Okay, this film is very entertaining MelKino. But why did they do everything to whitewash American history? What comforting narrative did Ameritards need to go to sleep at night in the year 2000 when their power was basically unquestioned?>The black people working on Ben Martin's farm in South Carolina are "free laborers" and have no desire to have their own lives>The Dunsmore proclamation is treated as an evil scheme when the colonists enlisted slaves in their army and promised them freedom only to reneg time and time again>The Brits are the ones threatening to take more Indian land when that was entirely the desire of American colonists, and a huge part of the reason they wanted independence>The French intervened massively on America's side and led several armed forces but in this film it's a single character used completely as comic relief, in an absurd stereotypeHelp me make sense of the stupidity, what was in the water at this time?
I don't really care about our evil imperial history
>>224034712its the american braveheart
It seems like you're confused over the idea of patriotism and wanting to make a fun movie instead of self-loathing tripe.
>>224034929>It seems like you're confused over the idea of patriotismIf it's based on complete lies and distortion I suppose I am confused. I thought patriotism was about values.>self-loathing tripe.How is it self-loathing? You could make it accurate and still have a good movie, arguably a better, more complex movie.
>>224034712>>The black people working on Ben Martin's farm in South Carolina are "free laborers" and have no desire to have their own livesLiterally true. Never heard of sharecroppers? If slavery was SOooooo bad and cruel, why did NONE of them leave the plantation once slavery ended? Start their own damn farms out west. Nope. Instead they just built their shacks right there on the plantation and went right back to work cause it was such a HARRRRDD job. Yeah wow. Plant something. water it. Pick it months later for a day or so. OMG! What a harsh life for the pet negros.You also dont know shit about the territories outside the colonies. Your education failed you and you were too stupid to seek out an actual one.
>>224034998The picture you just posted is after the Civil War dumb dumb.
>guy thinks movies are history lessons and not just period piece dramas
>>224034972Holy fuck are you really this dense? They set out to make a fun blockbuster movie about heroic Americans shooting villainous Englishmen with muskets. It's a commercial endeavor to cash in on patriotism (it's literally in the movie title), not a 2020s history class at a liberal arts university. If you want to know about bad things that the Americans did during the revolutionary war, it's well-documented and nothing's stopping anyone from educating themselves.
>>224034823>our
>>224035011It's explaining how slavery was SOOO Terrible that blacks didn't even bother to leave the plantation that owned them, once they were free. So Benjamin's pets being free would certainly stay on his too, you retard.
>>224035022>It's a commercial endeavor to cash in on patriotism (it's literally in the movie title)They didn't have to make it this fucking stupid. And arguably it does prevent people from seeking the truth about it, if this is the populiist understanding of American history why would they even bother learning more when they have a comforting fairytale?
>>224035054But they didn't even acknowledge they were slaves? They just made up that they were employed. And also why didn't the white people work the farm if it was so easy? You are a racist anon. Like a bad one, not even casual like hardcore racist.
>>224035077The trials and tribulations of some coons on a farm really have no place in a movie of limited runtime about the american revolution, it's not that important or interesting and every second spent on it detracts from the movie.You and your ilk would have an apoplexy if the heroic protagonist had some slaves in the background and half the movie wasn't dedicated to this unimportant fact which is why they went the way they did, unfortunately.It's a pretty shit movie that could have been great had it been made 30 years earlier by a competent (preferably british)director.
>>224035077Because the whites did the real work. Like butchering cattle so it doesnt get poison by a bunch of dirty, disease ridden, morons, and trading and selling their crops. Things those morons who cant even speak their native language in current modern times, cant do. You know, same reasons why blacks dont own NFL or NBA teams. They would immediately fail.
>>224035353I think holding human beings as property is a pretty important fact actually, and pretty interesting because it shows contradiction and moral tension. The camp musical 1776 was more honest about this shit than a movie made in the year 2000. I suppose your responses have answered my question, Americans truly are racist morons who despise their own history.
>>224034712>why does [country] whitewash its history to look like they're the good guys?Are you slow?
>>224035444It was directed by a Dutchman.
>>224035409>Americans truly are racist morons who despise their own history.And you reveal the only reason you made this thread.
>>224035481Not true, I agree the movie is entertaining. I'm trying to understand the national psyche at that point in history, it makes no sense to me why the film would avoid these glaring facts other than assuming people are stupid. If it has some national mythos I want to understand it.
>>224035473>directed by an americanized germoid>written by an american>paid for by american producers
>>224035504It's just a dumb mel gibson movie who is a mega racist himself. He is never going to make a slavery bad movie.
>>224035515But Gibson said he would have made his character a slaveowner.
>>224035504It's simply not a big deal. No different from hired help.
>>224034712>Okay>ButKys
>>224034972>If it's based on complete lies and distortionBut enough about left-wing takes on history.
>>224035618Please tell me the right-wing version, where everything was peaches and cream for everyone until people started to attack slavery.
>>224035588I mean your country went to war over it and kill hundres of thousands of your own countrymen. Seems like a big deal.
>>224035409>I think holding human beings as property is a pretty important fact actuallyI'm sure most people are aware that slavery was a thing at this point, most people think it's bad and there's little of value to be said on the topic, it doesn't need to be the focus of attention in a movie about the American revolution.I'm not even american btw ,long live King George.
>>224035656It doesn't need to be the sole focus, but it should at least be acknowledged for what it is. It just reeks of insecurity. Like Mel Gibson is an angry dude, you can totally buy that he would own slaves. It's not like the British were racial equalists, have him say it's a neccessary evil or some shit. Have the people on his farm go over to the british and die as cannon fodder and put out the idea that they were still only used as tools. There were so many places to go, I just want some more Revolution kino.
Mel is the king of historically bullshit but still kino movies
>>224035706to be fair, Mel himself went on record that he thought Benjamin Martin would, of course, have had slaves in reality and that it felt like a copout to him that the movie avoided that
>>224035807Most people didn't have slaves it was a way for the rich to get richer.
>>224035857But those people led the revolution, and most white colonists supported it because they thought nothing of it. I'm not ascribing guilt, these people still fought against feudalism and inherited nobility but you can't just ignore it.
>>224034712He literally plays Martin Riggs from Lethal Weapon but in the mid to late 1700s. It's literally Lethal Weapon/Braveheart for muhmerican history.>wife dies off screen>was part of secretive military operations in which people question his morality after the french and indian wars end>is slightly autistic
>>224034712Because it's not actually Mel kino. It's made by the retarded faggot Roland Emmerich.
>>224035807He was probably asked why is he whitewashing colonialism/slavery by a self hating white lib and he gave the only answer he could in that situation. Shift blame and agree. You think Mel "pack of niggers" Gibson is giving his true opinion? lol He wants to scream at the top of his lungs blacks were better as slaves and they loved it.
>>224034712>cannonballs blowing off heads and limbs>children killing soldiers>entire village burned to death in a churchshit was violent for a blockbuster yo
>>224034929If you have to lie about history to not hate your country, you are fucking retarded. Unbelievable that you would actually admit to this.
>>224035951That was his Australian side coming out.
>>224034712one does not dissect gossamer, anon
>>224034712>I'm a reddit historian, why does this movie not tell everyone what I learned in my liberal arts college! Stop whitewashing muh history, it's supposed to be a documentary and Muricans should feel ashamed and apologetic! Aaaaaaggghhhhh !
>>224035992There is plenty of bad white man kill indians/own slave media produced in the US for decades. Mel Gibson didn't want to make another and that's OK.
>>224036039No there isn't, especially in the revolution times. Give me some.
>>224034712>Waaaaah it didn't have ENOUGH black victimhood in it!!! Waaaaah!!!Who the fuck watches a movie and has this as their reaction?
>>224035646>I mean your country went to war over itOh, you're a retarded nigger that thinks "slavery" was why the American Civil War happened, and that the Union was literally fighting to "free the slaves".That explains A LOT about your dumbass opinions, actually.
>>224035912>but you can't just ignore itWhy not? It isn't important to the story, faggot.
>>224036252They fought to preserve the Union because slaveholders wanted to preserve and expand slavery to the rest of the country.
>>224036230Anyone with a modicum of sense? They even brought it up in the movie just to lampshade it.
>>224036208>No there isn'tPFFFT HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!Nigger, we're at the point where they make media based on Watchmen, Green Lantern, IT, etc., almost exclusively about "White man bad". If not new, and it's not exactly hard to find, especially now.
>>224036291That's all capeshit and a Reganite remake. Is that the bullshit you watch? It has nothing to do with history.
>>224036282>Anyone with a modicum of senseLmao, no. Normal, non-indoctrinated people don't think like this. Normal, non-indoctrinated people, ESPECIALLY White ones, don't watch a movie and then go>"...B-B-But where was the scene reminding us cattle that slavery was bad?!?!"
>>224036271So the war wasn't "over slavery". Got it. Glad we're on the same page.
>>224036318It was the war that ended slavery in your country. And the emancipation prclamation became a war goal towards the end of the conflict. Are you thick?
>Watching a movie and then going "Well that was good, but you know what it needed more of? More black victimhood. More 'Whitey bad'. Where was the Social-Justice message!? Where was the White-Guilt!? Where was the call for White Americans to """do better"""?! Is this REALLY how they used to make movies in the 90's?! That was ALLOWED?!"Ah, so this is what the reaction is when a modern Redditor high-Estrogen "male" encounters based media from back when media was good, prior to the Western "cultural revolution" of the 2010's.
>>224036328>Coinciding events during a conflict = the CAUSE of the conflictDesperate, retarded, brainlet take.The war wasn't "over slavery". That is entirely retarded historical revisionism by leftcucks who need to morality history into "good guys" and "bad guys".
>>224036377But it was. The Southern states seceded to ensure slavery wouldn't be affected by what they considered to be a radical republican president. All of the articles of confederation make this point multiple times.
>>224034712>ITT: anti American marxist fairytaleshaha whatever helps you sleep at night comrade Abdul rothstein
>>224036363Then what is the message of the movie? It clearly has some idea of social justice. It's just selectively blind and pandering to Ameritard prejudices.
>>224036318The war was over slavery
>>224036377the civil war was CLEARLY fought over the issue of slavery, the articles of secession from the southern states admit and state this several times.this wasnt a taboo topic like today, they wanted to preserve this institution of slavery because they thought it was the bedrock for their way of life, and that "federal tyranny" from Washington was threatening it, so they seceded, and ultimately went to war, over this single issue.its you who tries to separate people into "good" and "bad" because you dont allow past people to act on their own moral values and you have to make excuses for them so they fit into your own moral categories, which is horseshit.you should listen to the own words of the southern slaveowners and believe them when they tell you directly that they fought the war because of slavery. they did what they did.moral sensibilities change with time and will continue to change, we will get shit from our choices by people living 200 years from now. historians are aware of this, they still try to maintain an objective view and just state facts how they unfolded. this is how it works. if you are comfortable with these facts is of no consequence
>>224036400>>224036472secession happened months before the war did though, and 4 of the confederate states only seceded as a direct result of the opening of hostilities>tldr secession and the war are obviously related but not the same issue
>>224036524meant to say, secession happened in two parts, one before and one after the start of the war, which was a watershrd event that broke up the two parts
>>224036524>secession happened months before the war did thoughBecause Lincoln was elected and they were afraid they couldn't have slaves anymore so they wanted their own country where they could own people forever. How fucking retarded and racist are you? They were the ones that attacked Fort Sumter. And other states seceding to protect their interests in owning people means they chose their side.Anyways I don't care about Civil War debate, all I want is American Revolution kino and it seems the main obstacle as always is Americans.
>>224036541there were obvious border states like kentucky and arkansas that got sucked into the fight for other reasons, but the issue at the core of the war was always slavery, every other issue surrounding it like states rights, federal overreach, presidential wartime powers, foreign interventions, was just an iteration of this issue.if the founding fathers had the ability to abolish slavery in the 18th century (which is highly improbable) then the civil war wouldn't have happened
>>224036573The other states seceded because the northern call to arms pushed them over the edge. Lincoln was perfectly capable of saying>ok fine I’ll withdraw the US Army from the seceded states and they can fuck offbut he didn’t, he kept his forces in a place that had declared independence, and then doubled down by invadingAnd this in turn pushed 4 states that had previously been willing to lose slaves and stay in the Union over the lineI’m not saying slavery had nothing to do with the war. Obviously it did. But when Lincoln’s stated goal is>My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the UnionThen it’s a reasonable take, in addition to the other factors, to assume that the war wasn’t entirely about slavery>>224036576>every other issue surrounding it like states rights, federal overreach, presidential wartime powers, foreign interventions, was just an iteration of this issue.I invert this: all of those real issues were always going to cause tension and likely civil war; slavery just happened to be the catalyst in the USAI say this largely because the >centralism vs federalismIssue, which the Civil War definitely solved on the side of centralism, also led to civil wars in almost every country in the Americas during the 19th century, even though most of them did not have slavery to fight over
>>224036656Is this what your daddy told you, you good old boy? You're a fucking moron
>>224036701Literally a descendant of a fallen Union soldier but ok
>>224036717That's even worse, you're a disgrace to him.
>>224036728No, I honor his sacrifice to preserve the Union by not shitting on an integral part of it forever. But anyway I’m talking to someone whose ancestors weren’t even part of the war, if you’re even American, and who could not possibly understand things like picrel, or for Union vet President Wm McKinley ordering the federal government to care of Confederate war graves. Keep seething
>>224036774Not shitting on slavery? You're disgusting.
