No (The American Spectator Watched !2 Years A Slave)

Conservative media outlets have taken an obnoxious turn in my estimation. They've lost the plot. I read them, and remember how (was it just six months ago?) they could seem to do no wrong. But now? Now comes a review of 12 Years a Slave in The American Spectator and, man oh man, they didn't get anything right:

"If ever in slavery’s 250-year history in North America there were a kind master or a contented slave, as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen does not want us to hear about it. This, in turn, surely means that his view of the history of the American South is as partial and one-sided as that of the hated Gone With the Wind." 

Really? This is an amazing quote because, honestly, it can only be made by someone who didn't see the movie. Look:

Here is a still from 12 Years a Slave, showing the master offering a gift. And, it's not only the violin, he also let's Northrop use it to earn pocket money on other plantations. Isn't that kind? Then how did The Spectator's reviewer miss it? As I said, not actually watching the movie is one way. But there's one more: 

Watching it. 

See, like with most people, I figure the film never allowed the reviewer to lose sight of the fact that, on the screen - no matter how kind any master was - he was still holding another human against his will. The Spectator couldn't find a "a kind master" or "a contented slave" because the reviewer's eyes said there were none. 

Under any and all circumstances, or whatever personal temperaments involved, all we've ever had was slavers:

And a people desiring to be free,...