"Roots"

[MikeK]

They are shitting their pants as a new generation is being made aware of what went on and now the demographic shift is taking place

That seems like an interesting projection and I would appreciate it if you would fill us in with some more details on the demographic shift you've referred to and what you expect the ultimate result of it will be. Exactly what is it you're expecting from this demographic shift? What is it White Americans should be looking forward to?

 

[MarcATL]

Did you know that stupid back hill redneck slave owners also used slave children as a step stool or to hold their feet against their backs to get rid of "rheumatiz"? Old wives tale by their redneck mothers, but there it is. And many slave owners did not use them for cotton or tobacco. They used them to BREED, to resell to plantations as laborers or house slaves. Mixed blood slaves were of higher value due to the lighter skin..suitable for maids and shit. The "massah's" usually gave visiting male guests or kin or business guys a field hand slave for the night. The results were a baby of lighter skin...which means MONEY. LOTS of money. And they treated their slaves very well, except for stupid shit like the rheumatiz thang. Damage the breeding progress, the less they will fetch at market.

Same with cotton pickers and tobacco slaves. Thorns and shit. Can't pick if they are doubled over in pain or starved or beaten. So yeah....it was a bad time all around, to put it mildly, but not all slave owners were evil. Roots focused on generations that survived in a harsh world in their time. It SHOULD have focused as well on those who assisted in keeping that generation going strong, and died doing it. Meaning..whites. Who also helped slaves escape from other black slave owners. That was left out too. I guess Kunta's family were lucky they didn't wind up the slaves of a black person because they were meaner than the white ones were. Probably of the same black ilk that sold their own in africa to willing whites.

Isn't the practice of slavery itself evil?

So all you're realling doing is arguing the different DEGREES of evil.

Am I correct?

 

[Gracie]

Did you know that stupid back hill redneck slave owners also used slave children as a step stool or to hold their feet against their backs to get rid of "rheumatiz"? Old wives tale by their redneck mothers, but there it is. And many slave owners did not use them for cotton or tobacco. They used them to BREED, to resell to plantations as laborers or house slaves. Mixed blood slaves were of higher value due to the lighter skin..suitable for maids and shit. The "massah's" usually gave visiting male guests or kin or business guys a field hand slave for the night. The results were a baby of lighter skin...which means MONEY. LOTS of money. And they treated their slaves very well, except for stupid shit like the rheumatiz thang. Damage the breeding progress, the less they will fetch at market.

Same with cotton pickers and tobacco slaves. Thorns and shit. Can't pick if they are doubled over in pain or starved or beaten. So yeah....it was a bad time all around, to put it mildly, but not all slave owners were evil. Roots focused on generations that survived in a harsh world in their time. It SHOULD have focused as well on those who assisted in keeping that generation going strong, and died doing it. Meaning..whites. Who also helped slaves escape from other black slave owners. That was left out too. I guess Kunta's family were lucky they didn't wind up the slaves of a black person because they were meaner than the white ones were. Probably of the same black ilk that sold their own in africa to willing whites.

Isn't the practice of slavery itself evil?

So all you're realling doing is arguing the different DEGREES of evil.

Am I correct?

Yes, the aspect of slavery itself is evil. Degrees of it does not compute. Evil is evil.
Not in the mood today to debate something not debatable, so carry on without me.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm so glad you brought him up. You SAY you like Levar. Do you think he would be involved in a ill-produced, non-factual remake?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I don't think he would, which is why I am surprised that he has.
I ADORE Forest Whitaker, but he was the wrong actor for The Fiddler. He was great in Last King Of Scotland, though.
Put it this way...I didn't like the remake. I just didn't. It was bullshit. And factually...slaves were NOT laid as they showed in that ship. They were spooned, so more room could be made fit way more in there. They were hosed down once every couple of days up top, but never released from chains. Those that managed to escape from top deck, jumped overboard rather than be a slave. Hundreds did exactly that. And most slave owners took rudimentary care of their slaves. Slaves were money. Would you buy a race horse and beat it so it could not race? Would you invest in a pure bred dog for showing, and beat or starve it? No. Because its MONEY. Same with slaves. Yes, many were cruel and evil.
Do you really think the majority of white people that know this happened are ok with it? Really? Maybe so, but I don't think so. Any more than the majority of people think what happened to the jews was ok with it.

If yer gonna tell a horrendous story about slavery...then at least give some credence to the MANY that tried to stop it, or help slaves. There are more than 2 sides to every story.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't like the new "Roots", and think it's BS because it didn't show the slave situation harshly enough? Based on your slaveship comments.

Do I have that right?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I didn't like the new remake because it was BULLSHIT. Come on. You are a smart man. Think.

You're not telling me why. I can't, nor won't accept it just on face value. Why do you think it was BS?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I told you why. Either accept it, or not. But I will put it in another way this one time.

IF producers are going to do a remake of such a movie, then FACTS are important. Otherwise, its just a fantasy land movie. FACTS were not correct. Mandinkas were NOT interested in "university". They concentrated on their own kin, family unit, keeping it strong and within the tribe itself...NOT running off to "timbuktu" to "university". They also shot film of the slave ship. SPOONING is how they were transported. Not side by side shoulder to shoulder. Too much space. SPOONING fit in a couple hundred more. And they were STACKED, like pallets. And they spooned them to where they laid on their right side. They thought too much pressure of laying on the left side would damage their hearts.

Yes, I read a lot. Or rather...used to.

Not according to this article...

This Astonishing, Star-Making Turn Alone Makes Roots Must-See TV

Nor this video...

Roots on HISTORY on Twitter

Didn't I tell you that LaVar Burton would NOT lend his name to a project that was NOT factually correct?

Turns out that there were ADDITIONAL facts discovered SINCE the original "Roots" to the new one, facts that would OBVIOUSLY change or update the story, resulting in more information, filling in the gaps, which is what you saw in the first episode of the remake.

LaVar Burton has dedicated his life to literacy, history, the arts and all things educational. He WOULDN'T have been involved in a fallacy.

Please admit you're wrong.

 

[MarcATL]

Given that TV is not a good source of accurate history, it is not a good idea to watch this show and think that anything you are watching reflects what really happened during the days of slavery.

In the 1930's, when Hollywood was pro-South, slavery was almost always portrayed as a benevolent institution, with happy-go-lucky darkies working for generous and kind-hearted white masters. Gone With The Wind portrayed slavery this way, and the North was portrayed as an evil aggressor for forcibly ending this "civilized" way of life.

The current Hollywood line that all blacks were miserable and beaten, and that all whites were cruel, heartless, abusive taskmasters who mercilessly whipped their slaves, is as much as a lie as the previous pro-slavery portrayal. I'm not saying that slavery is ever a good thing, but exaggerating and lying about slavery does not serve the greater truth, which is that slavery is always wrong even if the masters are trying their best to be good masters, and the slaves are happy in their enslaved condition.

And that's because slavery perpetuates the idea that a human being can ever be legally or morally treated as anything less than a human being, with full human rights, inalienable, endowed by our Creator, and guaranteed in the United States Constitution. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence, written by slave owner Thomas Jefferson, was the death knell of slavery. What it proves is that though the some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, they knew it was wrong, and what's more important, they knew that slavery was a violation of everything the American Revolution stood for.

So what Roots is going to offer is "slavery porn." It will show black people getting beaten to an inch of their lives, and white people doing the whipping, and none of it will get us any closer to the answer we seek, which is that all human beings, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or status as born or unborn, is entitled to full rights under the U.S. Constitution, since we are all fully human and children of God. When Hollywood starts tackling current injustices, like abortion, with the bravery it tackles injustices that have already been resolved, then I will be impressed.

Very well said!

I watched the first episode of what clearly is an opportunistic effort to generate box-office profits while rubbing salt on an old wound and I thought it was a poorly crafted, poorly performed, often absurd waste of time. But I'm sure it will be a hit with a lot of mainly young Blacks who already are indoctrinated with hatred for Whites and undoubtedly will provoke a substantial increase in what already is a serious rate of Black on White crime.

Having read a few very good historical accounts of the slavery era in America and having watched several extremely well-made movies and televised documentaries of that shamefully cruel practice I feel justified in dismissing this amateurish production as comic-book level trash.

OMG! OMG!!! Historical drama, literature and art are "rubbing salt on an old wound"? We should never think about any historical events that make us feel bad, right? Only learn, teach, and think about the history that makes us feel good and look good, right?

*cough*HOLO*cough*CAUST*cough*

 

[MarcATL]

Did you know that stupid back hill redneck slave owners also used slave children as a step stool or to hold their feet against their backs to get rid of "rheumatiz"? Old wives tale by their redneck mothers, but there it is. And many slave owners did not use them for cotton or tobacco. They used them to BREED, to resell to plantations as laborers or house slaves. Mixed blood slaves were of higher value due to the lighter skin..suitable for maids and shit. The "massah's" usually gave visiting male guests or kin or business guys a field hand slave for the night. The results were a baby of lighter skin...which means MONEY. LOTS of money. And they treated their slaves very well, except for stupid shit like the rheumatiz thang. Damage the breeding progress, the less they will fetch at market.

Same with cotton pickers and tobacco slaves. Thorns and shit. Can't pick if they are doubled over in pain or starved or beaten. So yeah....it was a bad time all around, to put it mildly, but not all slave owners were evil. Roots focused on generations that survived in a harsh world in their time. It SHOULD have focused as well on those who assisted in keeping that generation going strong, and died doing it. Meaning..whites. Who also helped slaves escape from other black slave owners. That was left out too. I guess Kunta's family were lucky they didn't wind up the slaves of a black person because they were meaner than the white ones were. Probably of the same black ilk that sold their own in africa to willing whites.

Isn't the practice of slavery itself evil?

So all you're realling doing is arguing the different DEGREES of evil.

Am I correct?

Yes, the aspect of slavery itself is evil. Degrees of it does not compute. Evil is evil.
Not in the mood today to debate something not debatable, so carry on without me.

There's nothing to debate Gracie.

You're here trying to excuse evil, by applying degrees to it.

Then trying to play like you're mad because folks have decided to update, the much needed story.

Why are you doing this?

 

[Gracie]

Did you know that stupid back hill redneck slave owners also used slave children as a step stool or to hold their feet against their backs to get rid of "rheumatiz"? Old wives tale by their redneck mothers, but there it is. And many slave owners did not use them for cotton or tobacco. They used them to BREED, to resell to plantations as laborers or house slaves. Mixed blood slaves were of higher value due to the lighter skin..suitable for maids and shit. The "massah's" usually gave visiting male guests or kin or business guys a field hand slave for the night. The results were a baby of lighter skin...which means MONEY. LOTS of money. And they treated their slaves very well, except for stupid shit like the rheumatiz thang. Damage the breeding progress, the less they will fetch at market.

Same with cotton pickers and tobacco slaves. Thorns and shit. Can't pick if they are doubled over in pain or starved or beaten. So yeah....it was a bad time all around, to put it mildly, but not all slave owners were evil. Roots focused on generations that survived in a harsh world in their time. It SHOULD have focused as well on those who assisted in keeping that generation going strong, and died doing it. Meaning..whites. Who also helped slaves escape from other black slave owners. That was left out too. I guess Kunta's family were lucky they didn't wind up the slaves of a black person because they were meaner than the white ones were. Probably of the same black ilk that sold their own in africa to willing whites.

Isn't the practice of slavery itself evil?

So all you're realling doing is arguing the different DEGREES of evil.

Am I correct?

Yes, the aspect of slavery itself is evil. Degrees of it does not compute. Evil is evil.
Not in the mood today to debate something not debatable, so carry on without me.

There's nothing to debate Gracie.

You're here trying to excuse evil, by applying degrees to it.

Then trying to play like you're mad because folks have decided to update, the much needed story.

Why are you doing this?

Stop trying to speak in my behalf that of which you are incapable of understanding. I am not mad about that remake any more than I am mad about the new movie Ghost Busters with all women as the busters. Anger has nothing to do with "not interested".

 

[MarcATL]

Given that TV is not a good source of accurate history, it is not a good idea to watch this show and think that anything you are watching reflects what really happened during the days of slavery.

In the 1930's, when Hollywood was pro-South, slavery was almost always portrayed as a benevolent institution, with happy-go-lucky darkies working for generous and kind-hearted white masters. Gone With The Wind portrayed slavery this way, and the North was portrayed as an evil aggressor for forcibly ending this "civilized" way of life.

The current Hollywood line that all blacks were miserable and beaten, and that all whites were cruel, heartless, abusive taskmasters who mercilessly whipped their slaves, is as much as a lie as the previous pro-slavery portrayal. I'm not saying that slavery is ever a good thing, but exaggerating and lying about slavery does not serve the greater truth, which is that slavery is always wrong even if the masters are trying their best to be good masters, and the slaves are happy in their enslaved condition.

And that's because slavery perpetuates the idea that a human being can ever be legally or morally treated as anything less than a human being, with full human rights, inalienable, endowed by our Creator, and guaranteed in the United States Constitution. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence, written by slave owner Thomas Jefferson, was the death knell of slavery. What it proves is that though the some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, they knew it was wrong, and what's more important, they knew that slavery was a violation of everything the American Revolution stood for.

So what Roots is going to offer is "slavery porn." It will show black people getting beaten to an inch of their lives, and white people doing the whipping, and none of it will get us any closer to the answer we seek, which is that all human beings, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or status as born or unborn, is entitled to full rights under the U.S. Constitution, since we are all fully human and children of God. When Hollywood starts tackling current injustices, like abortion, with the bravery it tackles injustices that have already been resolved, then I will be impressed.

Very well said!

I watched the first episode of what clearly is an opportunistic effort to generate box-office profits while rubbing salt on an old wound and I thought it a poorly crafted, poorly performed, often absurd waste of time. But I'm sure it will be a hit with a lot of mainly young Blacks who already are indoctrinated with hatred for Whites and undoubtedly will provoke a substantial increase in what already is a serious rate of Black on White crime.

Having read a few very good historical accounts of the slavery era in America and having watched several extremely well-made movies and televised documentaries of that shamefully cruel practice I feel justified in dismissing this amateurish production as comic-book level trash.

OMG! OMG!!! Historical drama, literature and art are "rubbing salt on an old wound"? We should never think about any historical events that make us feel bad, right? Only learn, teach, and think about the history that makes us feel good and look good, right?

Anything showing whites in a bad light racially becomes rubbing salt in a wound. I bet the jewish holocaust movies are just fine.

I can't stand racists. Hate them. Despicable. I don't know how they can live with themselves.

They rationalize it by telling themselves things like there is no way Africans went to universities prior to Harvard being built or that Columbus discovered america, or whites invented civilization. Once you brainwash yourself into believing these things it becomes easy to be racist. Thats why I am so happy my parents made sure I knew my Black and African history.

What difference does it make whether or not tribesmen in Africa went to or didn't attend universities in their country in relation to the United States of American slave trade?

I don't know what cotton pickin' logic that is.

I guess when you're desperate and despicable you MUST latch on to something...ANYTHING.

 

[MarcATL]

Stop trying to speak in my behalf that of which you are incapable of understanding. I am not mad about that remake any more than I am mad about the new movie Ghost Busters with all women as the busters. Anger has nothing to do with "not interested".

Gracie:

Note how I'm coming to you respectfully, calm and thoughtfully. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from on this. Particularly since you're so stunningly incorrect on this matter. Help me out here.

So now you're no longer mad at the "Roots" remake. Why? What happened?

Did you finally watch it? If not, planning to? If not, why not?

 

[MarcATL]

Did not watch either version. I had no interest in them.

How come?

 

[Gracie]

Sigh.
I was never "mad" at the remake of roots. I said it sucked. Which it does. In my opinion. I am allowed that, am I not? Just as you are allowed to love it.
I am not incorrect on anything I said. Prove to me otherwise and then I will consider the factual proof you submit.
No, I did not watch the remake. Just the one episode. No, I will not watch it in future. I WILL watch the orginal one though (which will make it three times I have watched it), some day.

 

[MarcATL]

Sigh.
I was never "mad" at the remake of roots. I said it sucked. Which it does. In my opinion. I am allowed that, am I not? Just as you are allowed to love it.
I am not incorrect on anything I said. Prove to me otherwise and then I will consider the factual proof you submit.
No, I did not watch the remake. Just the one episode. No, I will not watch it in future. I WILL watch the orginal one though (which will make it three times I have watched it), some day.

You said it sucked based on faulty information though.

Don't you get the significance of that fact?

It seems like you're invested in the idea that it sucks.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Did you guys watch it? Did you watch the first one? Which one you prefer? Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

watched the first one with my family. gave up tv years ago so won't see this one.

heard that it was racist somehow.

 

[guno]

As America becomes more diverse a lot of history will be surfaced and that make some people very nervous . Maybe we can have truth commissions , like Mandela and the ANC had, get it all out , and then try to heal , and for those who don't oh well

 

[guno]

They are shitting their pants as a new generation is being made aware of what went on and now the demographic shift is taking place

That seems like an interesting projection and I would appreciate it if you would fill us in with some more details on the demographic shift you've referred to and what you expect the ultimate result of it will be. Exactly what is it you're expecting from this demographic shift? What is it White Americans should be looking forward to?

A more egalitarian society where real history is taught , no one group will be predominant and control the narrative

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sigh.
I was never "mad" at the remake of roots. I said it sucked. Which it does. In my opinion. I am allowed that, am I not? Just as you are allowed to love it.

You didn't watch it.

I am not incorrect on anything I said. Prove to me otherwise and then I will consider the factual proof you submit.

You said they were never chained side to side. You even said it was factual. I showed you they did and it was a fact they were chained side to side. I included Google images. You lied.

No, I did not watch the remake. Just the one episode. No, I will not watch it in future. I WILL watch the orginal one though (which will make it three times I have watched it), some day.

Like I said, you didn't watch yet have so much to say about what wasn't included in the 3 episodes you didn't see.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did you guys watch it? Did you watch the first one? Which one you prefer? Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

watched the first one with my family. gave up tv years ago so won't see this one.

heard that it was racist somehow.

You heard it was racist somehow? Well yeah, it's about the days of freaking slavery

 

[Desperado]

Did not watch either version. I had no interest in them.

How come?

It had no appeal to me. Same reason I don't go to some movies.

 

[MikeK]

Remember all the Germans Americans complaining about how they were portrayed in Schindlers list? And how they demanded they show all the good Germans in Hitlers Germany?

No? Me neither, what could be the difference?

I am American of German descent. Schindler's List was the first movie based on the Jewish genocide to finally acknowledge that all Germans were not intent on eliminating Jews and that at least one was willing to risk his personal safety to protect some of them. There needs to be more movies that will concede there were far more Germans than Oskar Schindler during that era who protected Jews in a number of ways, many of whom lost their lives for doing it.

The pianist was another such example. It revealed the long disregarded existence of organized groups of Germans, and there were quite a few, which managed to hide Jews and provide many with fake identities. But for decades after the early 1940s the word German became synonymous with Nazi where most Jews are concerned.

Likewise, for a substantial percentage of Black Americans, mainly the lesser-educated, the word White is synonymous with the words slavery and Jim Crow.

 

[Asclepias]

Remember all the Germans Americans complaining about how they were portrayed in Schindlers list? And how they demanded they show all the good Germans in Hitlers Germany?

No? Me neither, what could be the difference?

I am American of German descent. Schindler's List was the first movie based on the Jewish genocide to finally acknowledge that all Germans were not intent on eliminating Jews and that at least one was willing to risk his personal safety to protect some of them. There needs to be more movies that will concede there were far more Germans than Oskar Schindler during that era who hid and protected Jews in a number of ways, many of whom lost their lives for doing it.

The pianist was another such example. It revealed the long disregarded existence of organized groups of Germans, and there were quite a few, which managed to hide Jews and provide many with fake identities. But for decades after the early 1940s the word German became synonymous with Nazi where most Jews are concerned.

Likewise, for a substantial percentage of Black Americans, mainly the lesser-educated, the word White is synonymous with the words slavery and Jim Crow.

What about the Diary of Anne Frank?