(10-09-2016 02:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 11:27 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  They should make a movie about how very few slave revolts there were during the age of American slavery and theorize why that was the case.

Maybe you should tweet this idea to Bill O'Reilly.

Killing Nat Turner

(10-09-2016 03:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 02:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 11:27 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  They should make a movie about how very few slave revolts there were during the age of American slavery and theorize why that was the case.

Maybe you should tweet this idea to Bill O'Reilly.

Killing Nat Turner

Gonna trigger some folks..................

Box...office...failure

"Birth..." opened with $7 million, badly trailing the other opening flick "Girl on a Train" at $24 million.

Also trailed four other movies that have been running for a few weeks.

Because people are burned out on this crap.

Especially the glorification of a clinically insane psychopath who murdered a bunch of innocent people.

I wouldn't pay 10 cents to watch that garbage.

Why?

(10-10-2016 11:23 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Why?

Some folks don't like history?

No way I'd pay to see it but I'll check it out whenever it hits TV since I do like history. Same can be said about lots of other movies as well.

I was talking to HoD. He never looked like one who was disinterested in history.

(10-10-2016 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I was talking to HoD. He never looked like one who was disinterested in history.

My apologies. Figured maybe your were just fishing for the "r" word anyway. Carry on.

Eh this forum has a bad track record when it comes to this stuff. American sniper and 12 years a slave for example.

(10-10-2016 11:46 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Eh this forum has a bad track record when it comes to this stuff. American sniper and 12 years a slave for example.

I liked both those movies.

Bored with super hero and slave movies.

(10-06-2016 10:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Just got back a bit ago from seeing Birth of a Nation with my teenage son. Based on true story of Nat Turner and slave uprising about 11 yrs before Civil War.
Very good. Acting was great. Very, very graphic violence in certain parts and probably 10 seconds of nudity. We went and got a shake after the movie and talked about slavery, racism and violence. Good talk and a movie I would recommend.

Thank you! I am going to see this movie.

I would like to see a movie based on James Armistead Lafayette's US Revolution story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Armistead_Lafayette

I would also like to see a movie based on Harriet Ann Jacobs' book (NC history!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_...Slave_Girl

(10-07-2016 08:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 07:56 AM)Lush Wrote:  wasn't birth of a nation the first silent film and made by the clan?

Yes, which is what I thought this thread was about. No idea why they chose to name this movie with the same title.

Probably a quite deliberate use of irony.

(10-07-2016 12:23 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Nat Turner and John Brown are very similar. They both had just causes but they ended up killing innocents in their zeal.

They were both terrorist madmen. Both made a peaceful end to slavery that much harder.

(10-09-2016 08:02 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 11:27 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 05:09 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 07:21 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  They should make a movie about how very few slave revolts there were during the age of American slavery and theorize why that was the case.

Slaves had it good. 0% unemployment, food, shelter, clothes and a day off.

When considering the history of slavery (yes, slavery existed outside of the US for a long, long time), and the inevitable revolts that occurred because of it, American slaves seemed to revolt very little. Very, very few times over a span of a couple hundred years. Yes, that is one of those "uncomfortable" facts, but a fact nonetheless.

That's because we kept our slaves in check. We didn't intermingle with them like the Spanish and French

Well after Turner's revolt, laws were passed severely restricting slaves and free blacks.

(10-10-2016 10:44 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Because people are burned out on this crap.

Especially the glorification of a clinically insane psychopath who murdered a bunch of innocent people.

Glorification of a terrorist doesn't play too well these days.

(10-09-2016 12:05 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 08:07 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 08:02 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 11:27 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 05:09 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Slaves had it good. 0% unemployment, food, shelter, clothes and a day off.

When considering the history of slavery (yes, slavery existed outside of the US for a long, long time), and the inevitable revolts that occurred because of it, American slaves seemed to revolt very little. Very, very few times over a span of a couple hundred years. Yes, that is one of those "uncomfortable" facts, but a fact nonetheless.

That's because we kept our slaves in check. We didn't intermingle with them like the Spanish and French

Thomas Jefferson would disagree.

That is a myth according to a book I have read about Jefferson.

Jefferson–Hemings controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson%...ontroversy Wrote:While some historians and others challenged the denial, for many a changed consensus did not emerge until after a Y chromosome DNA analysis done in 1998. The DNA study showed a match between a descendant of the Jefferson male line and a descendant of Eston Hemings, Sally's youngest son. It showed no match between the Carr line and the Hemings descendant, nor between the Jefferson line and Thomas Woodson descendants, who had an oral history of descent.

In 2000, a consensus emerged among historians that the entirety of the evidence suggests Jefferson's paternity for all of Hemings' children.[6] The Monticello foundation commissioned its own study, which in 2001 concluded Jefferson was likely the father of Eston Hemings and the other children. Since then the organization has reflected this change in its exhibits, as well as publications about Jefferson and his times. The revelations have stimulated works by a variety of scholars who use the new consensus as a basis for studies into Jefferson, the Hemings family, and interracial American society.

(10-10-2016 02:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 08:02 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 11:27 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 05:09 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 07:21 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  They should make a movie about how very few slave revolts there were during the age of American slavery and theorize why that was the case.

Slaves had it good. 0% unemployment, food, shelter, clothes and a day off.

When considering the history of slavery (yes, slavery existed outside of the US for a long, long time), and the inevitable revolts that occurred because of it, American slaves seemed to revolt very little. Very, very few times over a span of a couple hundred years. Yes, that is one of those "uncomfortable" facts, but a fact nonetheless.

That's because we kept our slaves in check. We didn't intermingle with them like the Spanish and French

Well after Turner's revolt, laws were passed severely restricting slaves and free blacks.

We need these laws again today.

(10-10-2016 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 10:44 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Because people are burned out on this crap.

Especially the glorification of a clinically insane psychopath who murdered a bunch of innocent people.

Glorification of a terrorist doesn't play too well these days.

Not do sure about that........Sherman and Sheridan, 'nuff said.