The Birth of a Nation (Official Thread)

[D-NICE]

I guess talk doesn't always lead to action.

Yea, by talk I mean went to the movie, saw it, and said what they did or didn't like about it.

 

[Birnin Zana]

@Jello Biafra There are a few white people in the media who are doing the right thing by questioning why no heat for Casey Affleck like there is for Nate Parker:

Same media that was ready to pounce on Nate during TIFF didn't ask a damn thing about Casey Affleck's allegations during that same TIFF, allegations that were much more recent too.

These people are something else, I swear.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

Let me ask you a question, do you think that you think you can truthfully be friends with someone who thinks they are better than you? You can have fun with them, you can hang out, they might even be defensive of you, but the moment you overstep some perceived boundary that they have in their mind they will let you know exactly how they feel about you. Now in this movie, you see them playing hide and seek when they were younger, Sam even gets defensive over him to another white man, but as soon as Nat over stepped his boundaries and baptized that one guy which embarrassed Sam to other people, Sam let him know exactly where he viewed him. Now what makes him think that Nat was below him. Obviously skin tone, so my question is how can they truthfully have been buddies. This is one of the main problem with white supremacy, the thought process that you are better because of your skin. This is why people were literally were having melt downs in 2008, someone was going to the White House who didn't belong.

Now how he got to the point that Sam should die, lets say at your job, your manager gives you the authority to do something. You decide to actually use the authority outside the norm but other managers and your CEO don't like it. You get written up and in trouble while the manager who gave you the authority is sitting back and saying "well yea I gave him the authority, but I ain't tell him to do that." I'm sure there would be some trust and anger issues there. Now lets throw in a beating and I'm sure most of us would be thinking the same way.

I agree that the film provided adequate motivation for killing Sam - his indifference to a slave's wife being raped in his own house, his heel turn after the baptism, etc. - but that's not the whole story. The real Nat Turner was killing white children, women and men. The film avoids confronting that history directly outside of a fleeting reference in Nat's hanging scene because the film doesn't offer enough context to understand Nat Turner's reasons for doing so.

The film heroicizes its version of Nat Turner by painting the rebellion as retribution against the white men that we witness throughout the film committing horrifying crimes but the reality is he also killed white people that he didn't know. To truly be able to look through Nat Turner's eyes requires a POV that takes a hard look at the meaning of whiteness and "white" society. Birth of a Nation did not do that despite that it looks at the victims of white society. If the film had more closely looked at the white mentality in it's first two acts it could have shown all of the casualties of the rebellion and made a larger, more sobering point about how deeply entrenched racism is. It could have gotten closer to truly putting the audience in Nat Turner's shoes.

 

[D-NICE]

I agree that the film provided adequate motivation for killing Sam - his indifference to a slave's wife being raped in his own house, his heel turn after the baptism, etc. - but that's not the whole story. The real Nat Turner was killing white children, women and men. The film avoids confronting that history directly outside of a fleeting reference in Nat's hanging scene because the film doesn't offer enough context to understand Nat Turner's reasons for doing so.

The film heroicizes its version of Nat Turner by painting the rebellion as retribution against the white men that we witness throughout the film committing horrifying crimes but the reality is he also killed white people that he didn't know. To truly be able to look through Nat Turner's eyes requires a POV that takes a hard look at the meaning of whiteness and "white" society. Birth of a Nation did not do that despite that it looks at the victims of white society. If the film had more closely looked at the white mentality in it's first two acts it could have shown all of the casualties of the rebellion and made a larger, more sobering point about how deeply entrenched racism is. It could have gotten closer to truly putting the audience in Nat Turner's shoes.

I felt it did show in some sense the mentality of the time of whiteness and white society which was them going along to get along. The mother went along with the father's wishes and sent Nat back to the field. Sam went along with a guy basically raping a slave. A lot of the white character in the film were just going along with the system. Maybe because of fear, patriarchy, gains, etc., all basically went along with the system even when they knew it wasn't right. This is another problem with WS, people just accept it and adhere to it even though they know it is wrong.

As far as what the film could have done differently, the film had a small budget and more established people didn't want to touch it. Could the story have been better in areas, touched on some different issues, and made even a better film, sure. But overall I thought it was still good. It told his story within its confines. I personally don't need to see how white society was feeling at the time when it comes to this. They have had years to tell that story. This was about him and what led to the rebellion.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

I felt it did show in some sense the mentality of the time of whiteness and white society which was them going along to get along. The mother went along with the father's wishes and sent Nat back to the field. Sam went along with a guy basically raping a slave. A lot of the white character in the film were just going along with the system. Maybe because of fear, patriarchy, gains, etc., all basically went along with the system even when they knew it wasn't right. This is another problem with WS, people just accept it and adhere to it even though they know it is wrong.

Did Sam really "go along" with the rape of the slave though? That implies that he actually was against the rape of the slave to begin with. I don't think the film ever suggested he was against it at all. If anything, it was pointing out that Nat was erroneously giving his master too much credit for having the capacity to be humane. Sam had already embraced his "whiteness" years ago.

As far as what the film could have done differently, the film had a small budget and more established people didn't want to touch it. Could the story have been better in areas, touched on some different issues, and made even a better film, sure. But overall I thought it was still good. It told his story within its confines. I personally don't need to see how white society was feeling at the time when it comes to this. They have had years to tell that story. This was about him and what led to the rebellion.

The rebellion IS about whiteness as an ideology and the institution that perpetuates it, the rebellion was a direct rejection of it. Saying that you don't need to see the institution he rebelled against represented in the film is missing the point entirely.

 

[mastermind]

Let me ask you a question, do you think that you think you can truthfully be friends with someone who thinks they are better than you? You can have fun with them, you can hang out, they might even be defensive of you, but the moment you overstep some perceived boundary that they have in their mind they will let you know exactly how they feel about you. Now in this movie, you see them playing hide and seek when they were younger, Sam even gets defensive over him to another white man, but as soon as Nat over stepped his boundaries and baptized that one guy which embarrassed Sam to other people, Sam let him know exactly where he viewed him. Now what makes him think that Nat was below him. Obviously skin tone, so my question is how can they truthfully have been buddies. This is one of the main problem with white supremacy, the thought process that you are better because of your skin. This is why people were literally were having melt downs in 2008, someone was going to the White House who didn't belong.

Now how he got to the point that Sam should die, lets say at your job, your manager gives you the authority to do something. You decide to actually use the authority outside the norm but other managers and your CEO don't like it. You get written up and in trouble while the manager who gave you the authority is sitting back and saying "well yea I gave him the authority, but I ain't tell him to do that." I'm sure there would be some trust and anger issues there. Now lets throw in a beating and I'm sure most of us would be thinking the same way.

I appreciate the response, but none of that answered the question of dissecting white supremacy like homie said the film did in the prior post.

 

[D-NICE]

Did Sam really "go along" with the rape of the slave though? That implies that he actually was against the rape of the slave to begin with. I don't think the film ever suggested he was against it at all. If anything, it was pointing out that Nat was erroneously giving his master too much credit for having the capacity to be humane. Sam had already embraced his "whiteness" years ago.



The rebellion IS about whiteness as an ideology and the institution that perpetuates it, the rebellion was a direct rejection of it. Saying that you don't need to see the institution he rebelled against represented in the film is missing the point entirely.

For the first part, I included gains with "going along." Like you said, Nat messed up thinking he was ok. As soon as an opportunity presented itself to Sam for his gain, he had no problems sending his slaves wife in there to get raped.

As far as the second point, I'm not sure what else in the movie you want for them to show that basically white people thought they were better for no other reason than their skin. I mean there was a scene where a white girl was dragging around a black girl like a pet and Sam's sister was happy like she had got a puppy when she got Cherry. When this movie starts we a few centuries into slavery, I'm pretty sure it was normalized at this point and religion was backing the thought process. I'm sure their thought process was basically "yea, that's my pe... I mean slave, what's the problem." The reason I don't care to see their feelings is in most of these movies, we tend see from the person who don't really like slavery or saw everyone as human. I've seen that enough and that's was an outlier to a systematic problem. I might be missing the point of what you are asking though so please expound on what you would have liked to see in the film.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

I appreciate the response, but none of that answered the question of dissecting white supremacy like homie said the film did in the prior post.

Since you are referring to my post let me answer. White supremacy is about power and whites maintaining control of the wealth and keeping the status quo. Even way back then they realized that shackles and chains were not enough to keep blacks oppressed and under white rule. That's why they had Nat going from farm to farm preaching and paid sam lots of money. It was physcological warfare.. slave mentality. defeat their minds and you will have their bodies. Give them hope but dont give them freedom.

See You can operate within white supremacy as long as you dont challenge and threaten the system of white supremacy. The minute you do they will strike you down and make an example out of you the way Sam did Nat when he had him whipped. And Sam was supposed to be one of the "good" ones. Nat learned that day there was no such thing.

Slave owners feared rebellion as they stated. They needed a black messenger to pacify the slaves and give them false hope and Religion was the perfect tool. Sound familiar.. like Obama's hope and change pacified blacks today while white supremacy has systematically eliminated black wealth over the past 8 years.

There are no chains on us today but mentally many are still bound the same way our ancestors were. They fought to derail this movie the for the same reason in the movie the white lady told Nat he couldnt read the other books beside the bible. She didnt want him getting more knowledge and ideas in his head. Those books are for white people she said. Madea halloween is cool, love and hip hop is cool, but Birth of a nation... naw they didnt want blacks to see that. Blacks being enlightened and having knowledge of self is dangerous to white supremacy.. there are no chains on us.. but they dont need chains when we are mentality bound and psychologically defeated.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

As far as the second point, I'm not sure what else in the movie you want for them to show that basically white people thought they were better for no other reason than their skin. I mean there was a scene where a white girl was dragging around a black girl like a pet and Sam's sister was happy like she had got a puppy when she got Cherry. When this movie starts we a few centuries into slavery, I'm pretty sure it was normalized at this point and religion was backing the thought process. I'm sure their thought process was basically "yea, that's my pe... I mean slave, what's the problem." The reason I don't care to see their feelings is in most of these movies, we tend see from the person who don't really like slavery or saw everyone as human. I've seen that enough and that's was an outlier to a systematic problem. I might be missing the point of what you are asking though so please expound on what you would have liked to see in the film.

It's not just that white people were raised to think that they're better than black people, it's that they're raised to be in control of black people and they're taught that it's their birth right to do so. They're taught from birth that black lives are worthless and can only ever be worth something insofar as a white master gives their lives meaning and purpose. They're trained from birth to see black people as fear itself - something to be conquered and contained.

I wanted the film to highlight the fact that there was no redemption for this white society: they literally cling to their delusions of whiteness for dear life. They are not merely cold and heartless, they are crazed and their society reinforces that and rewards them for that. It takes a certain level of craziness to be capable of enslaving, mutilating and killing your own children (read: mulattoes) and your society at large doesn't so much as bat an eye. In fact, they take your side of it 100% of the time no matter how petty - or false - the reason you kill them for is. It's no different than how thousands of black men were lynched in the 20th century for the most trivial of reasons and the most baseless of claims. How many of their executioners ever saw a day in court?

 

[D-NICE]

It's not just that white people were raised to think that they're better than black people, it's that they're raised to be in control of black people and they're taught that it's their birth right to do so. They're taught from birth that black lives are worthless and can only ever be worth something insofar as a white master gives their lives meaning and purpose. They're trained from birth to see black people as fear itself - something to be conquered and contained.

I wanted the film to highlight the fact that there was no redemption for this white society: they literally cling to their delusions of whiteness for dear life. They are not merely cold and heartless, they are crazed and their society reinforces that and rewards them for that. It takes a certain level of craziness to be capable of enslaving, mutilating and killing your own children (read: mulattoes) and your society at large doesn't so much as bat an eye.

Yea he could have added some stuff like that, won't disagree there. I think if he added all that background and went all the way with the story where not only the masters were the only ones getting killed, I don't think this would have saw the light of day, at least not in America. If I had read your post before the first one I commented on though, I think I would have got what you were talking about earlier and would have been on the same page.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

Yea he could have added some stuff like that, won't disagree there. I think if he added all that background and went all the way with the story where not only the masters were the only ones getting killed, I don't think this would have saw the light of day, at least not in America. If I had read your post before the first one I commented on though, I think I would have got what you were talking about earlier and would have been on the same page.

Exactly. To this day Amerikkka does not want to look in the mirror that the real Nat Turner story holds up to their pathologically racist culture.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

I wanted the film to highlight the fact that there was no redemption for this white society: they literally cling to their delusions of whiteness for dear life. They are not merely cold and heartless, they are crazed and their society reinforces that and rewards them for that. It takes a certain level of craziness to be capable of enslaving, mutilating and killing your own children (read: mulattoes) and your society at large doesn't so much as bat an eye. In fact, they take your side of it 100% of the time no matter how petty - or false - the reason you kill them for is. It's no different than how thousands of black men were lynched in the 20th century for the most trivial of reasons and the most baseless of claims. How many of their executioners ever saw a day in court?

I think it did highlight the lack of redemption of white society. That's what motivated Nat to turn on his childhood "friend". Nat thought Sam was different.. He didn't think Sam would really let someone rape the other slaves until he saw Sam say it himself. There were no "good" white people in this film. Sam had some type of consciousness but he had to participate in the white supremacist system to survive which is what the rape scene represented. He needed to impress those folks to keep the plantation going. If you notice Sam was heavy drinker.. I think that was to say it weighed and took a toll on him. Whether Sam actively wanted to participate in the system or not didn't matter in the end and Nat came to realize that.

I think calling whites crazy is somewhat of a cop out though. White folks were and are not crazy. They knew exactly what they were doing. The system of white supremacy works as intended. It's strategic.. not crazy. Sometimes they will sacrifice their own and go against their own self interest if that's what it takes to keep the system of white supremacy intact. Why do you think poor whites support politicians who are not aligned with their goals or endorse policies that will raise their taxes or hurt them? Cause those same politicians are anti-black and pro white supremacy and that superceeds any needs those poor whites may have. They will sacrifice themselves for the greater "good" of their people.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

I think it did highlight the lack of redemption of white society. That's what motivated Nat to turn on his childhood "friend". Nat thought Sam was different.. He didn't think Sam would really let someone rape the other slaves until he saw Sam say it himself. There were no "good" white people in this film. Sam had some type of consciousness but he had to participate in the white supremacist system to survive which is what the rape scene represented. He needed to impress those folks to keep the plantation going. If you notice Sam was heavy drinker.. I think that was to say it weighed and took a toll on him. Whether Sam actively wanted to participate in the system or not didn't matter in the end and Nat came to realize that.

You're right that Sam's character was given some depth, he was obviously not at ease with the extreme depravity that some of his peers reveled in. There were some cracks in his white identity, the fact that he saved Cherry from being a concubine for little more reason than Nat's pleas was clearly meant to show that. That being said, his entire lifeblood was the slave trade and he felt no real moral ambiguity about where his money came from (with the exception of seeing Nat preach peace and hope to slaves who were clearly being tortured and abused). He still firmly believed as a white man he was meant to be in control of blacks. the irony of Sam's queasiness concerning the other planters' medieval methods of subjugation is made clear when he brutally rips into Nat with the lash for an offense that is equally trivial.

I think calling whites crazy is somewhat of a cop out though. White folks were and are not crazy. They knew exactly what they were doing. The system of white supremacy works as intended. It's strategic.. not crazy. Sometimes they will sacrifice their own and go against their own self interest if that's what it takes to keep the system of white supremacy intact. Why do you think poor whites support politicians who are not aligned with their goals or endorse policies that will raise their taxes or hurt them? Cause those same politicians are anti-black and pro white supremacy and that superceeds any needs those poor whites may have. They will sacrifice themselves for the greater "good" of their people.

I understand your point but I would counter that though the white supremacist rhetoric was created and indoctrinated into the white population for strategic purposes, the generational internalization of that rhetoric as fact and faith has done a number on their sense of identity. A bloodlust arose out of that unchecked ideology - and especially among the marginalized white group that you're referencing - that is deeper than simply maintaining the status quo.

 

[Ziggiy]

she right

A lot of people were turned off with Nate Parker's actions selling the movie. We as a society do not care about violence against women as much as we should. Also 60% of the attendance for the film was black women that first weekend.

If that dude didnt come across as an a$$hole in his selling of the movie, then there woudnt have been this much negative coverage.

An a$$hole...about his innocence

 

[666 ReVeNGe 666]

Is this a must see?

Or should I wait for redox?

Or for that streaming leak

I really want to support though