12 Years A Slave: Why Did I Win Best Picture?

Sure enough were.

There were no Republicans at the time.

The Republican party was the LIBERAL wing of the Whig party..who did own slaves.

You might want to take your own advice.

Are you saying that Democrats didn't oppose abolition?

You're saying Lincoln wasn't a Republican? Why did they create a Republican Party?

Did you read my post?

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a wiki page for ya.

Thanks for the link. It doesn't support your claim in any way. Also, it leads to this link which you would do well to read.

Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Republicanism is a political values system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution.[1] It stresses liberty and "unalienable" rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.[2] American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. This system was based on Ancient Greco-Roman, Renaissance, and English models and ideas.[3] It formed the basis for the American Revolution and the consequential Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787), as well as the Gettysburg Address (1863).[4]

Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.[5] Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.[6]

The term "republicanism" is derived from the term "republic", but the two words have different meanings. A "republic" is a form of government (one without a hereditary ruling class) while "republicanism" is a political ideology that can appear in republics or monarchies.[7]"

"A second stream of thought growing in significance was the classical liberalism of John Locke, including his theory of the "social contract". This had a great influence on the revolution as it implied the inborn right of the people to overthrow their leaders should those leaders betray the agreements implicit in the sovereign-follower relationship."

"The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its principles guaranteed liberty, with opposing, limited powers offsetting one another. They thought change should occur slowly, as many were afraid that a "democracy"- by which they meant a direct democracy- would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties. They believed the most formidable of these potential majorities was that of the poor against the rich.[32] They thought democracy could take the form of mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue.[33] Therefore, they devised a written Constitution that could be amended only by a super majority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states,[34] gave the control of the upper house (Senate) to the states, and created an Electoral College, comprising a small number of elites, to select the president. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. In 1776, most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction. As the country urbanized and people took on different work, the property ownership requirement was gradually dropped by many states. Property requirements were gradually dismantled in state after state, so that all had been eliminated by 1850, so that few if any economic barriers remained to prevent white adult males from voting.[35]"

There is plenty more for your edification. Liberalism of the late 1700's is in now way related to the liberal/progressive movement of today.
 
I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

Maybe you should see it before making judgements.

And finally dealing with slavery in a truthful manner instead of the "Gone With the Wind" and "Song of the South" fairy tales..is a good thing.

That's why it won. Not because it was a good movie, but because "it's time".

The academy feels so much better about themselves today than they did the day before yesterday.
 
I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

No more than the Godfather made organized crime Hollywoods "topic detour" being that it was the first movie whose SEQUEL also won Best Picture, as did the original.

I saw 12 Years A Slave twice. I thought it was a good movie that was a human interest story that was based on a sad fact, but it had a happy ending, and unfortunately it will probably now be viewed as a "guilt trip" ploy or a form of "racial agitating" by those who are hypersensitive to the very term "racism". The good news is that enough people saw it for what it really was.....
a compelling story that had all of the elements that make a movie good entertainment.


I haven't seen it yet, but I wanna. Soon as I can rent it, I will.
 
tumblr_n1ugh8VpZr1rm001ko8_r1_500.jpg


I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

good film?
 
PS thanks for giving me a good idea RW!

I heard that Morgan Freeman spoke out against Black History.
So maybe I should try to contact his agents about a Freedmens Town movie,
especially since he closely resembles one of the historic community leaders
he'd have to research anyway to get all the political lowdown on this epic saga.

Not what typical liberals in Hollywood might want to hear, but maybe people who WANT to see the bigger picture.

It is obviously a left wing Holywood depiction of slavery

We need a conservative movie which shows slaves singing and dancing, slaves joining the Confederate Army to fight to maintain slavery and of course more black slave owners

Dear RW:

How about a real historical depiction of Freed Slaves after emancipation
who built and managed their own settlement of churches, businesses, and houses
in Freedmen's Town -- 100 years before they were even considered citizens.

Would it bother you to show a wealth successful business district of
Blacks who received no help from govt, but built it by their own labor as noncitizens
but just as a CHURCH community getting help from other churches and ministers.

Is that bad to mention their Christian faith gave them strength to overcome political adversity?
And not only survive but thrive, as much more successful than the community today
where this independence was killed off.

This success was before LIBERALS sold this idea of poor people depending on govt:
* abusing eminent domain to seize private property from minority owners to build
public housing through the federal govt against objections by the owners they overruled;
* building over sites of historic burials and excluding Blacks from the complex
(until the Civil Rights Act 30 years later and lawsuits to force desegregation)
* and continuing to give millions in taxdollars to private developers to seize and destroy
historic property, after evicting and bleeding out local residents to deprive
them of equal access to obtain and restore historic housing and landmarks

This was done under Democrat administrations, including successive
Democrat Mayors and Democrat Congress reps over this district.

Would you like to see such a movie comparing the financial success of
FREED SLAVES not even recognizes much less helped by govt,
vs poor minorities depending on govt that is abused by LIBERALS to wipe them out?

Or does this NOT fit the stereotypes you want to see reinforced either?
Do we need to rewrite history to get rid of these conflicts?
Is that why liberal Democrats want to erase all evidence of wrongdoing,
because it might prove arguments about politically "enslaving" their poor voter base
to keep them dependent on govt? even taking land away from private owners
(by federal public housing and also by local public schools
evicting and seizing property from private owners by eminent domain)

Do you want to deny this reality and wait for this drama to come to a theatre near you?
Oh wait, with Obamacare, maybe it already has reached a wider audience. Never mind.

You are free to make any movie you wish showing any position you wish. I hope it does well at the Oscars
 
tumblr_n1ugh8VpZr1rm001ko8_r1_500.jpg


I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

I know it's unlikely, but I HOPE its a bellwether of a political tsunami just around the corner, to repudiate Obama.

They want a big ol' unmistakable sign of their love of all things Black so that when they turn on Dear Leader, anyone accusing them of racism will be reminded of the academy's vote for 12 Years.

Like I said, I hope that's what it's about.

Which do you hate more?

Movies about race or movies about homosexuals?
 
It is obviously a left wing Holywood depiction of slavery

We need a conservative movie which shows slaves singing and dancing, slaves joining the Confederate Army to fight to maintain slavery and of course more black slave owners
I haven't seen this movie yet. But every movie of its kind that I have seen, whether factual or fabricated (e.g., Roots), serves to incite or exacerbate hatred of Whites among a substantial segment of American Blacks.

While there is no valid excuse for the barbaric cruelty that was slavery little to no mention is made of the fact that slavery is and has been endemic to Africa, and that it exists to this day in various parts of that continent, and that there would not have been any Black slaves in America were it not for those Black Africans who captured other Blacks and sold them to the Dutch, Portuguese, and Arab traders who transported and sold them here.

Again, none of that is an excuse for the evil practice of slavery. But it is time for History to acknowledge that it did not originate with White people and Whites are not exclusively responsible for it.
 
tumblr_n1ugh8VpZr1rm001ko8_r1_500.jpg


I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?


Maybe it won because it was the best picture.
Anyway, it was judged as being best picture by the Academy, end of story.

White racism against Blacks seems to be one of Hollywood's favourite topics these days.
Maybe soon they'll make a movie about the genociding today of Whites in Africa by Blacks.
...and all the crimes/bashings/murders in America against/of Whites, by Blacks.

White guilt?
To me, White guilt is like Clean Up Australia Day.
I didn't trash Australia so I ain't cleaning it up.
I also didn't keep slaves and have never abused/bashed or murdered Black People, so I feel no guilt and ain't apologising for anything.

Remembering the victims of racism who suffered greatly and expressing sorrow that it happened, is a totally different thing.

Maybe Hollywood will make a movie about all the anti-White 'reverse racism' that's going on these days.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

No more than the Godfather made organized crime Hollywoods "topic detour" being that it was the first movie whose SEQUEL also won Best Picture, as did the original.

I saw 12 Years A Slave twice. I thought it was a good movie that was a human interest story that was based on a sad fact, but it had a happy ending, and unfortunately it will probably now be viewed as a "guilt trip" ploy or a form of "racial agitating" by those who are hypersensitive to the very term "racism". The good news is that enough people saw it for what it really was.....
a compelling story that had all of the elements that make a movie good entertainment.


I haven't seen it yet, but I wanna. Soon as I can rent it, I will.

Definately worth seeing.
 
tumblr_n1ugh8VpZr1rm001ko8_r1_500.jpg


I haven't seen it and I don't plan on seeing it, but it won an Oscar for best picture.

Is racism Hollywood's topic dejour now? Is that why it won?

I know it's unlikely, but I HOPE its a bellwether of a political tsunami just around the corner, to repudiate Obama.

They want a big ol' unmistakable sign of their love of all things Black so that when they turn on Dear Leader, anyone accusing them of racism will be reminded of the academy's vote for 12 Years.

Like I said, I hope that's what it's about.

Which do you hate more?

Movies about race or movies about homosexuals?

You.

I hate you.
 
Whites need to stop feeling guilty about slavery. Slavery is just more evidence of black inferiority.

BTW - blacks didn't end slavery. Whites did.
 
Funny, Democrats were the slave owners bud.

Open a book for once.

Sure enough were.

There were no Republicans at the time.

The Republican party was the LIBERAL wing of the Whig party..who did own slaves.

You might want to take your own advice.

Are you saying that Democrats didn't oppose abolition?

You're saying Lincoln wasn't a Republican? Why did they create a Republican Party?
Oh, for God's sake, who are you trying to fool? The Republican party of that time was not the same Republican party it is today: EVERYONE knows that. Everyone. You are only trying to play a game. The real irony and what really makes you a complete fool and so totally pathetic is you are trying to take credit for what the liberals and progressives of the day did and cared about, which is the complete opposite of what the Republican party of today cares about. In those days, the party of Lincoln were progressives and liberals, not what today's Republican party is, but it's complete opposite. That is what EVERYONE knows. And your ridiculous attempts to twist it into anything else are obvious in NEON lights.
 
Sure enough were.

There were no Republicans at the time.

The Republican party was the LIBERAL wing of the Whig party..who did own slaves.

You might want to take your own advice.

Are you saying that Democrats didn't oppose abolition?

You're saying Lincoln wasn't a Republican? Why did they create a Republican Party?
Oh, for God's sake, who are you trying to fool? The Republican party of that time was not the same Republican party it is today: EVERYONE knows that. Everyone. You are only trying to play a game. The real irony and what really makes you a complete fool and so totally pathetic is you are trying to take credit for what the liberals and progressives of the day did and cared about, which is the complete opposite of what the Republican party of today cares about. In those days, the party of Lincoln were progressives and liberals, not what today's Republican party is, but it's complete opposite. That is what EVERYONE knows. And your ridiculous attempts to twist it into anything else are obvious in NEON lights.

Everyone doesn't know. You've just been told that. Over and over again till you think it's the truth.

A prime example of how the left distorts the truth......Christians are supposedly racist Republicans, yet Nancy Pelosi is Catholic and Harry Reid is Mormon. I don't know if they truly believe in their religion or if it's just a matter of convenience to them. They surely don't follow the Gospel by any stretch. They actually voted to remove God from the platform at the DNC. I think mostly what they are is dishonest politicians, nothing more. They never practice what they preach. They invoke God whenever it suits them and discard him when they get into their little cliche circle of friends.

BTW, liberals of that era are nothing like the liberals of today. Not even close. Your average Republican today would have no problem fitting in with the Republican party of 1865. Liberals today aren't like anything we've ever seen before. Many are liberal in name only. They're mostly Statists, Progressive, Communists, Socialist, Marxists, and anti-Semites. It's hard to put a label on what exactly they are today. How can a Jew be anti-Semitic? Easy. How can a Catholic or a Mormon be anti-religion? Same reason. They're Democrats first.
 
Last edited:
I've heard only good about "12 years a slave" but I haven't seen it yet. Is it worse it?
 
:lol:
It is obviously a left wing Holywood depiction of slavery

We need a conservative movie which shows slaves singing and dancing, slaves joining the Confederate Army to fight to maintain slavery and of course more black slave owners

Funny, Democrats were the slave owners bud.

Open a book for once.

Sure enough were.

There were no Republicans at the time.

The Republican party was the LIBERAL wing of the Whig party..who did own slaves.

You might want to take your own advice.

Linclon was a Republican
 

Forum List

Back
Top