Glory one of Cracked's 'Most Unintentionally Racist Movies About Racism'
-
guaili — 14 years ago(May 20, 2011 10:47 PM)
Actually, remember that "samurai" can be both singular and plural. I believe in the case of The Last Samurai, it is used in the plural and refers to the last group of real samurai in Japan, as opposed to singling out a specific character, be it Algren or Katsumoto.
-
SpiltPersonality — 14 years ago(May 22, 2011 05:35 AM)
True, however I would have thought that to create a title inclusive of a group would have been something like
the Last of the Samurai
.
The last of anything is (to my mind) a singular not a group thing unless it is made clear, but you're certainly right - the title can definitely be taken the way you've done so.
SpiltPersonality -
indy_go_blue44 — 15 years ago(June 16, 2010 10:22 PM)
I think this is one of the best movies ever made giving an honest depiction of blacks and their struggle to be accepted as MEN. They're not made banjo-playing wooly pated children nor presented as especially heroic prior to the time that they're allowed to PROVE their heroism in the heat of battle. They could have broke and run when the rebel cavalry charged like many a white regiment before them; they didn't nor did they hold back when the main battle began.
The main characters were flawed but realistically so; their growth was realistic also. IMO even the unbilled characters were treated with extreme dignity and respect; even the drill sargeant beating up on Thomas was given meaning (such brutality was not at all uncommon; ask any marine about Parris Island) when he commented about "let him grow up some more."
It's also very rare that a private soldier is the focal point of a story (Red Badge of Courage is about the only one I can think of off hand.) Certainly they could have presented more camp life or "drill, drill, drill" or hauling logs but would that have been as interesting as Shaw dealing with problems at a higher level, such as trying to get uniforms or getting his men into combat and away from being a labor battalion?
But I suppose somebody somewhere has to cry racism about something. If anything, this movie increased this white man's respect for what these black men did for their country and OUR freedom. -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:12 PM)
Right moron, because in an era of vast poverty and poor education, they should all have been wearing suits and speaking the Queen's English. You're so blind you didn't see everyone in the film was correctly portrayed to period. You're done racist. Toast.
-
KingVidor — 15 years ago(July 23, 2010 10:51 PM)
The Cracked article is the kind of garbage white dorks with little life experience write to show how hipster and "down with the struggle" they are. Immature, ignorant, poser bulls.
Ask me about my total lack of interest. -
digitaldiva — 15 years ago(August 28, 2010 10:26 PM)
Hi KingVidor,
Amen to your post. The article showed the writer's ignorance. I have Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune, one of the books Glory is based on. I realized there were several ways the story could have been filmed, including adding Shaw's wife, the woman who saved his letters for posterity. It would be critiqued for being too romantic and people would complain about that. You can't please some people. -
therebel1776 — 15 years ago(December 16, 2010 11:55 PM)
Too bad they were fighting for economics. It was about dollars and cents. Nothing more.Nothing less. You can try to GLORify the war using your 21st century PC-perspective.in the endGrant was a slaveholder, Lincoln was a white supremacistif they knew we'd have a black President promoting socialism, black people dominating music and athletics we'd probably live in a very very different country. But you can fool yourself into thinking it was about equality or whatever else helps you sleep at night.
-
digitaldiva — 15 years ago(December 26, 2010 01:04 PM)
Hi therebell1776,
There were myriad reasons behind the war but economics was at its foundation. The entire Southern economy was based on slavery and when it ended, formally prosperous states lost everything and fell into proverty that lasted for decades. I do have disagree with you about Lincoln. He grew as a man in his years in the White House and had different attitudes about race before he was elected President than right before his assassination. -
therebel1776 — 15 years ago(December 27, 2010 12:49 AM)
You're entitled to your own opinions, but Lincoln would have frowned upon the existance of Obama much less his ability to hold officethat being because he represented a mixture of black and white. He was quoted as saying blacks should be in a position of inferiority.
-
digitaldiva — 15 years ago(December 27, 2010 08:19 AM)
Hi therebell1776,
I base my opinion of Lincoln's growth on the writings of Frederick Douglass. Douglass, who by the way was bi-racial, was an early critic of Lincoln's who later became his friend. He was a frequent visitor at the White House and wrote extensively of his growth in matters of race. Remember John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln because of extending the right to vote to men of color.
If you don't wish to visit you local library, there are a number of sites that detail the friendship of Lincoln and Douglass and Lincoln's change as far as race relations. -
nubbytubbybiatchesgalore — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 04:22 AM)
i agree with you completely, digialdiva. too many people quote lincoln from his debates with steven a. douglas, and ignore his later writings and changed sentiments.
to rebel1776, lincoln changed his views, and eschewed his earlier supremacists views (which were not racist as we would understand the term racism today. he thought blacks inferior biologically, but did not "hate" them. once he came to actually know african americans, he realized he was wrong). and his plans for resettlement after the war were not "racist" either.
and yes, grant owned several slaves, but his father was an abolitionist and refused to attend his wedding (threatened to disown him) for marrying a women who actually owned the slaves. grant was too poor to own a slave. the slaves (i believe two of them) came with his marriage.
and of course the war was about economics. but so was slavery. slavery WAS economics. the southern states didn't leave the union because of economic oppression. they left, as is stated in their declarations of secession, to guard the institution of slavery, which they knew lincoln would work to further undermine. yes, lincoln, at first, said he would not free one slave if it meant keeping the union together. but right after that he said he would also free all the slaves if he could still keep the union together as well. the emancipation proclamation, which, yes, freed only slaves in the secessionist south, was lincoln's way of saying "unconditional surrender or nothing, slavery is ending". -
digitaldiva — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 07:49 AM)
Hi nubbytubbbiatchesgalore,
So true and thank you for your post. Someone recently shared the articles of secession from several states. Every one of them brought up slavery which was the engine of the economy of the South. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 14 years ago(May 31, 2011 05:37 PM)
Grant did not own slaves you twit. His wife's family owned slaves but Grant never owned one himself, and personally disapproved of slavery. His memoirs make his views on race very clear; whatever his other faults, by 19th Century standards he was positively progressive on civil rights.
Lincoln probably was a racist, as virtually all white people of the time were. However, most people would see the fact that he worked for the emancipation of black slaves
in spite of
his racism more important.
And yes, the old "economics" canard. What Southern economic system was the Confederacy trying to protect and spread?
"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"