Is This Film Racist? | "The Patriot" Review Part 1, Slavery & Race Relations in Colonial America
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- In this first full episode of the Full Patriot Review, I will go over one of the most extreme and grossly offensive aspects of the film. That being its portrayal of racial relations in colonial South Carolina, and the institution of slavery. It shows that, far from popular opinion, this is much more than just a 'popcorn movie' where we can watch American heroes beat up on comic-book villains. Rather, it represents another chapter in a long string of dangerously revisionist media, the likes of which has a very real negative impact on society. Think I'm being a little too extreme? Well, watch the video...and you'll see what I mean!
Atun-Shei's video: • The Mundane Horror of ...
To learn more about my work or schedule a private historical tour of Boston, visit me at:
www.brandon-f....
You can also follow me on Twitch and Facebook!
/ thepedantlord
/ brandonfyt -
-
- -
- -
This video was made in support of The Native Oak. Learn more about our educational mission here:
www.nativeoak....
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on social media too!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
Mel Gibson plays a simple farmer who just wants to live in peace until Englishmen kill a member of his family, so he swears revenge and goes on a campaign of badass, ahistorical slaughter.
Now did I just describe this movie or Braveheart?
Harrison Ford was offered, but he turned it down when he read the script, saying it had nothing to do with Patriotism and all about revenge
Gibson was hoping to recapture the magic of that much better film. He ended up making a cartoon instead.
They're both pretty terrible films
@@Tareltonlives At least Braveheart was more entertaining and came out at a time when those types of corny, expansive, romantic, gallant movies were a new thing.
@@JGSuttonJr Eh, action's about the same: fun and well edited but really dumb, good cinematography and cast. But you do have a point about the novelty. Still, I'm not sure if making a terrible fantasy movie about a real person makes it better or worse than replacing real people with fictional ones.
Further, remember the Somerset Case in the UK about 1760 when a West Indies slave owner tried to reclaim a slave that he had abandoned because he was ill. The slave was nursed back to health by English abolitionists and the slave owner tried to reclaim his "property". The court decision was that, "as soon as a slave breathed the free air of England he would be forever free". Contrast this with the US Dread Scott decision of the 1850's, a hundred years later of ," once a slave always a slave".
Dred Scott was worse than that, honestly. It was more of a "blacks aren't people and have no rights".
@@m0nkEz It should be noted that the Dred Scott case was the result of political influence upon a relatively stacked court (7-2 Democratic, 8-1 if you count McLean who later became a Free Soiler and then a Republican). The Southern Justices wrote the decision and then President Buchanan got the Northern Democrats on board with it. Whig Curtis and Democrat turned Republican McLean wrote some rather strong dissents and I recommend reading them. They are both available online. Among the things they argue was the historical fallacy underlying the basis for "black people have no rights" pointing out that 5 states allowed black voting in 1787 when the Constitution was composed.
Dred Scott was the culmination of a series of reversals by the courts in the 1850s, which previously had been at least neutral in such cases, and now there was a serious pattern regardless of precedent or historical fact of ruling against the slaves. This is in stark contrast to cases like the Amistead case where the court led by Joseph Story set a ship load of slaves free. I don't think that a court dominated by the likes of Marshall and Story would have made such a ruling and Republicans in the late 1850's said the same. At worst they would have just rejected the case without making a substantive ruling on the merits. Unfortunately for the court, both Marshall and Story were dead by 1857.
The Somerset case was a bit more nuanced than that. Slavery and serfdom had been made illegal in England a few hundred years before although serfdom would endure in Scotland till the 19th century.
That meant that if Mansfield sided with the slavers he would be reintroducing slavery and overturning a royal and Parliamentary defined Law. Therefore he maintained the Status Quo and said slavery couldnt exist unless Parliament specifically wrote a new law overturning the old law and allowing it.
What he couldnt do was affect any legal system outside Great Britain which already had laws set in place that allowed slavery so slavery continued to exist in colonies that had their own legal codes such as the Caribbean.
The US already had a law allowing slavery and an economy that depended on it, in Britain there were very few people with an involvement in slavery and very few slaves, since the slave owners were protected from the Law they didn't bother opposing it or causing disruption in Parliament.
@ North African Slavers and Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade are two different things. The US participated as well in bombing North Africa between 1802 and 1810.
The British did use their Navy to halt any trade of Slave from Africa since 1807. That is quite something.
That's only in Great Britain proper. Many other places in the British Empire - particularly the West Indies - it was still legal to own slaves up until 1834. That's still earlier than the United States (which abolished slavery in 1864), but not by very much. And unlike in the British Empire, the United States didn't stoop to paying compensation to slave-owners.
My point is that standing on a pillar and judging other countries for faults your own had isn't productive in any way.
As someone who has done farm work I can say, there is nothing "simple" about farm life. I hate when people romanticized life on the farm
If someone does not have heavy calluses on their hands they have NEVER done farmwork. I remember going to a mate's family farm for a couple of weeks, and I was asked to help with some fencing. My mate's father looked at my hands and laughed (and it is not like I had never done labour intensive work before then).
During the first half of the Vietnam War, South Vietnamese patrols air lifted by American choppers, actively went into villages looking for infiltrators from the North by checking their hands. No rough hands? Probably not a rice farmer. Come with us please.
And then later in the war, the US armed forces decided to bomb entire suspected villages because that required less work.
@@AudieHolland Or you can just be an ex rice farmer and infiltrate like that
Or just labor in general
But no matter how much of such work I do, my hands still resemble that of an office worker.
I live on a farm, and I hate every bit of it, it takes me an hour to go to town to buy groceries and I have no gaming internet.
as a black man in america i appreciated ur criticism of this romanticized movie
Who cares
@@hellofellowhumans9353 you do
More like revisionist than romanticized.
@@hellofellowhumans9353 fellow human indeed!!!
Now I want to watch a movie about a displaced slaveowner forced to take refuge in a maroon settlement.
Yikes, the black man tipping his hat to the white woman gave me a pit in my stomach. Been a while since I've seen this movie, but Jesus, who the hell thought that was a good idea? Not only that, but his greeting was totally ADR - recorded in post production. So somebody thought, "Hey, let's emphasize this moment. No horrifying, painful historical memories will come to mind here."
Holy shit, that Robert E. Lee nod at the end, that's so stupid! I'm having Revenge of the Sith, Padme dying of sadness flashbacks...
Great work, Brandon.
@John Saunders How was he ever taken seriously is my question. It isn't like Pearl Harbor or Braveheart were masterpieces from a historical standpoint. I don't know much about Braveheart, but in Pearl Harbor the characters are annoying, at best, shallow, and about the best part of the film are the special effects (which tbf are actually pretty pleasant, though still not on the level of Tora Tora Tora if you are going for a more _real_ feeling, but good for dramatic effect).
@John Saunders Thx for that background. Honestly haven't heard of the Gallipoli movie.
Heard of Mad Max but know nothing about it.
@John Saunders I will keep an eye out.
I honestly wonder if the man tipping his hat is indeed accurate, as in the 1700s the a component of slavery would have been to enforce manners towards "one's betters" where as the idea of keeping the races apart in every possible way was more an effect of Jim Crow. Perhaps I am wrong, but I could just as easily see the man being berated and mistreated in the 1770s for NOT properly greeting a white woman in the street, whether he is a freedman or slave.
Also, the data on lynchings for such an act that Brandon shows is from 1919. Just from a basic viewpoint of scholarship that's hardly a proper comparison. Though enlightening in its own right nonetheless
"Now I want to watch a movie about a displaced slaveowner forced to take refuge in a maroon settlement."
That's exactly what I thought. I'd try writing it myself, but I'm not much of a history buff, and after only two days on HistoryTube I'm already afraid to meet you guys' wrath.
"Patrick Henry said 'Give me liberty or death', at the time he owned 65 slaves"
"Liberty for me, not for thee" - Patrick Henry
If I remember he was also quoting a play about Cato and not saying his own words. So basically it's a media quote.
Good job at looking at the past through the lens of modernity.
...but mainly 'give me more slaves'.
@@Conflict_Boardgaming Same as people who glorify the American war for independence. In fact, all our opinions on the past are through the lens of modernity, unless you know someone with a time machine?
One thing I noticed while watching, when I say that the offer of freedom is likely not valid for Occam, I am wrong. The character reads it as requiring service in the "Continental Army," but actually if you pause and see the actual document, it says clearly "Continental army or allied militias," which would include Martin's. Now, because The Racist doesn't actually read that bit, Occam has no reason to believe he'd get his freedom, but he still would. Why they cut those three very important words, I can't say.
Your dedication is a blessing straight from heaven, Brandon. Keep it up!
I have an explanation. The guy reading document purposely left out the militia go fuck with Occam. Occam did not see a difference between being in the militia and the army. Also the racist guy might not have seen one, and just abbreviated the document just to be done with talking to Occam. Occam might have understood the difference between the militia but decided to stay and hope for the best down the line because of his service.
However a real world explanation is, that was the best take and the editor and director went with it.
It really is strange this film would create such a friendly dynamic between Southern Blacks and Whites while at the same time portraying the British Army in a manner resembling the SS.
My hometown of Marion, Virginia is named after Francis Marion.
was there such an offer made historically by the US goverment ?
In the 2004 Alamo movie, there’s a part where Jim Bowie tells his slave to leave the fort. He says something like “You’re freeing me?” I cringed. Then Jim Bowie said “no, you’re my slave.” That was refreshing, because that was more realistic.
The 2004 film was definitely good.
@@zachv1942 Patrick Wilson's finest work haha
I don't even know why you would want to be around a black person
Occom: "Equal. Sounds good."
Brandon: "Eh, don't get your hopes up buddy."
That gave me a good laugh. Your sarcasm is appreciated.
There's a line from Seven Samurai, I'm sure I'm paraphrasing, perhaps in amalgamation with a line from the American remake, where the survivors look out among the contented farm people they've just protected and say "They won, not us, we've lost again; we always lose."
Now, actually in the movie the Samurai class' privileged status is a big point of the film's narrative theme, in this case the protagonist is speaking personally about the relationship between himself and his friend. However, just imagine the kind of impact it could have had if *this* movie had had enough black characters to say that to each other about the white folks at the end of it, and how significant that would be.
Or we could have done a whole follow up movie of Occam realizing white people are still racist, and slavery still legal after the war.
@@jacobitewiseman3696 Slavery is slavery. Not to mention, if you didn't notice, this is the American revolutionary war, that means slavery _will_ be legal for like a hundred more years after it's concluded. It was banned by an *Amendment* to the Constitution, maybe somebody is teaching you history wrong.
@@jacobitewiseman3696 I can't even get into everything wrong with what you just said. Considering you thought slavery was ended after the revolutionary war I suspect it would fall on deaf ears anyway. Just watch Ava DuVerny's film about the 13th Amendment to hopefully get some grasp on how naive it is to take any stated intention at face value. The fact is that punishment has no practical purpose to society, and while enforced labor has objective utility, a society functions better when the people in it are treated with dignity. I mean how would you like to be wrongfully accused of a crime, talked into a plea that gets you put in prison, and then forced to work for no money, knowing that after you've served a sentence you didn't deserve basically all of your rights have been taken away? In practice this is what you're defending.
@@futurestoryteller yes i defend that also
@@TheLordpeanuts Good, maybe someone can make that come of your life so you can put your beliefs into practice.
As a descendant of Loyalists, whose lands were confiscated in the Province of New York, and were forced to flee to Canada, I always took great umbrage at the unfair and unhistorical portrayal of fanciful British atrocities depicted in the film, especially the church massacre - nothing of the sort ever happened. Likewise, I remember chuckling at the absurd claim that Mel’s farmhands were freemen - utterly absurd - and what you called the ‘Ewok dance party’ where slaveowners and Maroons (undoubtedly escaped slaves, not freemen) dance to the wonderful multicultural beat. I assumed the intention was to portray Gibson’s character and family - and the Whig cause - in the best possible light. What I didn’t really fathom, until watching your analysis, was how insidious the unintended effect was in minimising the horror and injustice of slavery. Slaves were portrayed as idyllic cardboard cut-outs or grinning mammies. Thank-you for your reasonable critique; you gave me food for thought.
I always took the purpose of the Gullah scenes to be “these are such Good White Folks™️ that the Blacks hang out with them voluntarily”
I consider myself a patriotic American, but sympathize with your point of view. Your forbearers were treated most unjustly.
Mel Gibson has his own agendas, and they don't include historical accuracy; I have my own reasons for despising him. Nevertheless, he sure knows how to go into the free market and earn tremendous $$ by virtue of his own talent and effort. He provides the public what they want, and they voluntarily and eagerly pay for it.
I believe you would greatly appreciate a 1930s novel (available for free online), entitled "Drums Along the Mohawk." It was well received as serious literature in its time, and even made into a major motion picture (Henry Fonda, Ward Bond, etc.)
The book (not so much the movie) presents a terse, objective, unromantic view of the Revolutionary War as it was fought in upstate New York. Among other subplots, it details the prejudice against and mistreatment of the British loyalist settlers.
In "Drums," the war in the upstate New York theatre of operations takes the form of a conflict between the British loyalist colonists and the German patriot settlers. The regional hatred of these two ethnicities for each other seems much more important to both than the national issue of independence from foreign rule vs. devotion to the crown. And among other complications, the German patriots seem to dislike their New England fellow patriot "allies" even more than their local loyalist enemies.
Anyway, perhaps you can take solace in Canada having defeated America every time we fight a war. G-d forbid they ever reoccur (it does seem very, very unlikely).
R Rumble, this creepy peeling of the layer isn't the only one.
Look at Ronald F. Maxwell's Gods and Generals.
Yeah, I have Loyalist ancestors who had to escape from New York. Now, I have no particular axe to grind - until I read comments on youtube from Americans who have unquestioningly swallowed the whole elementary school mythology of the 'War of Independence', and are still gloating about having won it .....
@@hilariousname6826 they forget about the War of 1812.
Also it's not just that War of Independence we claim to be victors in. The average unquestioning (by that I mean they don't question anything at all, not even the agenda of their work, and would attempt to shun and excommunicate Roger Glass if they had the chance) patriot will feel as if America never lost a War at all.
Even within traditional families, lower ranking members such as children were not permitted to look directly into the eyes of their superiors (the father of the house, etc.). As can be seen in other historical dramas, members of the Household and lower ranking family members (children etc.) were supposed to have a submissive posture. Remember, we're not talking about slaves here.
So to have actual slaves address their owners by first name(!) "Charlotte..." and their children standing with their hands at their sides, doing ostensibly nothing but looking on.
I would imagine that most slaves on a plantation or farm, were supposed to keep their heads down and continue work and if they were ordered to stop work and pay their respects as their owner passed by, they would be on their knees or at least bowing.
I can name a very good reason why Charlotte 'had to' leave behind her house in the city: if the city was taken over by the British, all of her houseslaves would have been freed instantly! Can't let that happen, can we? Better do a tactical retreat to the plantation, taking her valuables with her (her slaves and her other belongings).
Even if the houseslave was somehow a semi-free man, he'd have been taught the proper etiquettes and have addressed her as Madam, or whatever the relevant term for married women at the time was.
There was also the practice of Tar and Feathering during the Revolutionary War. I could imagine Charlotte wouldn't find that very much pleasant and wished to avoid the British soldiers due to that. It really isn't rocket science why one would want to leave a home which is about to be raided by well trained soldiers.
Regardless, for a servant, even a free one of the same race as their master, to refer to their master by first name, and not by a title or family name, would be highly irregular for the next hundred years or so. Even then, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it wouldn't have been "Charlotte" as seen here, it would've been "Mistress Charlotte" or some other similar title. Hell, British comedy uses exactly that sort of servant propriety as the basis for jokes all the time. For example, Wooster and Jeeves, where Bertie is trying to get Jeeves to sing the backup to Minnie The Moocher, but he simply has to end every line with "sir"
"Moral Relativism is Trash"
There. I spent 5 minutes attempting to freeze the single frame you snuck in at 11:46. You win. And you've got my subscription.
Good to see that I'm not the only one doing that
@@cb-hz6dm Ditto
Omg I was doing the same and wasn’t successful then saw this
Just slow the video down to 0.25 speed. Cmon guys work smarter not harder.
When attempting to look at a single frame:
Stop the video and use the keys ',' and '.' to single step through the video frame by frame.
Slavery was probably actually worse during that time because slaves were more replaceable since the slave trade wasn’t outlawed yet
Because the slave trade was still legal slaves were cheaper so more slaves were given their freedom then once slave trade was outlawed since they could be replaced.
@@robertkotal2231 no
Does it even matter? Slavery was (is) pretty f***ing bad in all contexts.
Robert Kotal No, slaves were just worked harder and more brutally because since they were cheaper you could replace them easier
That’s a solid point
I remember reading about a Canadian militia in the war of 1812 that was made out of black men freed by the British after the American revolution which I find cool
I also read of some freed men working in marching bands.
@John Saunders When Americans say their fought a war to free their slaves, i say yes, but you also fought two wars in order to keep slaves, and British declared War on Slavery itself.
Indeed we actually spent large amounts of money financing anti slavery patrols from the royal navy, diplomatic pressure on our European neighbours to get them to stop, gunboat diplomacy in Africa to stop the native tribes.
Runchey’s Coloured Corps! Brock was reluctant given his natural disdain for Canadians but they proved invaluable when they arrived with Sheaffe at Queenston Heights.
There were also the Colonial Marines, who exchanged fire with African Americans of Barney's Marines at Bladensburg. It's the only account I can find right now of black North American soldiers fighting each other.
The Brits fielded several companies of black soldiers (both free blacks and escaped slaves) during the War of 1812. After the war, and fearing retribution against the soldiers, the Brits resettled them as freedmen in their colonies. Several companies together with their families were settled in my country Trinidad in the Caribbean and given plots of land grouped by their former companies. These settlements became villages, named after the respective companies, eg First, Second, Fifth Companies etc. These villages still exist today with their names. The settlers were called "Merrikins" (Americans) by the other inhabitants, and brought with them their cultural, religious (mostly Baptist) and agricultural practices (including the planting of "hill rice", a type of African hybrid rice that used to be grown mostly by slaves in Àmerica that doesn't require paddies, long thought by Àmerican agriculturists to be extinct, but recently "rediscovered" growing on a large scale in the Company villages in the present day and reintroduced to the US)
The scene where the Martin family’s “black employees” had to explain to the British Colonel that they weren’t slaves had me rolling my eyes.
I can’t say there weren’t ANY instances during the period where free African-Americans were used as hired laborers as opposed to slaves. But if they cut that scene out, you just would’ve assumed they were slaves.
If they didn’t want Gibson’s character to be a slave owner than they shouldn’t have made him a South Carolinian. Put his farm in Massachusetts or New York, or maybe even Vermont which abolished slavery in 1777.
But there were actually "freedmen" or free blacks who performed hired labor on plantations, farms, in villages, towns and cities. Some were born free, others received their freedom in some way. Freed ex slaves with skills were in demand as their labor often cost less than whites.
@@curtisthomas2670 How likely is it that a South Carolinian farm during that period would've had a staff of free black laborers?
His farm and chatacter is in Ohio
What about Crispus Attucks?
@@Mike-im5bo Crispus Attucks lived in Massachusetts, where slavery and racial issues were different than they were in the Carolinas. And I think there's a debate among historians whether Crispus was a free man or a runaway slave.
Balking at the word "negro" seems especially anachronistic. Wasn't it in those days considered just a neutral term by both whites and blacks and not a pejorative?
Yes, Negro like Colored People is an outmoded polite word. A substitute for the N word.
But it is significant that only the "bad" slaveholder uses it. And slurs it a bit...
@@kmaher1424 I may be late, but this is incorrect. Negro is simply the spanish word for black. The "N word" is a result of the adaptation of negro into the english language.
seneca983 yeah I'm not sure why Brandon went off on that tangent; he's clearly intelligent enough to know the difference between the word "negro" and the racial slur which is an American English bastardization of the same word. But he did, so oh well. The rest of what he says in that segment of the video is spot on though
@@Winaska as far as I understood Brandon it's not the fact that they use the word negro in the movie, it's how it's beeing used that he is objecting to. It was a common term used by both whites and blacks at the time. It's used by the movie makers to portray the slave owner as a "bad" man in contrast to the "good" Benjamin Martin. You never hear the "good" guys using the word nergo, only the charachters the movie makers wants the audience to dislike for one reason or another.
Yes considering the word is seen in books, speeches etc. even written by black leaders themselves up until the 60's. Even "nigger" as used by Conrad as late as 1897, wasn't as bad as it is in the mid 20th C. Pity that true historical re-enactments and context are sacrificed to appeal to modern PC culture.
At first I thought this was just gonna be someone complaining about nothing. Which is the case most of the time where white people just get mad at things us black people don’t actually give a shit about, but I know and like ur channel so I clicked and decided to watch. And I’m utterly shocked that such a movie exists in the mainstream, completely downplaying the suffering my people went through. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and god bless you sir 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
It's such a missed opportunity too, I'd love scenes where Martin is expounding about "liberty for all" and an abolition- minded character, preferably a free person of color, asks "Does that include your slaves, Ben?" That would have been more meaningful than half this movie put together, as would the resulting moral debate.
I suppose that couldn’t be done because he didn’t have slaves, they were free men, which is part of the problem
Lol the movie clearly stated that those men weren’t slaves and free. They were employed by Benjamin, other people in the movie did have slaves but the main character and his children didn’t believe in it. 🤷🏽♂️
I like it, but I'd change it to Occam specifically asking him, as would be appropriate for a black man addressing a white man at the time, "Does that include us, master?"
In my humble opinion, that'd *really* nail it home.
I read somewhere that black veterans of the American Revolution war actually often were treated pretty badly afterwards, considered dangerous possible troublemakers, since they knew about warfare and how to fight ...
And the cherry on the cake is that the British said they would give freedom to any slave willingly fight in America, after the war they were able to return to Britain and live there
@@terrorfire8505 The Brits fielded several companies of black soldiers (both free blacks and escaped slaves) during the War of 1812. After the war, and fearing retribution against the soldiers, the Brits resettled them as freedmen in their colonies. Several companies together with their families were settled in my country Trinidad in the Caribbean and given plots of land grouped by their former companies. These settlements became villages, named after the respective companies, eg First, Second, Fifth Companies etc. These villages still exist today with their names. The settlers were called "Merrikins" (Americans) by the other inhabitants, and brought with them their cultural, religious (mostly Baptist) and agricultural practices (including the planting of "hill rice", a type of African hybrid rice that used to be grown mostly by slaves in Àmerica that doesn't require paddies, long thought by Àmerican agriculturists to be extinct, but recently "rediscovered" growing on a large scale in the Company villages in the present day and reintroduced to the US)
Veterans of the 1st Rhode Island Regiment (composed of slaves, freedman, and some Native Americans from the New England tribes, eg the Wampanoag) were denied war pensions until the 1810-20s, by which time most of them were dead or of very old age. Ref Slaves to Soldiers: A history of the First Rhode Island Regiment
@@terrorfire8505 a few went to Britain. Most went to Nova Scotia and many of them went to Seirra Leone.
Even during slavery, the facade of "kindness" was very important to a lot of the slaveowners......those who considered themselves kind wouldn't whip the slaves themselves; they would hire outside contractors to 'discipline' them or sell them to masters who were known to be cruel, all the while writing long sonnets about how nice they had been and how they didn't understand why someone with such a good life would want to run away.
Which explains why so many people on this video are commenting "BUT THEY TREATED THEM WELL"
@@Tareltonlives Or they just seen too many movies that portrait slaveowners like this.
By "during slavery" what could you mean? Slavery has existed since the beginning of civilization and still exists today. I have a feeling your only concern is with black slaves who lived in the U.S.. And of those, a significant portion were owned by free blacks. Were you aware of any of this?
Dude, I am not going to play the "who's the real racist" game with you. (1) African diaspora slavery in the antebellum south (since you like specificity) was more cruel than other forms of slavery because of the brutal violence that backed it up, birthright slavery for all children, and the near impossibility of freedom for most enslaved people. (2) Even if other forms of slavery were 'just as bad' (which they were not) and black Americans were equally culpable in the institution (WHICH THEY WERE NOT), it doesn't change the basic ethics of selling humans as property.
Your lines of justification are the old talking points of Lost Causers and southern terror groups like the KKK. Don't throw your lot in with those morons.
@@batesvillbilly368 Murder has also existed since the beginning of civilization, thus we shouldn’t condemn serial killers since other serial killers exist.
Also if you actually watched the video you’d see that the “Significant portion” lie you’ve been fed is not only wrong, it’s ludicrous. There were only about 2000 freedmen, mostly impoverished, in the Carolinas and nearly half of the ENTIRE population was enslaved. How the fuck could there be a “significant portion” of black slaveowners?
Honestly, even if one disregards all the historical inaccuracies and focuses just on the quality of the movie itself, this film still sucks. The characters are bland and stereotypical. The plot is boring, and even the title is dishonest. Mel Gibson's "Patriot" isn't really patriotic. The only reason he joins the war is because his family gets directly targeted by the British. We can easily assume that if it was an evil colonial soldier who killed one of Gibson's sons, he would have just as readily gone off to join the redcoats.
Evil colonial? Why, there's no such thing!
Amen!
Now that would be an interesting movie...especially considering Martin's massacre of British soldiers at Fort Wilderness, which is referenced so often in the film.
The only people I have ever seen like "The Patriot" even as a dumb popcorn movie has been North Americans. So I generally put it in the same class as the movie "Independence Day", Baseball, American Football, Peanut Butter and Jam, and Hershey's Chocolate as something you have to be born a North American to enjoy.
The real Patriot was his son, Heath Ledgers character.
The reason why it's perpetually locked in twilight is because Aunt Charlotte is a vampire and she is using her special vampire powers to create a veil of mist and gloom over the lands that she controls. She does not need over Sears because the slaves are mind locks into their thraldom. Or at least that's my head cannon.
Reminds me of Princess Weekes video on the disturbing trend of romanticized confederate vampires.
‘Poor old auntie Charlotte has to flee one of her houses’ 😂
She bravely ran away bravely ran away away
OH, NO! Anyways...
Yeah, and even that could have actually be written well, maybe she had to leave because some of her associates got arrested? It would hardly be the worst we would see British doing in the movie and unlike church burnings I am sure it did happen...
18:38 another note about the scene where the sister in law arrives at her plantation and the children are all there, in movies children are ALWAYS a choice. You don't EVERY really just have kids hanging around the set. They have very limited hours, require tutors and special conditions. They are costly, so any time you put them in, it's a deliberate decision. Those kids are there on purpose.
YESSSS IT IS FINALLY HERE!
My computer technology teacher in high school had his classroom/studio practically covered wall to wall in, and I quote him on this "Posters for shitty movies" and this movie was among them.
Please tell me the others if you're still active
@@clev7989tom cruises "Cocktail'
"Ewok dance party."
You earned my upvote.
Seriously, that observation is brilliant. Come to think of it, even the music sounded similar to the Ewok dance party.
@@jw1731 that's because John Williams developed the Soundtrack of The Patriot.
This film isnt just racist as hell, it's offensive on practically every level.
Ironic since this movie's writter, Randall Wallace, who also wrote Braveheart and Pearl Harbor later directed We were Soldiers, a movie that was pretty accurate and also humanized North Vietnamese soldiers.
Yeah We Were Soldiers was really good, nothing like the aforementioned films
Braveheart and Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, are pretty much on the same lines as this film
@@jacobitewiseman3696 It's damaging because it gives a false impression of all the historical characters and the nature of the conflict. It boils down the complex machinations of Edward in Scotland to "English bad! Scottish good! FREEEEDDDDOOOOOM"
Which is weird, since the NVA were on the same level of the British when it comes to brutality, yet one is treated as worse than the other, when I consider them both to be pretty bad
He didn't write for this film though
I followed up on your recommendations on “They were good soldiers” by John U. Rees, just wanted to say that it was a great read, to anyone interested in this topic be sure to pick it up.
The irony that "The Patriot" which gets slavery wrong is regularly broadcast, yet a movie like "Gone with the Wind" is rarely broadcast but shows a much more realistic portrayal of American slaves. The Patriot wasn't racist, it was worse. It was revisionist.
I specialized in Colonial American history for my undergrad...this film is solely fiction and I love that this film is getting a critical scrutiny.
Is there any good tv show or American Film that’s Historically accurate about the American Revolution ?
So the Brits where the good guys in reality and the Patriots where really rebel scum ?
@@RealBadGaming52 John Adam’s gets close.
This is gonna be spicy
Still haven't seen a single dislike tho…
@@HonnePerkele four already, from what I can see
This is where the fun begins
@@HonnePerkele 16 dislikes now
@@HonnePerkele 212 now
Thanks for this Brandon. Most of Mel Gibsons films have a deeply rooted racial chip on their shoulder, but they're usually aimed suqarely at the British (for whom he clearly has a deep seated hatred), and I had, when I first viewed this many years ago put almost all of the "idylic country" scenes of how good a man martin was and et cetera down to just trying to make the British look as evil as possible when compared to the enlightened and brilliant Americans. Your article gave me moment to pause and recontextualise it within an American racist scope rather than just a Anglophobic one.
Judging from BraveHeart I think it's the English he specifically dislikes..
@@SerBallister whatever, just a shame he managed to con so much money out of people with his bigotry.
Yes, but I think you missed something. He tries to put this new age multiracial egalitarian narrative on it. Put it into the context of Mel Gibson's political leanings, what he is doing is trying to say "We true American Patriots (Reagan worshipers) are the real freedom loving multiracial progressives. Checkmate liberals. Just like how they will see liberals winning on any issue, and childishly try to post hoc support that issue and insist that they were the real champions of the issue from the beginning.
@@dernwine "Con"? Were they not entertained? Or are you going to ban pop culture too since it is too low brow?
Yes, Gibson has bias. He never claimed otherwise. Now go and make better Hollywood movie, lol.
The extent of Gibson's influence on the story was giving Martin the same number of children as himself, his contributions to the film were as an actor (after Harrison Ford declined). It was directed by Roland Emmerich, written by Robert Rodat, and produced by Dean Devlin, Mark Gordon, and Gary Levinsohn. They were responsible for what you see onscreen. History Buffs also dumped The Patriot's inaccuracies on Gibson when anyone can quickly see he didn't write, produce, or direct it.
Are the British a race? What was the racial chip on the shoulder of Mad Max? Lethal Weapon? The River? Man Without a Face? Conspiracy Theory? What Women Want? Hamlet? Air America? Enlighten me, I want to know about the racial undertones of Hacksaw Ridge and The Professor and the Madman.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the PBS show Liberty's kids. It does present the war as a noble cause but there are scenes that humanize the Redcoats and some episodes touch upon the morally complicated aspects of the time period such as slavery and the treatment of native americans.
Yo, that was my shit when I was a kid.
Yes, we need a review of that.
That show was better in many ways, but it showed British Soldiers raiding the Boston Tea Party, which makes no sense
@@marinuswillett6147 You what?
@@secretbaguette I never said I did anything. I was just saying the show Libery's kids screwed up the Boston Tea Party scene
Well Dr Samuel Johnson commented, "You hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the mouths of slave drivers."
Looks like were startin of spicy.
If this is what we're starting with how the hell are we gonna top racism in the first episode
To be fair, we did start with “this movie had like 4 good things about it” in review 0
The patriot exist
Brandon.F: angry histoire noises
I just finished reading "An Empire on the Edge - How Britain Came to Fight America" by Nick Bunker. Brilliant book and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand what led up to the war. Far from an evil tyrannical plot to take away American freedom, the British actions were a combination the British government's abysmal ignorance of conditions or opinion in the American colonies, their representatives putting juicy scandals into their reports home rather than facts, or dismissing American aspirations or opinions, or minimising the resistance as being the work of a few hotheads in Massachusets. When the British government should have acted it dithered, and when it did act it (with the best will in the world) it did exactly those things most likely to outrage the colonists. On the other hand, the colonists had no idea of what was going on in Britain, either, and often got it completely wrong. Both sides just sort of drifted into war, what would have been a comedy of errors if it hadn't been so serious. King George, the great 'villain' of the piece, hadn't had the power to make political decisions for over 100 years - that belonged to Parliament, which was composed of the usual bunch of politicians, with their own factions and backbiting. Parliament had no idea of what was going on or how people thought in the colonies, and didn't really care all that much, so long as things kept on as they had done. The Boston Tea Party was the result of a government attempt to rescue the East India Company, which had got itself deeply in debt because of greed, speculation and incompetence, with the intention of settling the company's debts by selling their surplus of tea to the Americans (who did enjoy their nice hot cuppa), but they kept the tax on the tea, ending in it getting tipped in the harbour. In fact that was the only tax they were expected to pay, and they were taxed far less heavily than native Britons. They were also much better represented in their own legislatures than native Britons were in Parliament at home. Would America have still been part of the British Empire today if people had made better decisions? Perhaps, but the mindsets were so different that I think the break would have had to come eventually.
Great book. I also recommend "the long fuse" Ignorant Tories and imperialism in India made the revolution happen
Thank you. My library has it.
All honest accounts of the revolutionary war are just this. To act like Nick Bunker's work is a refreshing address of the American Revolution that is not found in any other author's book begs the question - have you read any other authors?
Imagine a WWII film that showed Concentration Camp Life as a Happy Place. =D
I can only imagine the disrespect it would give to the Holocaust if that was the case…
@@kryoruleroftheninthcircleo4151 Trust me there are people that think of it like that. Which is why I made this the comment. Imagine if one of them wrote the script. Then imagine if the director hated Jews as much as The Patriot's does the British. It would be a perfect storm for a bad movie.
I hate to break to you, but such a film does exist....
It’s an Italian film I saw a few years back, I think it’s called “life is so beautiful” or something similar
There was one such film made by German propaganda in WW2
@@warlordofbritannia That is not the case. It is a film where an Italien jew makes up a story so his children don't know they are in a camp. He dies in the end protecting the kids.
Gettysburg didn't promote the lost cause. It actually did a pretty good job not taking a side and just focusing on the battle. Gods and Generals on the other hand was a different story. That film was pure Confederate propaganda.
The campfire scene in getteyburg has three confederate officers telling the british observer that the reason they fight is for their rights.
I love Gettysburg and one scene does not change that, but you would have to be blind not to see that campfire scene as a small nod to the lost cause narative. The right to have slaves was the primary right they were fighting for.
Ian Cook Again, what do you expect? To see the rebels twirling their mustaches and bragging about how many slaves they are going to whip when they get home? They would say that to a British officer, who they know is naturally anti-slavery? That wouldn't be realistic. Like I said, it makes perfect sense for them to be talking about how noble and heroic they think their cause is, in order to convince the British officer to support them. It doesn't mean the viewers are supposed to agree with them. Depicting something is not the same as promoting it.
The scene did not need to be there at all. It is not centeral to the narative. Its function is to provide a sympathetic view of southern soldieds.
And some of the deleted scenes are also promblematic.
But Lincoln did a good job of expressing common fears many had (both north and south) of freed slsves without it being cartoonish villiany.
@@icook1723 It's function was to show the rebels trying to sell their cause to a British soldier (who they would know is anti-slavery).
Ian Cook um except that that scene is accurate to their characters and how they would want to convince Colonel Fremantle about their cause. It's incredibly important to understanding the hope (misplaced) hope these men had of an alliance with Britain. I haven't read the novel but I imagine that dialogue is in the book as well. As a history buff, scenes like that are just as important for knowledge about characters and the battle scenes are.
People should be very careful whenever they watch a film with Mel Gibson's name on it, as it will be either A) anti British or English b) bang on about freedom c) only be good if it was called we were Soldiers.
HistoryFan476ad What about Hacksaw Ridge ?
I liked Chicken Run =P
And mostly will be A+B
@@willingsubject389 I thought Hacksaw Ridge was pretty awful to be honest. Its action scenes were not very convincing (using the torso of a dead Japanese soldier as a shield while you advance firing an SMG from the hip, really?) and were full of needless gore which Gibson seems to have crammed in to boost the films credentials as a 'gritty' war film. The mawkishness and quite obvious Christian overtones that surround it made me want to vomit, more than the guts strewn about the battlefield! The Pacific war has been done far better in The Thin Red Line, HBO's The Pacific and Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima.
Mad Max 1+2, Lethal Weapon. At least.
@Brandon F. Please address the fact that they got General Cornwallis' age and character completely wrong. He was aged in his 30s at the time of the war and in his prime. He was renowned within the British army as a young aggressive corps' commander who shared the hardships of the troops he commanded, not a bimbling old fool
"Dont take it all so seriously" sounds like Americans when the history debate reaches 1812 or ww1
@John Saunders Travelling costs money...which most of us don't have.
You mean both of those..which we won.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 To argue that the United States "won" the War of 1812 is to make the OPs point for him. And WWI was a bit of a group effort.
@John Saunders Something for sure. This wasn't always the case btw. As a kid from a working class family growing up in the 70's, we always had money to go on vacations every summer and take day trips most Sundays. That all ended in the 80's for most people.
@@Shadowman4710 WW1 was a group effort by the British and French. America just kinda showed up at the last second, shotgunned some Germans and called it a day
I do find it a bit weird that Ben has "employees", even I know that in the households of some of the anti-slavery Founding Fathers things aren't hunky dory.
I didn't see it that way, thanks, I just assumed that Hollywood made Ben as a "isolated weirdo" that cares about his "employees", unlike his neighbors. Lastly, a "safe" guy for the audience's sensibilities (Francis is "unsafe.")
I can't imagine how the Patriot would have depicted the Native Americans, who were heavily involved with the thirteen colonies, before and after the war. The main tribes were the Iroquois to the north, the Cherokee to the west, and the Seminoles to the south, there were thousands of natives living next door to the colonies, there was trade and commerce between the natives and the colonists, some natives were even living among the settlers, there should have been Native Americans in the film. However, if they badly depicted African Americans, reducing them to mere aesthetics dressed up to make the main characters look good, I cannot help but feel that the Native Americans would have been depicted similarly, as noble savages sympathetic to the main characters, thus making the rebel cause heroic, by putting aside the theft of native lands, and the killing of native settlements, in violation of the treaties the colonists had with the tribes, which is why most tribes sided with the British. Sadly, like African Americans, the revolutionary war was just the turning of a new page, the worst for Native Americans had yet to come, in a long history of stealing native land, broken treaties, internment in reservations, and killing their people along with their language and culture.
I lived in Charleston, SC when scenes of the Patriot were filmed there. When I later viewed the final product, I was deeply disappointed. Its historical inaccuracies would fill a number of books. I'm glad you're doing your part to kill and bury this piece of nonsense.
My late husband and I were enthusiastic Rev War reenactors in the 1970s and 80s. Your generation has so far surpassed us! I am so happy! Also, I saw this movie when it first came out, I left the theater with a feeling of deep embarrassment, hoping no one would recognize me as we walked out. It's a horrible movie.
11:35-12:07 An excellent way of phrasing such a sentiment, that there is a kind of respect inherent in acknowledging one's ENTIRE narrative, both the favorable and unfavorable. Something I've oftentimes felt but struggled to put quite so eloquently.
I certainly hope this didn't imply that I approve of Marion's transgressions; I meant more respectful to one's role in the historical canon (if that's even a way to refer to such a thing?) than to the individual himself. I trust most would be judicious enough to discern what I was originally getting at. I think I'm getting too convoluted here, so I'll stop.
@@rococo-reinette you really have a way with words I was moved by that and I've never been moved by anything speechwise unless it was Churchill...good job.
I'm quite embarrassed by the fact that as a 15yo Italian it never occurred to me:"how would a black man perceive this movie?" Such a simple question, but alas, I couldn't really look further than the Braveheart spectacle the first time I saw this
Fantastic video, I'm definitely excited for the rest
Can't speak for most blacks, but the person who I watched the film with, the first time, with her family, is black. She, her son, and her daughters took no issue with it. Neither did her mother and father, same with several of my friends.
Because unlike some, that's how I see them. As my friends, an ex, and my family. I don't call her son, my godson, my "black" godson.
And I'm not their "white" friend.
Color don't mean Jack. Love, friendship, devotion, and family, means everything.
Sure, some will be upset by it, but those are the ones that never even dealt with segregation, but think the world still owes them something from it.
Just have to say your name is absolutely Chad. Like, god damn, wish I had a name like that
@@kevinfox500 well there will be no shortage of white people to be offended for them then
@@Btn1136 Lol. The sad truth.
@@kevinfox500 funnily enough, I was first shown this movie by my American lit teacher in high school. She was black and took no issue with it.
Charlotte’s Plantation: You have entered the Twilight Zone.
I have been eagerly anticipating this review series since seeing the prologue several weeks ago, and in the interim have thoroughly enjoyed many other videos on your channel, and am glad to see you finally delve into the meat of the glorious trainwreck that is this film.
This is the stuff I subbed for, uploaded just in time for a a show to go with my dinner! I already loved the History Buffs review of this....thing.
Reminds me of how Uncle Ruckus views slavery from the Boondocks
Omg, I was just thinking that a second ago.
The Boondocks was satirecal, but yes.
@@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 I didn't say it didn't
In my favorite book series The Wheel of Time, Theres an empire most readers really hate (they are both antagonists and allies to the good side) They keep slaves, most of the people who really hate that empire tends to be american readers, what those same readers mostly fail to notice, and a good portion of the become upset if you point out, is that that empire (they are called The Seanchan) are actually almost a 1 to 1 historical comparaison to the USA, being settlers form anothor continent, who build their power on the backs of slave labor, plus many more. In general i find that alot of Americans have a very hard time dealing with the fact that, USA is not the shining beacon of hope, it is at times build up to be.
Best part is That the US still exist here, It just goes under a different name
A lot of Americans, myself included, we not taught the horrors of slavery in detail, or the true history. A lot of it is watered down "American exceptionalism" left over from the Cold War. I had to take an APUSH class just to get the truth, and trust me, the average american does NOT take that class. It was good though. I was able to defend the tory position when having a debate about the boston massacre and the start of the revolutionary war. The average american is not taught of war crimes, of american terror, of the brutal banana republics we sponsored, of the fascist coups funded by the CIA, the My Lai masacre in vietnam, the "colonialization" of the former US territories, the support of the White Monarchists in the Russian Civil War, or the horrid actions of Woodrow Wilson.
The average american is taught and fed that "We are great, always have been. May have had some 'uhh ohh' with slavery and racism, but that doesn't exist anymore! Don't look at the slave labor prison systems or racist laws still in place! The US is good!"
Kurt Berliner sadly even in Denmark alot of people dont know about the shadow sides of what our side has done. USA makes good movies, why should i care about acient history, is the mentality. Sadly comfort goes before moral, but hey Denmark is not innocent either, we abducted native children from Greenland, to see how they would turn out, if brought up by “civilized” people. That not some we are thought about in school either. I mostly know about the crimes of USA, England, France, Denmark and others, because i have sought out the information, Denmark was a slave nation aswell, to heae from some of the education/information i have encountered, you would think we were like that family in the patriot.
@@kurtberliner7049 I lived in the middle of nowhere in Southeastern Alabama, and can say that your experience is most certainly not the majority. I was taught about the goods AND bads of the US and its history throughout my time in elementary - high school, albeit almost entirely focused on slavery and the displacement of the native peoples. Considering my state is quite literally the second poorest state in the US, I'm very doubtful you're being entirely honest.
@@kurtberliner7049 In other words, I call bullshit. While it's a shitty system, Common Core is the guideline of what every student learns in the US, but it most definitely had a hefty focus on the "oopsies" of the US (from slavery and the mistreatment of loyalists in the colonies to our countries mistakes in Vietnam). While it doesn't go into extreme detail, it was certainly discussed. So either you're being deceitful, or you simply didn't pay any attention.
Is it me, or is this portrayal of slavery somehow more offensive than in Gone With the Wind?
If anything, the War of Independence delayed the emancipation of the slaves. Slavery was ended throughout the British Empire in 1834, following the 'Slavery Abolition Act' passed by parliament in 1833. Had the colonies remained members of it, then slavery would have ended then and there and not a whole generation later. This is why slaves would be smuggled to Canada during these years on the underground railway, because as Canada was part of the British empire, slavery was illegal. This movie is so disgusting on so many levels.
The war of independence delayed the emancipation of slaves? Had the US been apart of the british empire at the time that slavery was outlawed in the empire, this would have inevitably lead to a much later "war of independence" and inevitably a less then optimal outcome. The US wouldn't have won the war in 1833 as the Continental army would have had to deal with a much less distracted British Army and navy. Regardless, the US revolution set the precedent for all the major European revolutions, ideally the French. Without a French revolution, or without one being as idealistic as the one in our timeline, we would not have gotten the world events that would ultimately lead the innovations seen in the industrial revolution. Another precedent set was that of American style freedom. There are a million arguments as to whether or not the US truly is the most free nation on earth however the argument that the idea of true freedom for all Americans was not established until the Revolution is believe is correct. Never before had a set of principals been so thoroughly enshrined in a nation with so much potential and that potential is what would eventually lead to the modern era. The bill of rights is the most thorough document and its principals stood as a buffer against the inevitable down fall of revolutions, as seen in every other major revolution. Just take a look at the other major revolutions, all lead to horrible despots being allowed into power and millions dying because of it. The American revolution was unique among its equals as it did not lead to inevitable Tyranny.
The Idea that slavery is itself a massive measure of hypocrisy was not lost on the Founding Fathers, indeed the very debate that we cannot consider ourselves to be a nation with "freedom" with so many enslaved nearly lead to the end of the Revolution before it actually happened. The Southern states would not support a revolution with arms against the British crown, unless slavery was allowed to continue unimpeded. This was a compromise, a horrible one , but a compromise and further more it set the precedent that later American Politicians and Abolitionists used to end Slavery for good. It was a battle for another day and it had to be left for another day. First we had the job of defeating an old world monarchal style of government, then we had the job of established true equality for all (admittedly this would take a couple hundred years). I would argue, that true freedom needed a nest to develop, a place with a melting pot of ideas, ethnicities, religious beliefs to stand as a buffer against old world views of Imperialism, Classism and racism. This could not be achieved ANYWHERE else, not even in Canada. It had to be in the US.
Did it delay the emancipation of the northern slaves that were freed just after the war such as in Vermont?
This is one of my least favorite ahistorical claims. It relies entirely on the assumption that history would inevitably happen exactly the same way, even with the retention of yet more slaveowners into the British economy and a whole host of unknown butterfly effects.
I don't usually watch long essays all in one sitting, but the way you moved from point to point was flawless. Not only very informative but also very engaging. Great video!
I cant wait till Brandon tackles the misrepresentation of loyalists in The Patriot.
Theres 1 in the whole film,..and theres no beating round the bush as to what he is..( a traitor watching british atrocities)
Or getting to how the British are protrayed
"woke frenchman" is a phrase that needs to be used more often
I showed this to my teacher in Intercultural Litterature class and I think he's going to love it! You are my favorite TH-camr
5:00 Brandon, I'm just going to point out that it was fairly common in the Antebellum era to see lower class slaveholders (those who only one or two) working with their slaves in the fields (obviously this was out of economic necessity rather than kindness), although your point still stands since Benjamin Martin is obviously more upper-class and thus could delegate fieldwork strictly to slaves (perhaps with his sons overseeing it).
They would still delegate the easiest tasks to themselves.
But after all, the founding fathers did say *”all
Men are created equally”*
-Except blacks
-Except Native Americans
-Except Women
-Except non-Protestants
-except many non-European foreigners
CJ The Republican-Libertarian native Americans were kindof in limbo; if they assimilated they were equal (at least on paper)
Charlotte: "I've had to leave my favorite of my two homes to live in the other! My life has truly been ruined and destroyed! This is the worst thing that's ever happened to me!"
Slave: "Master, can I please sit down for a few minutes and drink some water?"
Charlotte: (series of slurs, swears, and physical punishments, conveying the general meaning of "no, you may not stop for a break")
This NEEDED saying, thank you Brandon. Representation matters. Historical accuracy matters even in fiction. We cannot and will not build a brighter future based on portrayals of the past that are dead wrong informing present day attitudes.
Well Mr Gibson is a modest man in the movies he directs and stars in.
You are aware, that this is an Emmerich movie? You know, directed by Roland Emmerich? But then, that would not fit your narrative.
Sorry just been corrected. Well Mr Gibson is a modest man in the movies he stars in and Emmerich directs! Ok happy now?
Emmerich has his own history of racism in his films
Mel Gibson himself argued against the idea of having it seem like he didn’t own slaves, and that he had hired laborers on his farm. He said the audience would not buy it. He felt that the audience would forgive him once the story unfolds. But the writer, directer, etc felt that as the protagonist of the film, they needed the audience to build that rapport with Benjamin Martin’s character, and thus, wanted to portray him as honorable as possible. It is a storytelling technique, nothing more. This movie, in all fairness, is not about slavery, so I think we can forgive slightly the portrayal it displays, though I do think it would fair much better for history sake to be more accurate in that regard.
I just love the part where Benjamin Martin offers Occam the opportunity to fight as a free man with the U.S.A becoming independent from the British Empire. Not only was slavery on it’s way to being abolished in Britain years before the film was set, it continued to exist in the U.S.A quite a while afterwards turning into an ugly state of racism and segregation which was so alien to the Brits during the battle of Bamber Bridge, an event that took place during WW2 where white American troops tried to dictate their ideas of segregation to a British pub who in turn defended the African American soldiers. This film is so insulting.
Same happened in Ireland, Irish goverment ignored segregation laws
Oddly enough it didn't go down all that well in the UK, which I think is completely fair. This ridiculous one-dimensional view of this historical event may be dismissed as mere 'Hollywood entertaininement' but I disagree. Movies in a claimed historical setting should have more responsibility than pure fiction, because they evidently do have an effect - usually an eroding one - on the attitudes of people and politics when they were made.
It's an unfortunate Hollywood requirement it seems to make the protagonists in films be moral angels by late 20th and 21st century standards. Apparently audiences are far too dense in being unable to understand that what we consider an immoral action or belief commited by one of the 'goodies' is not always a positive one.
It's like how they just cannot make James Bond in the modern era, because in actuality he is a rather unpleasant character in many ways by modern standards. As such we get James Bond branded action movies that cannot be distinguished from all other forgettable ones.
I served in the British Army early 80s. Always been fascinated by the revolutionary war and how Britain lost. Apparently Britain took 20,000 American prisoners? So much remains unknown. Cromwell nearly emigrated to the USA. If he had, things may have been different.
Thank you for vocalizing about the adsurdity and even cutting to the exact scene that stuck with me for over 20 years... when the one plantation "worker" explains to the officer that they are all free.
Excellent video. Great to see a reenactor focusing on the societal absurdities of The Patriot rather than focusing narrowly on uniforms and buttons while ignoring the wider context
One thing that's frustrated me about this movie upon rewatch is its southern setting. Its goal is clearly to portray the existence of slavery, but downplay its massive significance, alongside a more conventional narrative of popular resistance. But in that context, I would argue that a setting in Massachusetts would be much better than a setting in SC. Slavery was exigent but far more rare, ther was no less of a guerrilla war while there also being a more conventional fight, and the main character could be far more sympathetic (a gentleman farmer who didn't own hundreds of people). The director could even have included the same scale of utterly mild commentary on slavery, which would be much more believable considering that relatively few people were enslaved in MA, and there was a larger and more active free black population in Boston that could be an interesting facet of the story
Yeah, Wallace tried to have it both ways; he wanted to have Cornwallis and Charlestown and the Old South, but the American Revolution's liberal heart was in New England. That's why most narratives of the war are all about New England since it's easier to portray the colonists are good guys.
Agreed! Moving the fictitional character of Benjamin Martin farther North would fix a lot of the issues with this film's depiction of slavery.
I could easily see the mail carrier saying ‘you’re welcome’ but only as an automatic response; you probably get thanked a lot when your job is hand delivering mail, especially in a time when letters were far more important.
To play devil’s advocate for one specific part, a type of Stockholm syndrome did sometimes occur with house slaves where they did become close to their masters. A good example of this dynamic would be SLJs character in Django. That movie certainly doesn’t portray slavery in a favorable light, but it does depict a house slave that is close to Leo DiCaprio because he has been with him his entire life.
The female house “servant” by virtue of being there possibly long enough to help Mel Gibson’s character raise his kids could actually have favorable status with the white family. This cozying up to the masters did create lots of tension between house slaves and field slaves.
I think it’s hard to maintain animosity with other human beings when they live in such close proximity to you. That’s why I think house slaves were sometimes treated better than their field counterparts. Anyway, I’m getting side tracked. Yes this is obviously American propaganda but maybe they didn’t miss the mark quite as badly as made out to be (at least on this one very specific thing).
I don't think SLJ's character actually gave two shits about Candy, just that he knew what a shitty hand he was dealt and so he worked real hard to stay on Candy's good side.
Yes, it's human nature that people in close proximity to one another are going to have some kind of casual social relationship. I think the intentions of the author for this film were to make feel good American propaganda. It's no different from some modern progressive firebrand who feels the need to denounce America as some racist country "built on the backs of slaves". It's just that but pointed in the other direction. In the modern era the only reason to drum up slavery, an institution ended more than 150 years ago, is to rile people up into easily manipulated groups for political gain.
@Scroogle McDoogle Who is misrepresenting who now? I don't presume to know what any particular individual in history thought for certain. Especially not a vague hypothetical. However I do know human nature and I know history. Some slaves had a cordial relationship with their masters and their master's family. That doesn't mean they didn't also want freedom nor does it make The Patriot's depiction realistic.
@@Raycloud some of the more portrayals when they're not really focused on camera
I can't help but wonder if the actors didn't know they were rolling
I mean, yes... but that's kind of what he spent this whole video talking about, because that's exactly the trap this movie falls into. The trap of focusing on a hypothetical positive exception and overlooking the reality of the rule.
It's fine to imagine some aspirational example of the perfect slave owner, but when that is only balanced with one or two slightly racist side characters, you end up painting a picture that is insultingly unrealistic, and ultimately damaging.
It's hard to maintain animosity with other human beings in close proximity... _IF_ you actually view them as human beings. Problem is, most slave owners (and probably most white people in general) did _NOT_ view slaves as human beings. They saw them as something much closer to cattle, and treated them as such. If mere proximity was enough to humanize our fellow man, the institution of slavery would not have been so... institutionalized... and wouldn't have carried on for so long.
In other words, yes, this movie *absolutely missed the mark* about as bad as it possibly could.
Even in the early 20th century in the UK the farmer would not do the ploughing on a large farm. There were people who were specifically ploughmen. The were even boys who had just left school who would look after the farm horses. So the ploughing scene would not happen even in a slavery free society of that time.
Your entire description of the party literally had me thinking of that Ewok scene so when you said “like that Ewok dance party…” I lost it haha
Being British I feel insulted the only time I whatched it.
As a Brit, I agree. As a fellow Jacob, I felt obliged to tell you so.
Jacob D excellent comments, Jacob. Cheers all around.
Fantastic Jacobs.
@Thomas Hoffman It doesn't help your case in convincing anyone you were treated like shit, for one thing.
It’s amazing how effective the Patriot propaganda was that it’s taken as the full story now, there were definitely legitimate grievances that could be raised against the British administration but the reality was far more complex than that. What about the British in Parliament that supported the colonists, what about British individuals like Thomas Paine that were central to the ideology of the revolution, that the taxes equated to approximately $1 compared to $20 in Britain itself - if anyone had the shit taxed out of them it was those that remained in Britain not those in the Americas. And all of the money was being reinvested back into the colonies. All of the Founding Fathers identified as Englishmen. If the Whig party (there’s a reason Patriots we’re also called Whigs) had led the British government at that time it would likely have led to some form of representation of the Colonies, instead it was the Tories. Generally the Founding Fathers didn’t want seats in Parliament either, they thought it was too far away.
There’s so much interesting stuff going on when you dig into it, and it’s nowhere near as black and white as the mythology, or ‘The Patriot’, makes out. Far more interesting and makes the achievements of the Founding Fathers more impressive, not less. The British government don’t need to be made into cartoonish villains they weren’t, and plenty the British people supported the Americans - “Cousin Jonathan”, and even more opposed the war.
Brady Crytzer’s Wartime series on the Revolutionary War is well worth a listen, as is the Journal of the American Revolution podcast he hosts now.
Where were the Native Americans in this film? where are the Germans? The British army itself was an extremely cosmopolitan organisation in the 18th century, with Swiss, French Huguenot, Corsican officers. Not to mention freed blacks, white American loyalists and Native Americans. And from the British isles itself, large numbers of Scots, Irish, yet we only see Englishmen who speak with received pronunciation (a manner of speaking which did not even exist at the time)
The lad that survived Martin's tomahawk ambush was a scot, I believe
ANDREA BIANCHI the one an only
There's a blink and ya miss, there's an Indian at Gen. Cornwallis' camp.
can you provide a source of the existence of indian and black soldiers, specifically officers around the time of the US war of independence?
I think far more African and native Americans fought on the British side,which you would never see in an American made film about the revolutionary war, no matter who made it.lots of films about it are straight forward" us " and "them".Almost a third of the British army were Irish ,ten's of thousands of Germans,you hardly get any mention of the French,or the loyalists, the fact the vast majority of the colonists were of British birth or heritage never gets a look in...The patriot is just Anglo phobic nonsense( and the free slave thing is ridiculous)..The US revolutionary war is far more complicated and interesting than any film I've ever see made about it,probably ever will.
You might want to read Simon Schama's "Rough Crossings", which looks at, first, blacks in the American Revolution, especially American blacks who fought for the British, and the ambiguities therein (Slavery was illegal in England, and the British played up the hypocrisy of American revolutionaries fighting for "freedom" who held slaves, and saw the promise of freedom as a way to recruit American blacks (Hence Dunnmore's Proclamation and Regiment), but at the same time didn't want to alienate slave holding loyalists. So the first part of the book deals with ex-slave British army recruits and their status during the Revolution. The second part deals with, after the Revolution is over, the escape to Nova Scotia and the establishment of settlements there by black British veterans, along with the hardship they suffered there and racial tension between them and the white settlers of Nova Scotia. The third part deals with the establishment and colonization of Sierra Leone and Freetown, and the participation of the veterans there, dealing with the hostility of the native population and the other problems that they faced.
All in all, it's a really good book, and it looks a lot about the ambiguity of the situation. Mostly, it just makes you feel kind of bad, though. It's worth reading.
@@epicurius1 cheers....ill give it a read👍
That’s because a film could never truly capture an event such as the American Revolution. Not that this movie tried...
This is, without a shadow of a doubt, the one of the best review of a movies racial themes I've ever seen (Context: I am a Marxist & Socialist, so I can assure you I've seen a lot of, and actively look out for, similar content). I've been watching Brandon for a while because I'm really fascinated in my Britain's military past, as well as british colonialism, and have learnt quite a bit, but in my opinion this is the best video he's ever made.
The detail he goes into when addressing of the time periods cultural state is brilliant, as well as he later acknowledgement of the 'Southern Pride' and 'Southern Values' movements that took place in america that still exists in some forms to this day, playing a part in the script writing process and narrative the film expresses. The fact that he spent almost an hour on this topic is what pushed me to actually write a comment, as most content creators would address this issue in a review either to nowhere near the same extent and detail or would try and wrap it up in 20 mins, skimming over key contextual elements either due to the time constraint or not diving deep enough, that lead them to the conclusion on a films poor or even near propagandistic misrepresentation of racial relations in a given period.
I've always believed that the best way to lose an argument is to defend your side poorly, and what Brandon has accomplished here is such a well laid out, detailed, and in depth critic of this movies narratives and themes, anyone in disagreeal would be hard pressed to find any notable flaws. Either way, brilliant video, can't wait for the rest of the series.
Knowledge is power.
I always thought of the American war of independence, more of a civil war than revolution.
There is a school of thought that it is, in some ways , a continuation of the Civil Wars that wracked the British Isles in the 1640 - 1650's and beyond, in the sense of a progression from absolute Monarchy through to a representative political system .
They're not remotely exclusive terms. A revolution is literally a change in government. In this case it's perhaps most accurate to describe the war as one of secession.
@John Saunders yes am totally aware, and will throw in the case that, even though the restorationists believed they had attained the absolute monarchy again and chucky 2 did sack parliament, it was only towards the end of his reign and he did , I think, for most of it understand the peril.
It was. Same with all wars of independence. I've learned to call the factions Patriots vs Royalist/Loyalist.
@@bigglesbiggles1 Very good point.
Hey, a new upload from Brandon! Time to tune out my history teacher!
Pavel Lampa It’s fun to watch anyway
@Pavel Lampa did you watch the video?
@Pavel Lampa there is also one more
This might be more valuable, depending on what level of schooling you are on.
Can we expect a video on the tactics used in this “movie” ? I would like to hear your perspective on it.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA.
At least the Ewok dance party made sense at the end of Return of the Jedi. :P
I always thought that the opening scenes on the farm was the outlier, to show how good, exceptional, and righteous the protagonist is. I never thought it was how the whole of slavery was treated.
You're right. The film has its misgivings but they are clearly trying to portray Benjamin Martin as being Everything we would hope he would be in everything we would stand for. It's a storytelling mechanic.
But you can find racism in anything these days, And it's also cool to be woke so we have videos like this.
Didn't one of the "slaves" on Martin's plantation say during the capture of their farm by the British that they were already free men? I can't remember
They did. The british officer says something along the lines of "Slaves can join into the british army in return for freedom" slave says something about already being free... on a plantation. in the late 1700s...
Yeah I believe the lore of the movie states something about his wife wanted the slave freed before her death. It might provide context as to the Marten homestead.
I may be mistaken though.
@@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968 lets face it though, the average film viewer isnt going to deep dive into the apart lore of this film. they will watch it, see it as fact and move on.
Yea and it's shown in this video, that was one of his main examples about ten minutes through
9:07
A look at Gettysburg would be interesting. It's kind of the cinematic shining moment of reenactment considering its production, but it does lean into the lost cause portrayal in the Confederacy even with the Union being uncharacteristically unanimously abolitionist.
Lol, Atum Shei hates that movie because it dares show the confederates motivation and never gets pissy about the union in the movie.
I wouldn’t say that the Union is “unanimously abolitionist,” as Chamberlain is the only one we see interacting with a black man (who has no lines) and giving opinions on slavery. Gettysburg made the wise decision to (mostly) focus on the battle and giving only a snippet of surrounding political views. General Kemper at the campfire is the only other one who mentions slavery (and uses a slur) in the movie.
@@humansvd3269 Nice job totally missing his argument.
@@Zarastro54 I saw his video and his argument. It's as clear as day. He basically said it was because it portrayed the confederate goals in a good light. His levis videos and chats made his viewpoints clear.
@@humansvd3269 Then you must not have been paying attention. He very specifically states that he _doesn't_ hate Gettysburg, and his criticisms of it are relatively mild and mostly technical. He appreciates it as a good piece of Civil War historiography, flaws and all. Perhaps you are confusing Gettysburg with Gods and Generals, which he does have a negative opinion of because the latter is as much ahistorical whitewashed propaganda as this movie?
Mel Gibson and historical accuracy is an oxymoron.
Really impressed with how your analysis is maturing.
I'd love for you to tackle a film that doesn't suck, but is still problematic: Glory. I love it, but I should probably see it critiqued.
The Patriot movie is no Gettysburg, the Gettysburg film did its best to try and tell the story from both sides, which isn't often seen in movies.
Gettysburg movie isn't perfect by any means, there were some things they got wrong, but because of the story, the actors, and how it was portrayed, it can be easily over looked.
If anything they're too sympathetic to the Confederates; that film did an amazing job to make a truly neutral take on a war film. Heroes on both sides.
If you've seem the 2016 remake of the mini series Roots and then go back and see The Patriot it really shows how the film ridiculously downplays slavery
What happened to the 2016 roots how downplayed was it?
@@kingofflamingos4344 Roots wasn't downplayed, the Patriot was, if I'm understanding this correctly
What really irks me about Occam making his mark is that they could so easily justify it with period-accurate reasons. Something as simple as "If your slave gets manumitted (released with compensation to the owner), we need this on the record so we can keep track of all of our recruits." would work far better than "ME WOKE MEL GIBSON, YOU STUPID RACIST MAN".
“Tonight on CNN, Brandon F believes POC in the patriot are given too much of an easy ride”
Another Australian wins a War. Arent we good. Pity we cant beat bushfires
Or Emus
@John Saunders I'm just mentioning that Australia in the 1920s fought a war against the Emus... and lost.
@@podemosurss8316 beat me to it lol
I found you on the Prussian army video after Barry Lyndon and I'm loving this channel. It's not PC, it's not self hate, it's not dressing up any facts and provides context and your points are reasonable and contextualized. Thanks for reinvigorating my interest even with these dicey subjects.
I've not seen The Patriot and I'm grateful to you for highlighting yet another reason to avoid it. Being that I'm English, I assumed (clearly I was correct) that the English characters would be portrayed as cardboard cut-out cartoon villains, irrationally hell-bent on destroying all that is kind and good in the world. I had no notion that it would be so rife with racist apologist nonsense aswell. Thankyou.
@Tarquin Indeed! There is a paucity in that representation.
It says something that racism is so embedded in our worldview that it casually passes under the radar in film and is outright denied because it's relatively subtle compared to say, Gone with the Wind (a film that is even more defended despite the racism)
Don't let the racists and apologists in the comment section get you down. This series is great.
Knowing reenactors, I think this'll cost you a few subscribers as they'll now think you a "lefty SJW!" But I think the video was absolutely on point.
If the filmmakers wanted to make a movie about a slightly fictionalized version of a slaveholding character, they should have portrayed that with unflinching honesty. They could have changed his profession or done any number of things to obfuscate the issue of slavery but they faced it down and blinked and gave us a watered-down blunted portrayal.
It is further infuriating since one of the thematic elements they SEEMED to be going for was to make Martin an extremely complicated character. The opening monologue tells us that Martin is haunted and the film shows us a man dogged by an inner demons. He joins in the executions of surrendered men. But they also want to default to Martin as a uniformly likable hero. It's lukewarm and a wasted opportunity.
The film indulges in the worst kind of white washing.
This is my new fourth of July tradition.
I used to watch the patriot every year but now I think il do this much more fun.
Stuff myself at the BBQ then put on this series of yours tearing down the patriot and see how far through it I can get before secoming to the food coma.
Made it half way through this first video before passing out.
Just woke up now to finish it. Happy 4th🎉🎉🇺🇲🇺🇸
Go watch HBO’s John Adams miniseries. It’s way better than the Patriot.
I have to say, after viewing a number of your videos and broadening my mindset regarding earlier American history, your review of this film is a bit refreshing and satisfying for my own nitpicking of historical portrayals in media. It’s taken me a hard 15 years of reenacting, studying, taking college courses, enlisting, more studying, my wife and I discussing ad nauseam, and even more studying, to make me see the formative cultures and development of our current social state for what they are. As a a fellow reenactor, living historian and vet, I tip my hat to you!
PS it never set well with me that the Brits are always villains in current narratives, especially considering our relations over the past century!
Thanks so much for the kind words! I am glad that my videos have helped you in your educational journey.
DAMN this part 1 is a banger. I can’t wait to see the rest of the series. excellent work and script writing!