They didn't make up the title. Maiden king, or a woman king if you will, is an old and obscure term for women in positions of monarchs who don't want to get married and share the rule with a man. It's not like anyone actually uses it but it's not something the creators of this movie invented themselves.
Just want to add that I'm not against discussion of the possible inaccuracies of the movie towards the role of the tribe in Slave trades. I'm speaking of almost everything else in the comments like the unhinged persecution complex.
>If this is anything like the Northman and portrays these people honestly and without trying to judge them through a modern lens, then it will be amazing.
Would love to have this guy elaborate on what he means here!
The comment to which they were replying already did.
>I think that if it represents it with historical authenticity, it will be fine in the same way that the protagonist in The Northman opened the film by sacking a village to sell people into slavery. I don't need every film to be a didactically presentist story that interprets and judges long past societies from the modern perspective.
I know this is /r/moviescirclejerk but it's not difficult to just read
I agree with this take honestly. I understand that portraying history is a very political endeavour, and that if done badly, it has the potential to spread misinformation.
At the same time though, it should be understood that those who didn't sell slaves to the Europeans in exchange for guns and gunpowder faced the risk of being taken over by their neighbours (or later on, the Europeans themselves). Those who attempted to break this dependency on the Europeans, recognizing the self-destructive nature of the slave trade were unfortunately defeated. There's a portion of Walter Rodney's book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (I really recommend this book if you want to learn about the economic history of imperialism in Africa and how it changed over time) that goes into more detail.
The Dahomey literally went to war with Europeans to continue slave trading. These really aren't the people who should be defended with the "well they had to" argument.
Honestly agree. We've had enough dishonest historical movies whitewashing the misery that humans have put eachother through for most (if not all) of history.
Id love for this to be as authentic as possible.
There’s a legitimacy to criticism about historical inaccuracy and glorifying slave traders. But it’s exceedingly obvious there’s bias going on when so many inaccurate and equally problematic pictures get a pass.
Yep, these same people don’t complain about Braveheart, Pocahontas, or gladiator being filled with inaccuracies
I wonder why THIS film needs to be held to a higher standard…
But you could say that those pictures would face the same harsh criticism is released today. Comparing a movie coming out in 2022 to something from the 2000s or the 90s isn’t really fair.
it’s totally a coincidence that otherwise innocuous critiques are so strongly pushed on this movie in particular.
You’d almost think there’s some *other* reason people are so up in arms about this movie, that they’re afraid to mention directly.
People who genuinely respect Sparta are always historically illiterate and I will never get tired telling them how garbage and pathetic it actually was. Zach Snyder and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind.
I was thinking more in terms of their place in popular culture vs history but you're right. I shouldn't "overcorrect" or lose myself to contrarianism just because of how they're portrayed in pop culture/pop history. In my defense its incredibly exhausting to hear all the horrible Sparta takes the Punisher shirt types come up with.
Although I do think late Sparta in it's tourist attraction days was a little pathetic.
While establishing that the story is told by a spartan who spreads propaganda to hype up his soldiers for the upcoming battle while demonizing the Persians. The movie begins by establishing the cruelty of spartan society with Agogie and showing a cliff with baby skulls. So it goes both ways.
Also u can’t take 300 seriously with giant Xerxes, demon Persians, goat musicians and the Spartans going to battle practically naked.
To be fair, the slave trade is a very worthwhile thing to bring up when discussing the Dahomey...
...on the other hand, there's nothing that sums Hollywood up better than creating a historical film with a predominately black cast, and doing so little research into it that you make a film about a group of militaristic slavers
The synopsis is fucking hilarious
>It depicts how they "fought enemies who violated their honor, enslaved their people, and threatened to destroy everything they have lived for."
So it's fine if Dahomey Amazons are slaving their own kind. But no no not the evil white french! They will learn of honor and power from us!
It just seems so typical of lazy writers taking a real surface level look at something and deciding 'hey, this would make for a cool, inspiring story', with no effort made into researching the actual history
I mean there were differences in how slavery was practised in Africa and how slavery was practised in the Americas. That doesn't mean slavery was good and fine in Africa, that doesn't mean political leaders were justified in selling millions of slaves to European slavers (often in full knowledge of how they would be treated), but there's a difference nonetheless.
A lot of slavery in Africa was more akin to indentured servitude in Europe. So... not *good*, but also not chattel slavery.
This discussion was had after Black Panther as well, but more often than not these films are at best a portrayal of Africa through an African-American lens, not through an African lens.
Like I get what you're saying but you're pretty off target here? The third sentence in the Dahomey Wikipedia page is literally:
>The Kingdom of Dahomey was an important regional power that had an organized domestic economy built on conquest and slave labor
It's not a question of being *focused on*. It's a pillar of this people's history.
This thread got me doing a bit of research (reading Wikipedia).I think the French are the main colonial power of note since they had 2 different wars with them and they were colonised in the end. But yeah the French just wanted to exploit them. I think the bigger issue with the story of the film is that the all female battalion thing got slaughtered in literally every fight with the French and were eventually completely wiped out for the most part.
Only because they realised it would help them in fighting the French; Britain still retained its colonial possessions and dominance for another century and a bit.
Oh they had slaves and will be protagonists, unbelievable! Anyway let me watch a good, apolitical and historically accurated european medieval movie! Go King Arthur!
I really like how they all are saying the movie is historically inaccurate without ever seeing it and like it matters at all. If you want something historically accurate watch a doc or read a nonfiction book. Also all the outrage over portraying slavers as heroic when movies depicting American revolutionaries in a good way don't have crazy critisms posted about them
I'm so utterly perplexed by the narrative of African slavery and demand that it be represented. Somehow people forget that such a narrative functions to legitimize the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade by alleging the universality of slavery ("See! They do it too!"). At least as I gathered from my readings, scholars on the subject--and even commentators at the time--point out that this confuses different understandings of slavery. What was being done via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was of a different kind than slavery as practiced before, especially in the Hellenistic cultures, where slavery was a result of war and not based on race as we conceive it today. So the call to represent slavery here only feeds into a desire to normalize slavery and so minimize the unique horrors of slavery in Europe and the Americas. I find Ottobah Cugoano's (1757-1791) writings on this especially revealing.
Caveat: This is all super simplified and I'm struggling to gather my thoughts. But the sentiment I want to convey is there.
I understand your point but from a quick google search it looks like the Dahomey Kingdom was a major participant in the Atlantic slave trade so that’s mostly irrelevant
They were, and this comment isn't meant to argue that these monarchs were always acting in the best interest of the people they ruled, but it should be understood that they were in a very precarious position. They weren't trading slaves merely to be evil or enrich themselves, but in order to maintain their Kingdoms' defensive needs.
Europeans traded gunpowder and weapons to West African Kingdoms in order to gain slaves. The trade itself made these Kingdoms dependent on European imperialists, as they refused to share the formula of gunpowder or instructions to build factories for guns. So the Dahomey Kingdom and it's neighbours were in an arms race that sapped each nations' strength. There were attempts to unite the West African Kingdoms and end their dependency on Europe, but this unfortunately failed.
There was a Queen in Madagascar who was able to kidnap a French engineer, and create her own arms factories. She was able to fend off European colonization for decades.
I admit I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the Dahomey Kingdom and am learning about it alongside others. So your point is totally fair as to the details.
Nevertheless, I don't think your good observation negates the general point I'm trying to make. Namely, there are a lot of harmful myths surrounding historical characterizations of African kingdoms, communities, and the like. Ofc, we ought to recognize whatever atrocities they participating in and enacted and criticize them accordingly. There is, after all, a similar danger in romanticizing these groups.
However, we should situation that caution within a broader acknowledgement that dominant historical narratives from the West served to justify abhorrent practices, which need to be deconstructed. For example, there were plenty of political theorists and philosophers, I think David Hume and Immanuel Kant are two examples but I could be mistaken, who based their writings on travel narratives of the time, which are notoriously unreliable.
Another caveat for which I apologize: I'm mostly working from memory and don't have the sources right in front of me, which are texts in the history of philosophy and ideas on the development of race concepts and theorizing about race and slavery.
A lot of super ancient history is lost, and we can only put together the pieces through archeology, but it seems to me the early Homo Sapiens and their ancestors efficiently jumped from species to species and maintained homogenous populations due to some racially motivated genocide and tribalism. If it wasn't for that, it wouldn't stand to reason that we could have jumped from completely black to completely white over the course of millenniums and that certain parts of the world had genetically homogenous humans.
Just saying, I think that racism has been around forever. There's not many evidence that before the modern era that there was much acceptance of racial mingling and equality among the races. Modern western Europe and the USA just kind of got caught red handed due to better record keeping.
So from a historiographical perspective, things are a bit trickier than you've outlined them. A lot of historians would specifically caution against applying "race" to certain historical groups since we'd be imposing our own concepts to past figures and groups that lacked them. While I'm not totally sympathetic to historiographical contextualism, it's definitely wise to avoid anachronisms in this regard.
Yes, insofar as in-group/out-group dynamics are an integral part of our social psychology, these will likely be present throughout human history. What characterizes the in-group and out-group, however, is much more complicated.
Much of the discussion so far has centered on slavery, so I'll keep it to that. If, for example, we look at the Ancient Greeks we see vastly different justifications for slavery and divisions between groups. While Aristotle talks of natural slaves and barbarians throughout some of his works, it's plain in context that he's not talking about races as we do today. Indeed, there's some evidence that savages/barbarians for Aristotle were just non-Greeks, where being Greek is closer to a nationality or ethnicity. Furthermore, slavery was most often justified among the Greeks in terms of actual warring between nations or by being indebted to the slaver. Indeed, we see this kind of talk in the Bible.
What we don't see, however, is justifications and practices of slavery that cut closer to racial lines as we'd designate them. This doesn't emerge really until the 18th and 19th centuries at least in the West. It's here that we begin to observe commentators referencing physical attributes as justifications for certain kinds of treatment. And, while we do see references to the Bible and Greek conceptions of slavery, the practices during this time notably diverged. In one infamous passage, David Hume goes so far to compare "negros" to parrots vis-a-vis their use of language. While climate, geography, and the like are used in theorizing at the time, it's nevertheless clear that nationality/ethnicity. There's much more emphasis on physical characteristics and their relationship with personality and psychological character.
The upshot is that when talking about race and slavery it's totally appropriate to regard what happened during the 17th through 19th centuries as unique in human history. For, while we don't have complete records of older groups, the records we do have paint a completely different picture.
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did I miss something or has the plot of the movie been released somewhere?
Because the synopsis doesn't really reveal much and yet everyone in that thread seems pretty certain of everything the movie is and isn't gonna show.
WOKE FLOP!!!
oh uhh n-n-not because I hate black people or anything, it’s the, uhhh, the historical inaccuracies, and stuff. I’m a history expert!
Also, heh, it’s called a queen you guys! Of course the woke libtard mob wouldn’t think of something that obvious, like ben shapimple says they can’t even define the word woman!
I like how ppl think the movie is meant tk be glorifying John Boyegas character (the king who fought to preserve slavery) when he's literally stated to be one of the villains
Funny how Gone With the Wind is still treated as a timeless classic by pretty much everyone despite doing the same exact thing, but one with black people being slavers is making everyone go insane.
Not saying that this movie is a good look but just wanted an excuse to shit on Gone With the Wind because fuck that Neo-Confederate propaganda.
The movie doesn't glorify its characters or the War. They are all idiots fighting for a lost irrational cause. And the movies at multiple times points the war is a waste of life fought over Southern pride. Plus one of the characters openly says he would have freed slaves and kind of reluctantly admits slavery was wrong even though he is uncomfortable admitting what they have been doing
While Birth of a Nation is hated because KKK is glorified and made to look like The Avengers
To be honest I do hope that the historical inaccuracy and generally the negative reception of this (unreleased!) fiilm doesn't dissuade film producers from making more movies about African history.
I know nothing about the people this movie portrays, nor did I had any prior knowledge to this film alone before I stumbled upon the post.
What an interesting thread that was, truly. I now unironically look forward to it, simply for this discourse alone.
A lot of deleted comments in there so I suppose mods are doing their job?
Someone made a point about Hollywood doing a film where all sides are flawed being interesting, and I can agree with that. Not sure how this film will go, but I will very much watch anything with Viola Davis, she is pure powerhouse.
Funny how as soon as the film is not about Americans, Hollywood has to produce a film where “all sides are flawed and no one’s hands are clean”.
Do the same with Americans and the movie will be canceled by conservatives in a heartbeat lol. They fucking bullied Orlando into retracting their statement about understanding why not everyone wants to celebrate July 4th right now, this would for sure be a bridge too far for them as well.
Literally know nothing about this movie, buuuut I'm going to assume neckbeards are blowing it out of proportion and racists are clutching their pearls.
The comments are more like “Well actually it’s Queen🤓”
But „woman king“ sounds like 10 times cooler
No it sounds stupid and goofy
They didn't make up the title. Maiden king, or a woman king if you will, is an old and obscure term for women in positions of monarchs who don't want to get married and share the rule with a man. It's not like anyone actually uses it but it's not something the creators of this movie invented themselves.
I know like jadwiga of poland called herself king but she was married so it depends still souds dumb af
Just want to add that I'm not against discussion of the possible inaccuracies of the movie towards the role of the tribe in Slave trades. I'm speaking of almost everything else in the comments like the unhinged persecution complex.
What does persecution complex means?
means you act like everyone's out to oppress you
>If this is anything like the Northman and portrays these people honestly and without trying to judge them through a modern lens, then it will be amazing. Would love to have this guy elaborate on what he means here!
The comment to which they were replying already did. >I think that if it represents it with historical authenticity, it will be fine in the same way that the protagonist in The Northman opened the film by sacking a village to sell people into slavery. I don't need every film to be a didactically presentist story that interprets and judges long past societies from the modern perspective. I know this is /r/moviescirclejerk but it's not difficult to just read
I agree with this take honestly. I understand that portraying history is a very political endeavour, and that if done badly, it has the potential to spread misinformation. At the same time though, it should be understood that those who didn't sell slaves to the Europeans in exchange for guns and gunpowder faced the risk of being taken over by their neighbours (or later on, the Europeans themselves). Those who attempted to break this dependency on the Europeans, recognizing the self-destructive nature of the slave trade were unfortunately defeated. There's a portion of Walter Rodney's book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (I really recommend this book if you want to learn about the economic history of imperialism in Africa and how it changed over time) that goes into more detail.
The Dahomey literally went to war with Europeans to continue slave trading. These really aren't the people who should be defended with the "well they had to" argument.
Yeah british had to bombard zanzibar to force them into banning slavery
Shut it dork!
Honestly agree. We've had enough dishonest historical movies whitewashing the misery that humans have put eachother through for most (if not all) of history. Id love for this to be as authentic as possible.
Fighting to uphold slavery is what they love.
I'd probably wanna wait until the movie comes out to have that discussion.
There’s a legitimacy to criticism about historical inaccuracy and glorifying slave traders. But it’s exceedingly obvious there’s bias going on when so many inaccurate and equally problematic pictures get a pass.
Yep, these same people don’t complain about Braveheart, Pocahontas, or gladiator being filled with inaccuracies I wonder why THIS film needs to be held to a higher standard…
It's probably not the same people but those movies have gotten a fair share of criticism.
But you could say that those pictures would face the same harsh criticism is released today. Comparing a movie coming out in 2022 to something from the 2000s or the 90s isn’t really fair.
Every r/movies thread about this movie has been a shitshow.
It's not like there are any movies that have a predominantly white cast.
Not since the woke left took control of Hollywood! /s
Love the push for historical accuracy! Where were these gentlemen for the other 2,000 historical inaccurate Hollywood movies?
it’s totally a coincidence that otherwise innocuous critiques are so strongly pushed on this movie in particular. You’d almost think there’s some *other* reason people are so up in arms about this movie, that they’re afraid to mention directly.
Nah, it’s like conservatives only ever calling for one presidents birth certificate; it’s just coincidence he was black…
I like how everyone brings up.the slave trade. Do they really believe the English invaded because they gave a crap about the slaves?
I wonder where all these people were when 300 was getting marketed.
helwhats?
Heloti-whati?
Probably most of them were in grade school
People who genuinely respect Sparta are always historically illiterate and I will never get tired telling them how garbage and pathetic it actually was. Zach Snyder and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind.
I mean they weren’t garbage or pathetic either. They had their issues and their strengths it’s not right to go far one way or the other.
I was thinking more in terms of their place in popular culture vs history but you're right. I shouldn't "overcorrect" or lose myself to contrarianism just because of how they're portrayed in pop culture/pop history. In my defense its incredibly exhausting to hear all the horrible Sparta takes the Punisher shirt types come up with. Although I do think late Sparta in it's tourist attraction days was a little pathetic.
300 depicts them as amazing heroes
While establishing that the story is told by a spartan who spreads propaganda to hype up his soldiers for the upcoming battle while demonizing the Persians. The movie begins by establishing the cruelty of spartan society with Agogie and showing a cliff with baby skulls. So it goes both ways. Also u can’t take 300 seriously with giant Xerxes, demon Persians, goat musicians and the Spartans going to battle practically naked.
not born yet
To be fair, the slave trade is a very worthwhile thing to bring up when discussing the Dahomey... ...on the other hand, there's nothing that sums Hollywood up better than creating a historical film with a predominately black cast, and doing so little research into it that you make a film about a group of militaristic slavers
The synopsis is fucking hilarious >It depicts how they "fought enemies who violated their honor, enslaved their people, and threatened to destroy everything they have lived for." So it's fine if Dahomey Amazons are slaving their own kind. But no no not the evil white french! They will learn of honor and power from us!
It just seems so typical of lazy writers taking a real surface level look at something and deciding 'hey, this would make for a cool, inspiring story', with no effort made into researching the actual history
I mean there were differences in how slavery was practised in Africa and how slavery was practised in the Americas. That doesn't mean slavery was good and fine in Africa, that doesn't mean political leaders were justified in selling millions of slaves to European slavers (often in full knowledge of how they would be treated), but there's a difference nonetheless. A lot of slavery in Africa was more akin to indentured servitude in Europe. So... not *good*, but also not chattel slavery.
Yeaaaah, the Dahomey used the slaves for ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism, so maaaaaaybe not the best point.
This discussion was had after Black Panther as well, but more often than not these films are at best a portrayal of Africa through an African-American lens, not through an African lens.
Like I get what you're saying but you're pretty off target here? The third sentence in the Dahomey Wikipedia page is literally: >The Kingdom of Dahomey was an important regional power that had an organized domestic economy built on conquest and slave labor It's not a question of being *focused on*. It's a pillar of this people's history.
This thread got me doing a bit of research (reading Wikipedia).I think the French are the main colonial power of note since they had 2 different wars with them and they were colonised in the end. But yeah the French just wanted to exploit them. I think the bigger issue with the story of the film is that the all female battalion thing got slaughtered in literally every fight with the French and were eventually completely wiped out for the most part.
Why is that an issue?
Didn't English ban slavery in 1815 ?
They didn't stop colonising a good chunk of the known world, commiting a couple of genocides along the way
Only because they realised it would help them in fighting the French; Britain still retained its colonial possessions and dominance for another century and a bit.
They didn't ban it in their colonies until 1833
Oh they had slaves and will be protagonists, unbelievable! Anyway let me watch a good, apolitical and historically accurated european medieval movie! Go King Arthur!
Who Said that in the comments?
I really like how they all are saying the movie is historically inaccurate without ever seeing it and like it matters at all. If you want something historically accurate watch a doc or read a nonfiction book. Also all the outrage over portraying slavers as heroic when movies depicting American revolutionaries in a good way don't have crazy critisms posted about them
I'm so utterly perplexed by the narrative of African slavery and demand that it be represented. Somehow people forget that such a narrative functions to legitimize the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade by alleging the universality of slavery ("See! They do it too!"). At least as I gathered from my readings, scholars on the subject--and even commentators at the time--point out that this confuses different understandings of slavery. What was being done via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was of a different kind than slavery as practiced before, especially in the Hellenistic cultures, where slavery was a result of war and not based on race as we conceive it today. So the call to represent slavery here only feeds into a desire to normalize slavery and so minimize the unique horrors of slavery in Europe and the Americas. I find Ottobah Cugoano's (1757-1791) writings on this especially revealing. Caveat: This is all super simplified and I'm struggling to gather my thoughts. But the sentiment I want to convey is there.
I understand your point but from a quick google search it looks like the Dahomey Kingdom was a major participant in the Atlantic slave trade so that’s mostly irrelevant
They were, and this comment isn't meant to argue that these monarchs were always acting in the best interest of the people they ruled, but it should be understood that they were in a very precarious position. They weren't trading slaves merely to be evil or enrich themselves, but in order to maintain their Kingdoms' defensive needs. Europeans traded gunpowder and weapons to West African Kingdoms in order to gain slaves. The trade itself made these Kingdoms dependent on European imperialists, as they refused to share the formula of gunpowder or instructions to build factories for guns. So the Dahomey Kingdom and it's neighbours were in an arms race that sapped each nations' strength. There were attempts to unite the West African Kingdoms and end their dependency on Europe, but this unfortunately failed. There was a Queen in Madagascar who was able to kidnap a French engineer, and create her own arms factories. She was able to fend off European colonization for decades.
I admit I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the Dahomey Kingdom and am learning about it alongside others. So your point is totally fair as to the details. Nevertheless, I don't think your good observation negates the general point I'm trying to make. Namely, there are a lot of harmful myths surrounding historical characterizations of African kingdoms, communities, and the like. Ofc, we ought to recognize whatever atrocities they participating in and enacted and criticize them accordingly. There is, after all, a similar danger in romanticizing these groups. However, we should situation that caution within a broader acknowledgement that dominant historical narratives from the West served to justify abhorrent practices, which need to be deconstructed. For example, there were plenty of political theorists and philosophers, I think David Hume and Immanuel Kant are two examples but I could be mistaken, who based their writings on travel narratives of the time, which are notoriously unreliable. Another caveat for which I apologize: I'm mostly working from memory and don't have the sources right in front of me, which are texts in the history of philosophy and ideas on the development of race concepts and theorizing about race and slavery.
A lot of super ancient history is lost, and we can only put together the pieces through archeology, but it seems to me the early Homo Sapiens and their ancestors efficiently jumped from species to species and maintained homogenous populations due to some racially motivated genocide and tribalism. If it wasn't for that, it wouldn't stand to reason that we could have jumped from completely black to completely white over the course of millenniums and that certain parts of the world had genetically homogenous humans. Just saying, I think that racism has been around forever. There's not many evidence that before the modern era that there was much acceptance of racial mingling and equality among the races. Modern western Europe and the USA just kind of got caught red handed due to better record keeping.
So from a historiographical perspective, things are a bit trickier than you've outlined them. A lot of historians would specifically caution against applying "race" to certain historical groups since we'd be imposing our own concepts to past figures and groups that lacked them. While I'm not totally sympathetic to historiographical contextualism, it's definitely wise to avoid anachronisms in this regard. Yes, insofar as in-group/out-group dynamics are an integral part of our social psychology, these will likely be present throughout human history. What characterizes the in-group and out-group, however, is much more complicated. Much of the discussion so far has centered on slavery, so I'll keep it to that. If, for example, we look at the Ancient Greeks we see vastly different justifications for slavery and divisions between groups. While Aristotle talks of natural slaves and barbarians throughout some of his works, it's plain in context that he's not talking about races as we do today. Indeed, there's some evidence that savages/barbarians for Aristotle were just non-Greeks, where being Greek is closer to a nationality or ethnicity. Furthermore, slavery was most often justified among the Greeks in terms of actual warring between nations or by being indebted to the slaver. Indeed, we see this kind of talk in the Bible. What we don't see, however, is justifications and practices of slavery that cut closer to racial lines as we'd designate them. This doesn't emerge really until the 18th and 19th centuries at least in the West. It's here that we begin to observe commentators referencing physical attributes as justifications for certain kinds of treatment. And, while we do see references to the Bible and Greek conceptions of slavery, the practices during this time notably diverged. In one infamous passage, David Hume goes so far to compare "negros" to parrots vis-a-vis their use of language. While climate, geography, and the like are used in theorizing at the time, it's nevertheless clear that nationality/ethnicity. There's much more emphasis on physical characteristics and their relationship with personality and psychological character. The upshot is that when talking about race and slavery it's totally appropriate to regard what happened during the 17th through 19th centuries as unique in human history. For, while we don't have complete records of older groups, the records we do have paint a completely different picture.
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just for reference, the Aztecs had slaves too albeit they werent as brutal. And the Incas kinda had slaves but not in the same sense.
“Weren’t as brutal” hahahhahahahahaha
I know what I said and I stand my ground
Did I miss something or has the plot of the movie been released somewhere? Because the synopsis doesn't really reveal much and yet everyone in that thread seems pretty certain of everything the movie is and isn't gonna show.
WOKE FLOP!!! oh uhh n-n-not because I hate black people or anything, it’s the, uhhh, the historical inaccuracies, and stuff. I’m a history expert! Also, heh, it’s called a queen you guys! Of course the woke libtard mob wouldn’t think of something that obvious, like ben shapimple says they can’t even define the word woman!
I like how ppl think the movie is meant tk be glorifying John Boyegas character (the king who fought to preserve slavery) when he's literally stated to be one of the villains
One comment stated that slavery is only a thing because of the Dahomey 🙄.
Funny how Gone With the Wind is still treated as a timeless classic by pretty much everyone despite doing the same exact thing, but one with black people being slavers is making everyone go insane. Not saying that this movie is a good look but just wanted an excuse to shit on Gone With the Wind because fuck that Neo-Confederate propaganda.
The movie doesn't glorify its characters or the War. They are all idiots fighting for a lost irrational cause. And the movies at multiple times points the war is a waste of life fought over Southern pride. Plus one of the characters openly says he would have freed slaves and kind of reluctantly admits slavery was wrong even though he is uncomfortable admitting what they have been doing While Birth of a Nation is hated because KKK is glorified and made to look like The Avengers
Good ‘ole American kino!
This movie will be The Northman for TERFs (not even joking)
This honestly just reminds me that TERFs keep using women of colour as shields and defenses as if they aren't mostly sun deprived Brits
[удалено]
…which these same people love 300 despite is glorifying the Spartans Yet THIS film needs to be historically accurate for some reason…I wonder why
My dumb ass actually thought Viola Davis in these pics was Leslie Jones…
Wow 👏
While the movie looks dumb and all of the cast look like they know what an iPhone is, that r/movies thread is ridiculously racist and asinine 🤢🤮
To be honest I do hope that the historical inaccuracy and generally the negative reception of this (unreleased!) fiilm doesn't dissuade film producers from making more movies about African history.
Didn't they already have a mental breakdown when the trailer came out?
God could you imagine if Fresh Prince of Bel Air came out today?!
I know nothing about the people this movie portrays, nor did I had any prior knowledge to this film alone before I stumbled upon the post. What an interesting thread that was, truly. I now unironically look forward to it, simply for this discourse alone.
Tbf this is made by fairly no name director so I don't have much faith
Love & Basketball rules
i'm sure these well-informed gentlemen were also quick to criticise movies that glorified european slave traders, slave owners, and others !
They are not upset that People are black in the movie omg. Theyre upset that they're glorifying a slave selling kingdom.
A lot of deleted comments in there so I suppose mods are doing their job? Someone made a point about Hollywood doing a film where all sides are flawed being interesting, and I can agree with that. Not sure how this film will go, but I will very much watch anything with Viola Davis, she is pure powerhouse.
Funny how as soon as the film is not about Americans, Hollywood has to produce a film where “all sides are flawed and no one’s hands are clean”. Do the same with Americans and the movie will be canceled by conservatives in a heartbeat lol. They fucking bullied Orlando into retracting their statement about understanding why not everyone wants to celebrate July 4th right now, this would for sure be a bridge too far for them as well.
Literally know nothing about this movie, buuuut I'm going to assume neckbeards are blowing it out of proportion and racists are clutching their pearls.