Slavery Was About Millions Of People & They're PISSED

It's hilarious, that a lot of white people wouldn't go to see 12 Years a Slave because it was too brutal, when most film lovers were rooting for something much more extreme:

   “12 Years a Slave,” the story of a free Black man kidnapped by slave traders, has won an Oscar for Best Picture of the Year and a slew of other awards – including Best Writing for a screenplay adapted from another source, in this case the autobiography of Solomon Northup.

But in one important respect, the movie comes up short. Missing from the film is the slave rebellion and revolt that Solomon Northup portrayed so vividly in his book.

My girl, Eileen Jones, is simply torn up about it:

  The first is the opening scene, when Django, a member of a chain gang of manacled slaves shuffling through the harsh cold terrain of Texas in winter, is liberated by Dr. Schultz, who shoots the slavers. Dr. Schultz then counsels the other slaves about how to negotiate their own way to freedom, and Christoph Waltz’s singsong voice is light and frolicsome throughout. Django never speaks to them, seems too shocked by rapid developments. This seems like the film’s starting point on slavery: there is no cooperation among slaves, there’s hardly even sympathy or communication amongst slaves, and therefore, no possibility of united action. We know that’s not true as a rule, historically. But as a genre film set-up it might work well if, for instance, you intended to rectify that terrible state of affairs with gradually increasing sympathy, communication, and cooperation, all leading up to a goddamn SLAVE REVOLT.

So there you have it - if you can't handle 12 Years - prepare yourselves, white folks:

The drums are now beating for the real thing,…