" disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? If right wingers made a huge budget blockbuster alternate history movie where they portray Blacks owing White slaves and Whites heroically fighting them, it would not have been legitimate point to criticize the movie, because it's "alternate history"? The youth today don't read history books. They get their impressions from entertainment industry. And that's precisely the aim of this political propaganda flick. To teach Blacks to hate Whites and to teach Whites to hate themselves. So this movie is a false history movie that deliberately seeks people to hate others. This movie is vile.
shareYou are full of it and you know it. A movie doesn't need to put that disclaimer at the beginning. If you have half a brain you could do a two second Google search to discover that isn't true. Fargo claims it's based on a true story and it's a gag obviously. This isn't a movie kids should be watching anyways. It's r rated for a reason. So no the fact that you hate this movie makes me love it even more. Information is more readily available than it was before. It's on you to control what to your kids watch and to research the truth. If you don't like the movie don't watch it. It shouldn't be banned or removed because you dislike it. Tough shit deal with it.
shareFargo is not a political movie or movie that is connected to modern politics. If it was and it portrayed history false, it would have been deservedly criticized. Any movie about history that has political ramifications which portrays history differently should have a disclaimer. Modern Black youth who will watch this film will leave the movie theraetre thinking it's what actually happened. They will end up thinking Blacks in Africa were more affluent than they actually were, they will end up thinking Blacks in Africa wanted to end slavery and they will end up thinking Whites were the bad guys, even though White colonialists actually ended slavery in Africa. The people who made this movie know this and want this. This movie deliberately misrepresents history for political propaganda purposes aimed at miseducating the public and generating hatred against Whites. I never said the movie should be banned, I'm saying the mainstream media should have done the job and slammed this movie into smithereens like it deserves to be and critics should have lamented it. But that didn't happen.
shareYep not the way it works. It's your job to educate yourself on history not the film makers. The movie will get made and nothing you can do. Choke on it.
shareWhat's not the way it works? Critics not slamming a movie that portrays history differently as it was for political reasons? When JFK came out, critics slammed it for legitimizing conspiracy theories. It was a good movie and this one also might be, but if it spreads misinformation it's the job of the media to call it our for it.
shareI got another truth bomb that would make a few liberals' heads explode: there is still slavery going on in Africa, today, at this very moment. All you gotta do is go over to places like Ethiopia, Somalia, and Nigeria, and there's plenty of human-trafficking going on. It's not legally sanctioned, but it is happening right now. There is also slavery going on in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, but they don't call it that. Hell, Eastern Europe [sadly] has a thriving [illegal] slave trade as well, if the movie "Taken" is any indicator.
So they are totally wasting their time yelling at white people and demanding we PAY reparations to black people in America who have never been owned by others.
AmeriGirl26:
Guess what? You're not saying anything that people don't already know about. There have been people and organizations fighting against this modern-day slavery in other countries for the last couple of decades now. So you aren't dropping any "truth bombs" that people don't already know about.
Look up why some black people are demanding reparations---not all black Americans are, but some. Also, it's funny how all the boards on The Women King only seem to have comments by people who have never seen the movie, and there's comments by racists who just hate any movie about black people, which is pathetic.
OvertonPendulum:
That's not even what the film is about, but then your racist a** has never seen it, so how would you know what's in it? Don't comment on films you're never seen. Nobody said the film was about black abolishonists at all. So just stfu and move the hell on. Your racist-a** opinion isnt worth s***.
nufsaid16,
The protagonists in the movie rescue people from slavery and fight people who abduct others into slavery. It sounds to me like the film is about people fighting against slavery. It sounds to me like the film is about black abolitionists.
Did you actually watch this?
shareWhy would anyone want to subject themselves to woke propaganda bullshit? Imagine demonizing the French as colonizers when they actually trying to stop slavery and the people you're told to root for are actually enslaving and profitting off all the defective farm equipment sold to the Americas. Thank god Thomas Jefferson banned the slave trade in 1807. We didn't need Lincolns stupid ass to destroy the country, just enforce the borders.
shareThe African Slave Trade was banned by the US Government in 1807, but it continued until 1860.
I wouldn't mention Thomas Jefferson in any discussion about slavery, considering he had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings.
No, it was banned by THOMAS JEFFERSON. There wasn't any voting. And no, it did not continue legally. Many slave ships were sent away from ports. Americans knew slaves sucked at their job and weren't worth the price. Most went to Central America.
Jefferson having mixed race kids does nothing to affect anything in the minds of normal person. She wasn't raped. So don't get your point, other than that Jefferson had jungle fever, which is NOT a point. You sound off balanced.
Sally Hemings wasn't raped? Okay, I will accept your premise. However, she was 14 when Jefferson bought her, and she gave birth to the first child at 15.
Even if it was consensual, Jefferson was a pedophile.
In normal society women were women after puberty. It's literally biological. A child CANT give birth. Anymore roastie propaganda you want to discuss? Maybe she deserved half his estate, and alimony for the rest of her life?
shareHow do you know? Are you a historian who's studied the details of the slave trade in Africa?
Because if you just haven't heard of any African Abolitionists, that doesn't mean there weren't any. Detailed information about 19th century Africans isn't widely available in the West, to put it politely.