Roots (2016 History Channel)

[ClareWalks]

http://www.history.com/shows/roots

 

Coming out Memorial Day. 

 

I am massively excited for this. Roots is long overdue for a remake, and this looks much grittier than the original (which made the Middle Passage look like a slightly boring cross-country road trip). I've been re-reading the book in anticipation. 

[Mumbles]

This looks great. I caught the original a few years ago and it is epic, but shows its age (thirtysomething Leslie Uggams and Sandy Duncan as teenagers, really? And OJ Simpson as a tribal elder was a good idea...at the time.)

I will say this. I was a child when he original ran but understood its cultural impact. It seemed that *everyone* watched it. And for many it was probably their first exposure to the human horrors of slavery in a very visceral way beyond the intellectual but dry discussion in history books - Kunta's fear when he was hunted and caught, the horrific sea journey to America, the destruction of slave families when children were sold or couples broken up, the Klan raids on the freed slaves' farms. And back in the 1970s with only three major channels, the size of the audience is unimaginable today. And that's too bad. Young generations should experience this.

[legaleagle53]

Indeed.  I well remember the original and the cultural impact it had on the entire nation (its two sequels were also noteworthy, but none hit with the force that the original did).  I'll be curious to see if it has the same effect on millennials as it did on my generation 40 years ago.  I also am curious as to whom they've gotten to play the iconic roles -- and whether any of the original cast members will be a part of it.

[reggiejax]

(thirtysomething Leslie Uggams and Sandy Duncan as teenagers, really? And OJ Simpson as a tribal elder was a good idea...at the time.)

 

To be fair, Leslie Uggams (who was 33) was cast to play Kizzy over the course of her life, from her teen years until old age. So it made sense to cast someone her age for the part. Duncan, on the other hand, only appears as the young Missy Anne, save for one scene where the character meet again as old women. I am guessing they cast Duncan (who was 30 at the time) to make Uggams more believable as a teenager. But I personally never found it too unbelievable that they were playing much younger than they were. Both actresses, particularly Duncan, have always skewed younger, looks-wise.

 

Now that I am remembering all this, I also remember that for the longest time I couldn't stand Sandy Duncan. Missy Anne turned out to be a vile piece of work, didn't she? Definitely on the short list of most hateful in the entire series, which is saying something. It wasn't until Duncan's time on The Hogans that I was able to get past her role in Roots.

 

As for OJ Simpson, I never minded that he was cast in that role, but if you ever wanted to know how untalented an actor he truly was, Roots is the perfect showcase for that lack of talent.

Edited April 12, 2016 by reggiejax

[ClareWalks]

As for OJ Simpson, I never minded that he was cast in that role, but if you ever wanted to know how untalented an actor he truly was, Roots is the perfect showcase for that lack of talent.

 

The first time I saw Roots was as an adult (in the early 2000s), so OJ was a bit of a "whoa...okay" moment for me at the time ;) But I read the book first and there was a lot of talk in the book about "black" vs "sasso borro/high yaller/etc" and I thought it was odd that OJ would be playing a tribal chief. Although that made a lot of the casting choices in the original miniseries a bit off, I suppose, so we can't be too pedantic about that. It is interesting that they seem to be addressing it in the remake, and cast a dark-skinned African actor to play Kunta. 

[Neurochick]

I was in high school with the original Roots aired on ABC in February of 1977.  I think I read or heard that ABC was afraid that the show wouldn't get good ratings, so they aired it daily, rather than weekly which was the format for most miniseries at the time.  They figured that if the show tanked, they could get rid of it in a week.  

 

But the opposite happened.  I think airing daily made more people watch the show because they didn't have to wait to watch the next episode (the first binge watch?). Also, I remember that we had a brutal cold snap that week, so people didn't go out.  I remember rehearsing for a school play that week and getting a cab every night to go home, it was so cold.  

 

Today there are so many choices on TV and on the Internet that no show could ever get the ratings that Roots got in 1977.

[Queena]

I was a toddler when Roots came on. I didn't watch it until one of the Black channels started playing it every year. I'll be sure to watch the remake this year. I do remember my Mom telling me how big it was at the time.

[ClareWalks]

22 hours ago, auntl said:

I watched the original version of Roots recently. I enjoyed it so much that I pursued further information about the story. I was very disappointed with what I found. Don't read this article if you don't want to be disillusioned.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/6335-alex-haleys-fraudulent-roots

I am still going to watch the new version, but will keep in mind that it is a work of fiction, not a true story, which it was represented to be.

Boy, that was a poorly written article. "Hayley?" Several times? But yeah, Roots is rife with controversy because a lot of it (probably the large majority of it) was totally made up. It had to be, since there weren't many written records. It should not be taken as a historical account, that's for sure. I see its value in how well it captures the spirit of so many stories of how African-American families came to be. 

The whole thing about him going to Africa and that fraud griot telling him what he wanted to hear reminds me of Margaret Mead, who wrote about how slutty Samoan teenagers are (for lack of a more concise phrase). Turns out they were lying to her, and her fieldwork was total bullcrap, yet she is still considered one of the greatest anthropologists of all time. Alex Haley is the Margaret Mead of historical fiction. Some people will think it doesn't matter and he's a genius, and some people will think he has lost all credibility. I fall somewhere in between. I love the book but I don't take it too seriously.

[Primetimer]

Spoiler: slavery is still terrible.

View the full article

[SimoneS]

I am looking forward to the remake of Roots. While he should not have lied, it was obvious that Haley's story was not true because slavery as he portrayed it was tame by all known historical records and the details of individual enslaved Africans way too specific. Frankly, there will never be a movie or tv show that "depicts slavery as it was." Slavery was constant rapes (including gang rapes) throughout the day for enslaved black women and children (and enslaved black men although this is rarely mentioned)  along with mutilating them physically. Slavery has literally been "whitewashed." Just today I was reading a NY Times article about the presence of European DNA in African Americans proving that white slaveowners "coerced" enslaved black women to have sex. RME. 

Edited May 29, 2016 by SimoneS

[Ohwell]

I'm watching this right now but, having watched the original Roots and, more recently, Underground, I'm not sure how many more heartbreaking stories about slavery I can take.  I understand that this is going to be more brutal than the original Roots and I am just not looking forward to that.  

The young man who plays Kunta Kinte looks like RGIII's younger brother.

[maraleia]

They filmed the Africa scenes outside of South Africa which is already lending the show a sense of place that the original couldn't do back in the 1970's.

For anyone interested in the original cast's reflections check out this link http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-original-roots-cast-discusses-classic-miniseries-summer-preview-20160529-snap-story.html

Edited May 31, 2016 by maraleia

[Spartan Girl]

The ship scenes are making me just as ill as the original.

Being taken from your family, being chained inside the ship to the point where you can't even move, being force fed slop, the raping...

And they already cut a guy's arm off. Yup, I'm done. I can't stomach this. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna hug my parents and never take my life for granted again.

[Brooklynista]

I know exactly how this story unfolds and yet there are still tears in my eyes.  Can there be such a thing as too well done?

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The ship scenes are making me just as ill as the original.

Being taken from your family, being chained inside the ship to the point where you can't even move, being force fed slop, the raping...

And they already cut a guy's arm off. Yup, I'm done. I can't stomach this. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna hug my parents and never take my life for granted again.

I am going to be tuning in even though the first hour was so hard to watch(watching now). Although nothing can be done to change the past it's important to remember where you come from. One should never be comfortable seeing things like this. 

The cast looks amazing and I am looking forward to watching the rest of the week. 

[mightysparrow]

I have no problem with the 'honesty' of Alex Haley's story.  Generations of people worked very hard to try and erase the history of the enslaved people in North and South America.  Everything that happened in 'Roots' happened to the overwhelming majority of African-Americans and other enslaved members of the African diaspora. I credit Haley with encouraging people of African descent to research and find out as much as they can about their ancestors.

Besides, how many people take 'Gone With the Wind' as gospel.

I don't know if I'll be able to watch the whole thing.  I have a degree in history so I know the facts but I have a feeling that the closer a show or film comes to the truth about slavery, the harder it will be to watch.

[truelovekiss]

Wow. I never watched the original  (my parents were too young to watch the original when it came out!) and all I really knew about it was that it was "about slavery."  I'm only halfway through, and I'm  blown away. The harsh, raw depiction was the most accurate portrayal of slavery in America that I have ever seen, and it's still not enough. 

The lullaby that Kunta sings throughout breaks my heart every time. The song was his. Literally the only thing he had that was his.

Edited May 31, 2016 by truelovekiss

[bref]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:04 AM, ClareWalks said:

Boy, that was a poorly written article. "Hayley?" Several times? But yeah, Roots is rife with controversy because a lot of it (probably the large majority of it) was totally made up. It had to be, since there weren't many written records. It should not be taken as a historical account, that's for sure. I see its value in how well it captures the spirit of so many stories of how African-American families came to be. 

The whole thing about him going to Africa and that fraud griot telling him what he wanted to hear reminds me of Margaret Mead, who wrote about how slutty Samoan teenagers are (for lack of a more concise phrase). Turns out they were lying to her, and her fieldwork was total bullcrap, yet she is still considered one of the greatest anthropologists of all time. Alex Haley is the Margaret Mead of historical fiction. Some people will think it doesn't matter and he's a genius, and some people will think he has lost all credibility. I fall somewhere in between. I love the book but I don't take it too seriously.

Off topic, but I have to take issue with your characterization of Margaret Mead. Those accusations were largely made by one person, and there is plenty of evidence to discredit his opinion. 

On a more relevant note, I both agree with and regret that far fewer people will see this edition of Roots. I think the original contributed to a more educated and therefore more empathetic public on the issue of slavery than we see currently. I was in my early 20s at the time it was broadcast and people of all ages watched and discussed it. It may not have been a perfect representation, but it did engage people emotionally with the pain of that period of history in a way that reverberated. It was most unfortunate that Hailey's claims of its veracity were proven untrue but I don't think it changed the impact significantly.

The acting was excellent, but I could not watch.

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

And they already cut a guy's arm off. Yup, I'm done. I can't stomach this.

That ship section was very brutal that I eventually had to mute it.  I'm glad I stuck with it, though.  It's not that it necessarily becomes "easier" to watch but it became less visceral.  Both this show and Underground (which I admittedly started to wimp out on towards the end) have been disturbing but important to watch. 

I was born the year the original was made and I haven't seen it since.  This is the first time I'm watching the story. One thing that is enriching this experience and justifies the remake even if the quality didn't (which it does) is Twitter.  I'm learning so much from the reactions there.

 

30 minutes ago, mightysparrow said:

I have no problem with the 'honesty' of Alex Haley's story. 

Me neither.  In fact, I was surprised there was controversy around it.  This story and the follow-up covered hundreds of years of a people whose main means of sharing story was oral.

[voiceover]

I saw the original in its first run, and despite (maybe because of) my youth, it shattered me.  Louis Gossett Jr as Fiddler was the performance of a lifetime, and now I'm watching Forest W give the same.

That climax of Part 1 tonight snapped me back to all those years ago -- Fiddler tending to a beaten Kunta Kinte, repeating his African name...for a change, "iconic" doesn't feel like overkill.

Edited May 31, 2016 by voiceover

[Scarlett45]

I had to comment that I loved Tony Curran's acting. Something about his nose makes him look villainous. I saw him at Comic Con in 2013, and he was joking that when his Mom saw him in "Defiance" she wanted to know what they did to his nose......he said "nothing Mom that's the nose you gave me!"  

[Avaleigh]

I loved the movie 12 Years as a Slave. I'm trying to pinpoint why it was easier for me to handle that movie in comparison to this and I think it's because I always had hope and took comfort in knowing that the Solomon would eventually escape somehow.

This show is certainly well done I just find it to be very upsetting and certainly not entertaining. It's not like I was expecting sunshine and lollipops or anything, but I don't know how I can look forward to watching one endless suckfest where nothing good happens and there's no humor or hope. I knew better than to hope that he'd escape.

I haven't seen Tony Curran in anything since he played King Stephen in Pillars of the Earth but I remember thinking he was great there. He plays such a douchebag in this, jeez. James Purefoy another actor I like--they are all playing a bunch of horrible characters. It's beyond depressing. 

How can the slave traders not hate themselves? What a horrible job. How can the money be worth it? It's not like this is some tiny fraction of their lives. The slaverunners are giving up their morality, their dignity, their humanity, and are mired in the shit with the people they're victimizing. Again, how can the money be worth it?

I'm so angry with this Elizabeth character, I have to break it down. My blood is boiling over how hateful she is and she likely doesn't even realize it. Like when she says that she likes to spoil her horse with a bucket of carrots as if she's ever fed the animal. She isn't responsible for spoiling anybody other than herself. She tells Fiddler that she's "good" to him. Ugh, what a load of nonsense. Then, when she doesn't get her way in a New York minute, not only does she take it out on Kunta but she makes it seem like Fiddler isn't trying to help when that's exactly what he was trying to do. Seeing that witch pass out Christmas gifts like she's Lady Generous was more than I can stand.

At least Matthew Goode's character seemed to have some sliver of humanity.

How can they just watch the whipping? I know the slaves were forced but how can Elizabeth and the others who weren't forced stand to watch it? I could hardly bear it in my own living room. I probably would have vomited seeing something like that in real life.

It's tough to watch but I think I'm in for the duration. We'll see.

[Tenshinhan]

I really liked the focus on Kunta's life in his home country.  I liked watching the actors interact together, and the humanity that was expressed in those sequences.  It's interesting to think about how Kunta's life would have been different if he had gone away to study at Timbuktu versus his actual fate.  The contrast between society and culture as Kunta knew it in Africa versus in America left a strong impression in my view.  I liked that moment where Kunta first arrives on the plantation in the back of the truck and he recognizes the driver's Wolof ancestry by seeing his face, confused as to why he won't help him since the Mandinka and Wolof were allies.  I thought that was nice attention to detail, but also really drove home the point that Kunta was in a whole new world with all new rules, and while the biology might have been the same, the psychology was certainly different.

I think the attempted revolt on the ship was my favorite sequence.  I really enjoyed the way the Mandinka woman secretly communicated with the others through song in order to seize control from the officers.  The tension in those scenes was well executed in my opinion.  It made it so you could really empathize with Kunta and the other captives.  The explicit violence, although brutal, was very effective.  Seeing some of the captives being thrown overboard reminded me of how slave ships were known to be closely followed by sharks because of the large amounts of death during the Middle Passage.

2 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

How can the slave traders not hate themselves? What a horrible job. How can the money be worth it? It's not like this is some tiny fraction of their lives. The slaverunners are giving up their morality, their dignity, their humanity, and are mired in the shit with the people they're victimizing. Again, how can the money be worth it?

It's quite a bit of money, for starters.  Especially during this era of the plantation revolution.  As for the slave traders not hating themselves, well, I imagine any hatred that arises is turned upon the slaves.  The cruelty and viciousness we see from the Europeans towards the Africans is probably born from their own self-hatred.  The commodification and dehumanization of human beings for profit also likely contributes to this psychological disconnect that allows for such cruelty.  I think a good example of this is the scene in which Kunta refuses to eat, and so the crew uses the speculum orum to force the food down his throat.  These are clearly people who are being driven by something within that makes them treat other people in such a manner.

2 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I'm so angry with this Elizabeth character, I have to break it down. My blood is boiling over how hateful she is and she likely doesn't even realize it.

That's the most upsetting aspect of it all for me, the lack of awareness of her attitude and behavior.  Whether regarding slavery or race relations in general, it's this same obliviousness that is consistently maddening but also equally intriguing.  

This seems to be what this series does best so far, that is the exploration the human psyche.

[SimoneS]

I liked the cast and the acting was good. It was good to see Derek Luke, Tony Curran (I wish he had a bigger role), Forest Whitaker, and James Purefoy (nearly unrecognizable). I had never seen the lead in anything before. I think he is very good. I started off enjoying this a lot despite the brutality, but to the end I felt the show had lost its way a bit.

I haven't see Roots since it was aired initially so my memory is foggy. In this version, I liked that they explored slavery on the African continent and conflicts within the Mandinka tribe over slavery. I also liked the story of Kunta's family and tribe and was glad that they included that Kunta's family were Muslim as were many of the Africans who were enslaved. They were people who had families and futures that were destroyed by slavery. I always wished that we got to see how his father and mother coped with losing him. If they searched for him and declared war on their enemies or if they were captured also and sent somewhere else.

The brutality and suffering on the ship was heart wrenching and difficult to watch. Poor Uncle Simi. Even as I knew they would fail, I was so hopeful when they bonded together and decided to fight. The woman singing and helping them with the uprising was clever. The whole sequence was well done including the historical bit about the wall build to prevent this exact type of uprising.They came so close to succeeding in the uprising. My heart broke when they failed and when some of them were just tossed overboard. I noticed they omitted the consequences for the women for helping which must be beyond horrible. 

As I noted before, they can never realistically portray slavery, but I thought the plantation scenes were the weakest part of the story. The casual cruelty and indifference of the white plantation owners felt like a cop out although Elizabeth's cruelty in the guise of generosity was well done. They had the overseers carried the load. I was also taken out of the show by the demeanor and condition of the enslaved peoples. Working in the fields all day in that hot sun is backbreaking exhausting work, yet they were clean, not breaking a sweat, and strolling down the road like they were back from a picnic. It took me right out of those scenes. It would not have taken much to dirty them up a bit and put some fake sweat on the actors. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by SimoneS

[revbfc]

Kunta Kinte's tribe all being Muslims was a big part of the original, too.  This version it was done better because THIS version didn't have Muslims that spoke of hunting warthogs.  A small detail, yes, but a jarring one for this viewer.

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I was also taken out of the show by the demeanor and condition of the enslaved peoples. Working in the fields all day in that hot sun is backbreaking exhausting work, yet they were clean, not breaking a sweat, and strolling down the road like they were back from a picnic. It took me right out of those scenes. It would not have taken much to dirty them up a bit and put some fake sweat on the actors. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed how clean the slaves were, and how casually they were strolling around the plantation as if they didn't have a care in the world.

[Scarlett45]

6 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I loved the movie 12 Years as a Slave. I'm trying to pinpoint why it was easier for me to handle that movie in comparison to this and I think it's because I always had hope and took comfort in knowing that the Solomon would eventually escape somehow.

This show is certainly well done I just find it to be very upsetting and certainly not entertaining. It's not like I was expecting sunshine and lollipops or anything, but I don't know how I can look forward to watching one endless suckfest where nothing good happens and there's no humor or hope. I knew better than to hope that he'd escape.

I haven't seen Tony Curran in anything since he played King Stephen in Pillars of the Earth but I remember thinking he was great there. He plays such a douchebag in this, jeez. James Purefoy another actor I like--they are all playing a bunch of horrible characters. It's beyond depressing. 

How can the slave traders not hate themselves? What a horrible job. How can the money be worth it? It's not like this is some tiny fraction of their lives. The slaverunners are giving up their morality, their dignity, their humanity, and are mired in the shit with the people they're victimizing. Again, how can the money be worth it?

I'm so angry with this Elizabeth character, I have to break it down. My blood is boiling over how hateful she is and she likely doesn't even realize it. Like when she says that she likes to spoil her horse with a bucket of carrots as if she's ever fed the animal. She isn't responsible for spoiling anybody other than herself. She tells Fiddler that she's "good" to him. Ugh, what a load of nonsense. Then, when she doesn't get her way in a New York minute, not only does she take it out on Kunta but she makes it seem like Fiddler isn't trying to help when that's exactly what he was trying to do. Seeing that witch pass out Christmas gifts like she's Lady Generous was more than I can stand.

At least Matthew Goode's character seemed to have some sliver of humanity.

How can they just watch the whipping? I know the slaves were forced but how can Elizabeth and the others who weren't forced stand to watch it? I could hardly bear it in my own living room. I probably would have vomited seeing something like that in real life.

It's tough to watch but I think I'm in for the duration. We'll see.

I agree that watching 12years was perhaps easier because you knew he would escape, back to his family and his freedom. A "happy ending" as it were. The only happiness these characters have is their relationships with each other (and fiddler has his musical talent), and the overseers/owners make damn sure they know THAT can be taken from them at any moment as well. Pitting the slaves against each other is psychologically damaging and prevents an uprising where they are murdered in their sleep. 

As far as how can a human being do this to another? Well they don't consider the slaves humans. The overseer is the cruelest of all because he's the lowest person on the social heirarcy of white society but he's not an (insert fouls language here).  Also MONEY. I'm amazed ANYONE survived the middle passage, but given the amount of money at stake, people will do anything. 

[SimoneS]

49 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

The overseer is the cruelest of all because he's the lowest person on the social heirarcy of white society but he's not an (insert fouls language here). 

The overseer attending the plantation owners' party was another moment that totally took me out of the show. That would never happen. Overseers were poor whites who lived pretty isolated lives on the plantations, mistreated by their cruel demanding bosses and disrespected and scorned by white society. They would never be allowed to attend parties and socialize with rich whites. I did think that the overseers' determination to destroy any enslaved African who get any respect or status from the plantation owners was realistic.

My issue is that the show made the overseer the "cruelest of all." The overseers were horrible no doubt, but to keep their jobs, they had to get the enslaved people to produce in the fields so many attempted to balance out how they treated them, while preventing them from gathering, uprising, and escaping. Ultimately, the plantation owners were the ones who made all the decisions and gave all the orders. They were not distant or indifferent the people they owned as protrayed here. They rode in the fields and raped the women there as well as in their own houses. It is their DNA that has been found among the most of the descendants of these enslaved people not the overseers.

Edited May 31, 2016 by SimoneS

[DearEvette]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I haven't see Roots since it was aired initially so my memory is foggy. In this version, I liked that they explored slavery on the African continent and conflicts within the Mandinka tribe over slavery. I also liked the story of Kunta's family and tribe and was glad that they included that Kunta's family were Muslim as were many of the Africans who were enslaved. They were people who had families and futures that were destroyed by slavery. I always wished that we got to see how his father and mother coped with losing him. If they searched for him and declared on their enemies or if they were captured also and sent somewhere else.

Yeah, I loved the beginning.  I am glad they explored that.  Intertribe/interethnic conflict was real and slavery in Africa was also real. 

But I enjoyed the bit of life they showed among the Mandika.  One thing about slavery is that is really dehumanizes.  It become THE thing about people.  By first giving context with family, village, traditions, Warrior boot-camp, expectations, aspirations to go to college, reinforcement of the importance of family etc. it absolutely reminds people that these were people with lives no matter how imperfect before American Slavery became such a part of them. 

A couple of other things I felt very viscerally while watching:

During the middle passage when Kunte is very dispirited, I think it was his uncle who said 'Remember, this shame is not ours.'  Again very much necessary in context because there is a still lot of internalized shame around slavery amongst black folks.

At one point the overseer guy said 'You can't buy a slave.  You got to make a slave."  Again, such an intense statement.  Because of course and integral part of chattel slavery is breaking down people emotionally, physically and psychologically such that they begin to accept their state of being.

The issue of Identity is also made powerfully with Kunte's refusal to relinquish his name.  The overseer says "Toby just doesn't know who he really is."  Of course there is so much to unpack in that one statement.  It is both true and untrue.  I made a comment on twitter that I finally got the African name explosion sorta happened in the aftermath of the original Roots.  It was a way to fight against Toby-ism.

I hadn't planned to watch because I really don't feel the need to dwell.  But I found myself riveted in spite of myself this is a very well done show so far.

Also the guy who plays Kunte looks so much like Aldis Hodge I had to keep reminding myself it wasn't him.

Edited May 31, 2016 by DearEvette

[nodorothyparker]

I have a hazy memory of being traumatized as a child seeing Kizzy sold away from her parents in the original and not really having any context because I only would have been 5 or 6 years old and didn't know anything about slavery yet.  My parents, probably like a lot of white Americans at the time, didn't really watch what they would have considered black shows but they very avidly watched this.  

The production values on this were really nice, especially during the Africa and Middle Passage sections.  I was really struck during the Africa part of the story how slavery was always lurking around the edges.  They could never get away from it, from the discussions the men were having to the casual passing of boats on the river.  Even if you didn't know the story and thus what was coming, you could feel it looming in so many scenes that were otherwise so vibrant and full of life and color and hope for a continued future.  This really is the story of a life interrupted and they did a good job of showing that.

I don't know what can even really be said about the scenes on the ship.  It was a struggle not to look away through so much of that part of the story and then you remember that it's just actors and doesn't even begin to come close to the awfulness of the real thing.  Liked feels like the wrong word, but I liked the bit where one of the chained men is afraid they're going to be eaten when they're dragged up on deck because it drives home that these people really had no idea where they were going or what would happen to them at the end of that journey.  It created a sense of general disorientation that carried over to the auction site and later as Kunta is being driven to the plantation.  Why was this strange white man checking his teeth?  Why were all the people on the roadsides carrying tools but not running away or using them to fight?  Why was the Wolof on the driver's seat who should have been his ally keeping him chained and not helping him?  The overseer's line about not buying a slave but making one felt pretty on the nose but accurate nonetheless.

Edited May 31, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[maraleia]

I keep on thinking about how the rest of the world got screwed over due to the Europeans desire for conquest both in Africa and the Americas. That's the entire reason for the kind of slavery they espoused and why this miniseries remake is so necessary. So people learn this history.

I can't figure out what flag was flying on the slave ship in the show. Does anyone know?

[ClareWalks]

Oh man, the last ten minutes of part 1 I cried like a baby. Great production values, but I was thrown a bit by some of the differences in plot from the original, especially the whole Kinte vs Koro clan war. But the changes were definitely interesting.

[Avaleigh]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

The overseer attending the plantation owners' party was another moment that totally took me out of the show. That would never happen. Overseers were poor whites who lived pretty isolated lives on the plantations, mistreated by their cruel demanding bosses and disrespected and scorned by white society. They would never be allowed to attend parties and socialize with rich whites. I did think that the overseers' determination to destroy any enslaved African who get any respect or status from the plantation owners was realistic.

My issue is that the show made the overseer the "cruelest of all." The overseers were horrible no doubt, but to keep their jobs, they had to get the enslaved people to produce in the fields so many attempted to balance out how they treated them, while preventing them from gathering, uprising, and escaping. Ultimately, the plantation owners were the ones who made all the decisions and gave all the orders. They were not distant or indifferent the people they owned as protrayed here. They rode in the fields and raped the women there as well as in their own houses. It is their DNA that has been found among the most of the descendants of these enslaved people not the overseers.

Yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who side eyed that. It made me think about how the O'Haras in Gone with the Wind had such contempt for their overseer Jonas Wilkerson and his family, save Scarlett's mother who seemed to pity them.

I'm also reminded of the hateful character of Bob Ewell from To Kill a Mockingbird. I realize this story took place well after the end of slavery but he still came to mind because he's right at the bottom of white society and isn't respected, but if he scrubs himself up extra clean, since he isn't a [insert profanity], suddenly his word is treated like gospel from the people who usually look down on him even when the truth is obvious. 

On this show the owners are always going to side with the overseer against their slaves but I'm positive that they'd quickly side eye their overseer and would magically have a more accurate gauge of his character if he had something negative to say about some aristocratic white character. IMO, in that sort of situation, I think they'd be a lot more quick to see him for the cruel asshole that he is.

What's interesting to me about overseers is that no aristocratic white person would ever have wanted that job and to me on some level, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, it's because they know that overseers have to be monsters in order to get the job done and the rich whites want to tell themselves that they're above that sort of cruelty and that manner of getting their hands dirty. It goes against the very word gentleman that so many of these aristocratic southerners were hung up on. I also doubt these men considered the rape of slave women to be rape.

It's fascinating what psychological hoop jumping has to be made to keep the institution of slavery running. It requires both sides to play a sick game where both are fighting to survive. I say both because the white people who were born into the system are essentially told that if they don't take a firm line that they'll end up getting their throat cut one day. It seems like it would take an exceptionally strong character to stand against the majority when the fucking law (gah!) is on the side of the majority. 

It's so devastating to process just how many lives were ruined under this system. I can't imagine a life where safety, beauty, kindness, humor, hope, selflessness, and loyalty are so scarce that they're basically like alien concepts.

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

The overseer attending the plantation owners' party was another moment that totally took me out of the show. That would never happen. Overseers were poor whites who lived pretty isolated lives on the plantations, mistreated by their cruel demanding bosses and disrespected and scorned by white society. They would never be allowed to attend parties and socialize with rich whites. I did think that the overseers' determination to destroy any enslaved African who get any respect or status from the plantation owners was realistic.

My issue is that the show made the overseer the "cruelest of all." The overseers were horrible no doubt, but to keep their jobs, they had to get the enslaved people to produce in the fields so many attempted to balance out how they treated them, while preventing them from gathering, uprising, and escaping. Ultimately, the plantation owners were the ones who made all the decisions and gave all the orders. They were not distant or indifferent the people they owned as protrayed here. They rode in the fields and raped the women there as well as in their own houses. It is their DNA that has been found among the most of the descendants of these enslaved people not the overseers.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the show is trying to portray (rightly or wrongly) that the masters are so secure in their position that the slaves are beneath their notice other than the money in their pocket and it's better to leave the nasty grunt work of "correction" to the overseers. The masters didn't NEED to "get off" on putting slaves in their place because they had "better" things to worry about, like throwing parties and the like (fantasy I know). 

Yes the overseers had a job to do, and if the plantation didn't produce they would be replaced and their family to starve (no one is denying that). While no one (at least certainly not me) is denying the horrors and cruelty of chattel slavery, it's bad business to be beating and whipping your slaves for every minor infraction. It inhibits productivity and lowers morale, encourages fighting etc which again stops work from getting done and the bottom line is to make money. 

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

I can't figure out what flag was flying on the slave ship in the show.

It looked to me like a cross between the Union Jack and what would later become Confederate battle flag.

Quote

While no one (at least certainly not me) is denying the horrors and cruelty of chattel slavery, it's bad business to be beating and whipping your slaves for every minor infraction. It inhibits productivity and lowers morale, encourages fighting etc which again stops work from getting done and the bottom line is to make money.

One probably can't underestimate the power of fear, hatred, and evil to overtake decency and good sense. I think these people were always afraid that the slaves would find a way to unite and overtake them. The beatings and whippings were as much about instilling "don't you dare" fear as well as delivering so-called "punishment". Plus, some of the overseers, owners, etc., probably just got off on it.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[nodorothyparker]

If you read much period writing over the last several centuries especially here in America, you can see that slavery and our policies toward the native population were highly dependent on the idea that they weren't human the same way whites and in particular white Christians were.  They were at best some form of subhumans who needed to be managed and corrected into their proper roles and at worst were little different than livestock to be used, sold, or put down as it best suited their superiors' purposes.  Scientific writing at the time highlighted supposed differences in brain size and intelligence while Bible verses that seemed to sanction slave and master roles bolstered thinking that since neither Native Americans or mostly Muslim Africans were Christian what they were doing was sanctioned by God and they were in fact doing them a solid by forcing them to give up their pagan cultures.  Once you've completely denied the humanity of a population, a lot of things become possible for your mind to accept.

Some of it makes for some really horrifyingly fascinating reading.

[Scarlett45]

5 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

If you read much period writing over the last several centuries especially here in America, you can see that slavery and our policies toward the native population were highly dependent on the idea that they weren't human the same way whites and in particular white Christians were.  They were at best some form of subhumans who needed to be managed and corrected into their proper roles and at worst were little different than livestock to be used, sold, or put down as it best suited their superiors' purposes.  Scientific writing at the time highlighted supposed differences in brain size and intelligence while Bible verses that seemed to sanction slave and master roles bolstered thinking that since neither Native Americans or mostly Muslim Africans were Christian what they were doing was sanctioned by God and they were in fact doing them a solid by forcing them to give up their pagan cultures.  Once you've completely denied the humanity of a population, a lot of things become possible for your mind to accept.

Some of it makes for some really horrifyingly fascinating reading.

Yes. By enslaving these people, converting them to Christianity you were saving their souls and putting their lives to good use. Christ WANTED you to do this! It was your duty. 

[DearEvette]

35 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

If you read much period writing over the last several centuries especially here in America, you can see that slavery and our policies toward the native population were highly dependent on the idea that they weren't human the same way whites and in particular white Christians were.  They were at best some form of subhumans who needed to be managed and corrected into their proper roles and at worst were little different than livestock to be used, sold, or put down as it best suited their superiors' purposes.  Scientific writing at the time highlighted supposed differences in brain size and intelligence while Bible verses that seemed to sanction slave and master roles bolstered thinking that since neither Native Americans or mostly Muslim Africans were Christian what they were doing was sanctioned by God and they were in fact doing them a solid by forcing them to give up their pagan cultures.  Once you've completely denied the humanity of a population, a lot of things become possible for your mind to accept.

Some of it makes for some really horrifyingly fascinating reading.

Yeah, the dehumanization aspect is key, imo, to the mental gymnastics the white owners, overseers etc. had to perform to maintain this institution.  I thought the show displayed that quite well. The owner's handling of Kunte at the market like he was cattle, feeling his teeth, looking at his eyes.  It was impersonal.  Kunte himself wasn't even there, just his traits as a workhorse.  Then his wife treats Fiddler like a pet, and she treats naming Kunte like she would a horse.  Whoever wrote the script did a real good job adding in a lot of interesting layers. 

[Ohwell]

I know actors have a job to do--"acting"--but I often wonder when shows are made about slavery, the Holocaust, war, and other atrocities, whether actors sometimes get really emotional.  I could imagine an actor on the set of Roots, sitting in a corner after a shoot, and saying "Fuck y'all!"  

[Tenshinhan]

5 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I understand what you're saying, but I think the show is trying to portray (rightly or wrongly) that the masters are so secure in their position that the slaves are beneath their notice other than the money in their pocket and it's better to leave the nasty grunt work of "correction" to the overseers. The masters didn't NEED to "get off" on putting slaves in their place because they had "better" things to worry about, like throwing parties and the like (fantasy I know). 

This is how things actually worked on many plantations.  I'm not sure about the Upper South in the 18th century, as the plantation structure and nature of slavery varied from region to region and between time periods.  However on many of the grand estates, the owners rarely interacted with their slaves and the slaves might go their whole lives without seeing the master.  Sometimes the owners would not even live on the plantation itself, but instead live and operate within the city, far away from the countryside.  And throwing parties and the like is exactly what many slave-owners did, as an expression of their great wealth and power within society.  Organizing country clubs come to mind.

7 hours ago, DearEvette said:

But I enjoyed the bit of life they showed among the Mandika.  One thing about slavery is that is really dehumanizes.  It become THE thing about people.  By first giving context with family, village, traditions, Warrior boot-camp, expectations, aspirations to go to college, reinforcement of the importance of family etc. it absolutely reminds people that these were people with lives no matter how imperfect before American Slavery became such a part of them. 

This was a very important aspect to portray.  The African perspective is critical when examining the Atlantic Slave Trade.  The Mandinka and various Mande-speaking peoples, as well as the rest of Africa's peoples, have a very long and rich history.  To try and erase that history, or to minimize those peoples as simply "Africans" living in "tribes" would be hugely insulting, and would gut the context necessary in understanding slavery and the slave trade.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Tenshinhan

[Spartan Girl]

Tuned into the second hour. Immediately regret the decision.

Instead of letting Fiddler die peacefully like he did in the original, they murder him?! *cries hysterically*

And now I'm dreading what's going to happen to Kizzy.

[mightysparrow]

I think it's easy to portray the overseer as the monster but I've always thought the real monsters were the slave owners.  The overseers were only doing the owners' bidding.  The overseers wouldn't be brutal if the owners didn't approve. An overseer would never whip a slave without the owner's approval because that would be damaging the owner's property.  And while the masters were the ones with the ultimate authority and usually raped as many enslaved women as they could, the mistresses were usually equally brutal.  Most slave accounts tell of how cruel slave mistresses were and being a house slave wasn't the great gig it's made out to be.

 

 I get tired of the idea that the slave owners are 'aristocrats'.  The aristocracy stayed in Europe.  The slave owners in the 'New World' were usually middle-class or second sons who made a lot of money speculating in land or slaves and then spent the rest of their lives 'acting' like aristocrats.  Most accounts of REAL European aristocrats travelling in South describe how crude and barbaric Southern slave owners really were.  The 'Noble Cause' propaganda has done a lot to paint these horrible human beings as something to be admired, when they weren't.

[North of Eden]

Kunta Kinte reimagined as an ACTION HERO....gotta love the 21st century! Value or no Value there is now way he should have made it off that slave ship alive...he lead the revolt and killed the captain...that should have gotten himself a one way ticket to the great beyond. Anyway UNDERGROUND I liked a lot better. If you haven't seen it...it was a great series on WGN.

[mightysparrow]

I was a little girl when Roots first aired.  As young as I was, Kizzy's rape was traumatic  I knew that her story was the story of millions of women who came before me.   Even then, I understood that what happened to all those women affected my life as a Black girl and how the world viewed me.  I remember going to school the next morning and feeling so exposed because of what had happened to Kizzy.  Black women weren't just raped, they were forced to carry their rapist's child, often to see that child sold off by it's own father.  That's a racial wound that still hasn't been healed.

[TigerLynx]

I know the story, however, every time Kunta Kinte escapes, I keep wanting him to succeed and regain his freedom even though I know it will never happen.  One thing about the European invaders, and they were invaders, they were consistent, they discriminated against everyone (Native American, Africans, Asians), and could not be trusted to keep their word to anyone.

As horrible as all the violence is, that scene with Kunta, Belle, and Fiddler on the porch was sweet.  Kunta not knowing what to say, Belle shutting the door, Fiddler shaking his head and telling Kunta to try again, and think of something better to say.

I don't know why DNA evidence would be needed to prove that white masters fathered children with their slaves.  Aside from all the white slaves that were 1/4 or 1/8 black, and looked white, and this was the case on several plantations, why pass the one drop law, and the law that children born to a slave mother would be slaves no matter who their father was, if white masters weren't the fathers.  {Rolls Eyes}

Gone with the Wind's depiction of slavery was offensive and pathetic, but they didn't get the laws right either.  Ashley claiming he would have freed all the slaves when his father died, was beyond stupid.  Because of all the states that were outlawing slavery, and the abolitionist movement, the south passed laws that made it almost impossible to free a slave.  It would cost thousands of dollars to free one slave.  It wasn't as simple as saying, "You are all free.  Aren't I a great master for giving you your freedom."  Despicable idiots.

Poor Kizzy.  She is a survivor like her father.

Edited June 1, 2016 by TigerLynx

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Tuned into the second hour. Immediately regret the decision.

Instead of letting Fiddler die peacefully like he did in the original, they murder him?! *cries hysterically*

And now I'm dreading what's going to happen to Kizzy.

I know! I was so sad to see Fiddler murdered. 

 

27 minutes ago, mightysparrow said:

I was a little girl when Roots first aired.  As young as I was, Kizzy's rape was traumatic  I knew that her story was the story of millions of women who came before me.   Even then, I understood that what happened to all those women affected my life as a Black girl and how the world viewed me.  I remember going to school the next morning and feeling so exposed because of what had happened to Kizzy.  Black women weren't just raped, they were forced to carry their rapist's child, often to see that child sold off by it's own father.  That's a racial wound that still hasn't been healed.

I know exactly what you mean. 

 

1 hour ago, mightysparrow said:

I think it's easy to portray the overseer as the monster but I've always thought the real monsters were the slave owners.  The overseers were only doing the owners' bidding.  The overseers wouldn't be brutal if the owners didn't approve. An overseer would never whip a slave without the owner's approval because that would be damaging the owner's property.  And while the masters were the ones with the ultimate authority and usually raped as many enslaved women as they could, the mistresses were usually equally brutal.  Most slave accounts tell of how cruel slave mistresses were and being a house slave wasn't the great gig it's made out to be.

 

 I get tired of the idea that the slave owners are 'aristocrats'.  The aristocracy stayed in Europe.  The slave owners in the 'New World' were usually middle-class or second sons who made a lot of money speculating in land or slaves and then spent the rest of their lives 'acting' like aristocrats.  Most accounts of REAL European aristocrats travelling in South describe how crude and barbaric Southern slave owners really were.  The 'Noble Cause' propaganda has done a lot to paint these horrible human beings as something to be admired, when they weren't.

I would hope no one thinks that the owning of other human beings is something to be admired, but just like every German who stood by while their neighbors were taken away in the night during the Holocaust wasn't evil, I don't think every single person that owned slaves (or was married to someone who owned slaves) was evil. Im sure in 200yrs humans will look at our social practices and wonder how we could live this way.

It takes a lot of moral fortitude (more than post people have I think) to stand up to a system that benefits you (better yet allows you to thrive) even if it oppresses others. It's easy to villanize someone who's outwardly cruel, abusing, starving, raping someone else, but it's the psychological oppression, that's more subtle, it runs far deeper and wears on the fabric of the society I think. Yet it's so much harder to address THAT. Which is why I cheered inside when Kunta told Kizzy to never let them put shackles on your mind. 

[mightysparrow]

2 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

 

I don't know why DNA evidence would be needed to prove that white masters fathered children with their slaves.  Aside from all the white slaves that were 1/4 or 1/8 black, and looked white, and this was the case on several plantations, why pass the one drop law, and the law that children born to a slave mother would be slaves no matter who their father was, if white masters weren't the fathers.  {Rolls Eyes}

 

The case of the most famous Founding Father/rapist is a case in point.  Sally Hemings wasn't just Thomas Jefferson's property, victim and mother of his children.  She was also his sister-in-law.  Martha Jefferson got her half-sister Sally as part of her dowry from her father, who was also Sally's father.

[Scarlett45]

23 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

 

 

Gone with the Wind's depiction of slavery was offensive and pathetic, but they didn't get the laws right either.  Ashley claiming he would have freed all the slaves when his father died, was beyond stupid.  Because of all the states that were outlawing slavery, and the abolitionist movement, the south passed laws that made it almost impossible to free a slave.  It would cost thousands of dollars to free one slave.  It wasn't as simple as saying, "You are all free.  Aren't I a great master for giving you your freedom."  Despicable idiots.

Poor Kizzy.  She is a survivor like her father.

Yes, states made it so hard to free slaves because freed blacks were becoming a "problem" especially in southern cities. Competition in skilled trades with lower class/middle class whites, morale boosters to show slaves "what could be", people saving and buying their relatives, etc. I hope we get to see this dynamic in some of Chickem George's scenes tomorrow. 

 

Side note- Jonathan Rhys Meyers looks so good! So young! Thin! He is such a good actor but he's had so many demons with drugs/addiction etc, I'm glad to see him working. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Scarlett45
Admiring Jonathan Rhys Meyers

[TigerLynx]

Sally Hemings is an example of this, and so are her mother, grandmother, and sisters.

I liked Kunta Kinte side eyeing the redcoats from the get go.  He knew they weren't any better than the American slave owners.

Fiddler has some great lines, "Isn't that great.  The white people are free."  I remember in the original, Fiddler says he doesn't know what freedom is, but it must be something wonderful for Kunta to long for it so desperately. 

[cakes1975]

21 hours ago, SimoneS said:

The overseer attending the plantation owners' party was another moment that totally took me out of the show. That would never happen. Overseers were poor whites who lived pretty isolated lives on the plantations, mistreated by their cruel demanding bosses and disrespected and scorned by white society. They would never be allowed to attend parties and socialize with rich whites. I did think that the overseers' determination to destroy any enslaved African who get any respect or status from the plantation owners was realistic.

My issue is that the show made the overseer the "cruelest of all." The overseers were horrible no doubt, but to keep their jobs, they had to get the enslaved people to produce in the fields so many attempted to balance out how they treated them, while preventing them from gathering, uprising, and escaping. Ultimately, the plantation owners were the ones who made all the decisions and gave all the orders. They were not distant or indifferent the people they owned as protrayed here. They rode in the fields and raped the women there as well as in their own houses. It is their DNA that has been found among the most of the descendants of these enslaved people not the overseers.

Go back and look at that scene again. This was the Christmas Party and on the very large plantations the overseers and sometimes their family would be invited. if you look the overseer never went inside the house, he stayed on the porch. He knew his place which made this scene very telling and Curran played it perfectly with his glares at the owners and the gentlefolk inside.

I also appreciated the subtle scene with the Doctor delivering the baby and immediately knowing that it was fathered by a white man (if not him more than likely the Scottish Overseer, who looked shocked on the sideline), and named him Noah and proceeded to treat him as his special pet.

This version is better at showing the psychological knots these people tied themselves in to justify their system of oppression.