12 Years a Slave Follow-up Post

Here's a little gem of a story behind the movie:
THE HISTORIAN WHO UNEARTHED “TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE”

Can't Get Enough of 2Cellos

12 Years a Slave Wins Big, Racists Go Nuts

Director Steve McQueen with well deserved recognition

Watching the Oscars with friends at a bar, we couldn’t help cheering when 12 Years a Slave won the Oscar for best film. If you haven’t seen the movie, drop everything now and do it. The movie is a masterpiece in regards to how closely it follows the autobiography of Solomon Northup, a free black man who had been kidnapped and sold into slavery until his eventual rescue. (By the way, you can find a great break-down of the movie vs reality here. Also, Northup’s book can be easily bought on Amazon or at your local bookstore).

Not only is the movie mostly historically accurate, but the visuals can be breathtaking and harrowing at the same time. You really get sucked into the story as well as the cinematography. Though I agree that it’s about time we see a slavery movie that is strictly about the slaves themselves, and not “about the exceptional white people who ultimately triumph against evil”, I would add that this movie is particularly powerful because everybody gets to sympathise with Solomon who, like all of us today, was born a free man. The denial of freedom is even harder for anyone who’s had a taste of it, and Northup’s suffering is all the harsher because of this fact.

Now, if you watched the Oscars like me, you might have gotten a chuckle when Ellen Degeneres talked about the upcoming best film award in these terms: “Possibility number one: 12 Years a Slave wins best picture. Possibility number two: You’re all racists.”

And yet, despite the well deserved title of best film, 12 Years a Slave remains controversial. Well, amongst racist history-deniers, that is.

Never one to miss an opportunity to point and laugh at deserving morons, I present to you my top ten list (in no particular order) of the weirdest racist comments I found so stupid, they cross the line between seriousness and satire. Courtesy of Youtube forums...

• All the slave owners and slaves of this time are long dead. So why are we still acting like this is a current event? 0.0

That's why it's called a "historical movie". I gather you didn't watch Titanic either... and current stupidity makes this movie a necessity. And I'm not talking about Titanic.

• The first slave in North America was owned by a black man named Anthony Johnson who established human ownership through a court case.

I get it. Black guys did it, so it's cool. Also, good God, read up on slavery...

• The Chinese owned Black slaves for centuries so why can't they make a movie about that?

Because you don't speak Chinese?

• Yeah because white people invented slavery. Its been around since the beginning of time at all four corners of the Earth.

Again... other people "invented" slavery, so it's cool, right? We cool?

• It's hard to see White GENOCIDE when you're an anti-White [...]

I'm white and I still don't see it... Wait, I must be anti-White!

• 12 years a slave is basically school

I know, right? Damn teacher whipping me during algebra...

• [...] I'd rather be 12 years a slave than be forever n****r.

Your logic astounds me...

• Lmao this movie looks funny

I'll just presume you're in the wrong forum...

• Here we go again another movie about slavery, is like they have nostalgia for times bygone! [...]

I presume you're taking about plantation owners... 

• This type of movie should NOT be made. Its only purpose is to rile up certain people who should just get OVER slavery. It was 200 years ago. Come on.

Seems to me the only people riled up are those threatened by celluloid... Also, your math is shoddy. 

Awesomeness, no less

History of English

Foresight

The Joe just loves Titanic jabs...

Anachronisms Ahoy!

I've recently finished watching all available episodes of the 1958-1959 series Northwest Passage. A quick Google search doesn't reveal much on the production of this show. Starring Keith Larsen as Major Roberts, the series purports to tell the exploits of the Rogers' Rangers during the French and Indian War (albeit a heavily fictionalized retelling. And when I say heavy...). 

Though Keith Larsen doesn't seem to have had much of a noticeable career following this role, I can't help but wonder when I read that he stared in something called Women of the Prehistoric Planet... His co-star in Northwest Passage was non other than Buddy Ebson of Beverly Hillbillies fame.

The series, like the movie that came out in 1940, is based on Kenneth Robert's book of the same title. Though I haven't personally read it yet, author Howard H. Peckham warns: "Kenneth Roberts account of [Robert Rogers] in Northwest Passage must be read with great caution." Peckham, Pontiac and the Indian Uprising, forward by John C. Dann, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1994 [1947], p. 58.

For anyone interested in learning more about Robert Rogers and his men, I strongly suggest Stephen Brumwell's excellent book White Savage: A True Story of War, Savagery And Vengeance in Colonial America. 

So, what do I have to say about this stinker? Northwest Passage is very much a product of the 1950's with its cheesy plot lines, cheesy jokes, and apparent total lack of remorse of its characters after they basically cause the small-scale genocide of a native village (Though to be fair, neither did they in real life when they wiped out the Abénaki village of St. Francis. However, I maintain that the audience was not meant to feel pity and in fact is meant to cheer for the "heroes" who are even shown slaying women and children. A very disturbing scene for today's standards when the whole affair is immediately downplayed by a cheesy joke to end the episode). 

The production value was great for the period, but little to no research was put into it. I am very much surprised that no one has yet tried to do a remake of Roger's life for the silver screen or even a TV series for the likes of HBO or Bravo... Then again, the man can hardly be considered an American Hero as Northwest Passage attempts to do. Rogers did, after all, end up siding with the British during the American Revolution. 

So in true snarktastic tradition, here is what I've learned from watching Northwest Passage*:

- Roger's Rangers tended to be just three guys in green buckskins with fringes.
- Natives wore funny looking wigs held on by a band.
- Speaking of which, natives looked suspiciously like white guys in bad skin makeup.
- French-Canadians all sounded like they were from Paris.
- People dressed like cowboys, Stetson hats and all (Despite being set in the 1750's!!!!).
- Contrary to his portraits, Amherst was a white-wig wearing old wrinkly guy.
- The French (Militia?) wore black coats with Scottish-looking bonnets.
- Montréal apparently had castles from Loire.
- The direct route to Québec from Montréal apparently went through Crown Point.
- Détroit was apparently the far western edge of New France.
- A bump on the knee would give you blood poisoning.
- A knife thrown into your shoulder-blade will kill you. Always.
- Canoes were very easy to sabotage: they were like tissue paper.
- Suspicious bird noises are always to be ignored (even when a character says: "Funny sounding bird! Hope it's not the enemy!")
- All women dressed like they were from Little House on the Prairie.
- The French army dressed like American Revolutionaries
- Robert Rogers was pretty chill unlike the period accounts of being a drunk badass.
- Using native medicine makes you a witch and earns you the scorn of little girls.
- Case in point, little girls are horrid little bitches.
- The prop department was too cheap to create wampum belts so they came up with "pledge sticks" (and even then they didn't bother to decorate these plain sticks...)
- The lake Champlain/Richelieu river system is apparently found on the edge of the Rockies.
- Bowie knifes were invented much, much earlier.
- Did I mention cowboy hats? Cowboy hats everywhere?
- An Indian with blue eyes automatically meant he was someone's captured son, not a métis.
- Crown point was made out of wood.
- Crown point was smaller than fort St-Frédéric.
- Musket shots sound like cannons.
- People were fragile back then: they got knocked out with barely a punch.
- Apparently period rowboats had motor hitches.
- Navajo blankets were all the rage.
- The St. Francis massacre apparently wasn't a big thing, having been only alluded to once.
- Memorable quote: "I need him alive, for hanging!"
- Montréal was apparently bombarded and destroyed like Québec.
- Most Frenchmen enjoyed being conquered.
- Today's citadelle in Québec existed in 1759.
- French-Canadians ate snails.
- French women wore pants.
- Native women all looked like skimpy Disney Pocahontases.
- Indian chiefs wore South-American headdresses.
- Each episode must end with a cheesy joke. No exception. Even after slaughtering a native village.
- Only white Indians are good Indians (aka white people raised as Indians).
- Again, cowboy hats... everywhere.

*A part of this review was first made by me on the IMDB message board linked to this series.

Histerical Perspective

I've often had discussions on this with colleagues. When does a tragedy stop being tragic and start being a social gag? At which point does society start looking at a unfortunate event in our history and start laughing at it like your neighbour getting accidentally sacked in the nuts? 

We never did come up with an appropriate answer, but it's apparently less than 100 years, according to this trailer: 

Governmental Blunder...

On One Hand, You Have Revisionism, On The Other... You Have This

What Do You Get When You Mix Nazis, Robots, and Dinosaurs?

This, apparently...

Titanic Mistake

April 2012 is almost over... so a few days ago I thought I should commemorate the sinking of the world's most famous ship by watching the 3D re-release of James Cameron's Titanic. So how was the 3D? Meh.  Though, I will give credit where it's due: it's hard getting accurate depth perception from a movie originally filmed in 2D. But I was interested to find this out about the new edition, courtesy of everyone's favourite astrophysicist:

Also, can't miss this gem from Memebase:

Laughing With Hitler

This has to be by far my favourite documentary on WWII, proving once more that not only can humour be crudely wielded for devastating effect, but can also be humanity's greatest weapon in troubled times. Indeed, humour is a social gage just like the fool in a king's court. Cue Hitler jokes.

Nazi Donald Duck?

I can't get enough of the Nostalgia Chick... I really should post her first review ever on Pocahontas...

Fantastic Animation

This is awesome! 'Nuf said.

Everything is Amazing!

It hit me the other day: I can't think of a better era to be alive in. Everything is amazing! This particular epiphany came to me while travelling between Québec city and Montréal the other day. There I was, working on my thesis, when BAM! My head snapped up and my synapses were pulsing: "Oh my God! Here I am, on a train, going 200 km/h, in Canada, researching through a library in freakin' France to read a 250 year old book I otherwise would not have physical access to unless I chose to cross the Atlantic... and as I'm writing, my fingers aren't sore from pushing a pencil nor do I have to freak over a temperamental typerwritter!" Boy, did we evolve from monks scribbling away, to Gutenberg's press, to sheer awesomeness! And yet everyone takes this for granted! ARG! People, listen to Louis C.K.:

And I don't care much for this cynicism:

Come on people, take five minutes to drool over your luck of having been that one spermatozoa to have conquered the odds and made it to 21st century Western civilization!

Reacting to Reenactors

Your average reenactor is not your average history buff. While other people will merely content themselves with reading up on the past, reenactors want to live it. In the past few years, I’ve been gently eased into the fun kooky world of reenacting. Though I steadfastly refuse to join any reenactment club on a permanent basis, I thoroughly enjoy speaking with them regularly. Don’t get me wrong, I love reenactors. But I keep reminding them that as a historian, I find my time better spent researching. After all, to do what they do, they need our help. Ironically, though, the reverse is not seen as the case by most historians and archaeologists. It is quite the paradox that despite needing public support, professionals in the field seem to distance themselves from reenactors, if not downright loathing them. True, I’ve met my share of compulsive-obsessive hobbyists that are so keen on authenticity that they end up oppressing their own peers (or obsessing over certain historians like crazed fans — trust me, these are most likely the reason most historians are turned off by reenactors). However, as a historian, I would like to reach out to my peers and say this: reenactors deserve much more credit than we normally give them. For example, if I was to be in a room next to a reenactor, a crowd would immediately mill around him, even if I’m the professional willing to answer its questions. In a way, a reenactor is a visual representative of the field. They’re easy to spot and their accoutrement breaks the ice between them and the general public. If you take time to talk to some reenactors, you quickly realize that even though they don’t have a degree in history or archaeology, they are just as obsessed with the past as we are. It’s not a matter of playing make-believe, as they are rather pejoratively known as doing. Rather, by emulating the past, they show it the ultimate sign of respect. These folks took the time to learn about the past and found the perfect way to apply their knowledge. Many amateur historians are created through this activity. And I’m not talking about medieval fairs where half of people are dressed as fairy tale creatures. These are fantasists. No, I’m talking about people who truly have a profound respect for history and will play according to its rules. Through reenacting, they find the perfect outlet to share their passion with people who, otherwise, never would have approached them or history to begin with.

Unfortunately, a lot of misconceptions about reenactors still exist. My favourite (worst) example is that of the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in Québec city. In 2009, a massive reenactment of the year-long siege of the city was supposed to take place. Thousands of reenactors from both Canada and the U.S. were supposed to converge onto the arena of one of the most decisive events in North American history. However, this event was never to be. Political pressure crushed the commemoration. To understand why, one must remember that ever since that mournful day of September 13th 1759 (and more specifically the official surrender of Canada at Montréal a year later), French Canadians have been under British rule and later included in the founding of Canada. Like Scotland in Great Britain or Catalonia in Spain, French Canadians (concretely the province of Québec, the only officially francophone province) have had an ambiguous relationship with English Canadians. French nationalism is strong and general knowledge of reenacting is weak. Hence, when it was proposed to recreate the events of 1759-1760, the general public was never made aware that this was more than a onetime event: no one was told what reenactment is. Therefore, the most radical factions of the independence movement mistook the event as a celebration of the war, instead of a commemoration. I distinctly remember having long polite arguments with nationalist friends and having to chip away at their preconceived notions of the event. Only after carefully laying out that reenactors were doing this out of love of history did they understand that this was not an “Anglo” plot to spit into the eye of the Francophone population of Canada. To this day, I maintain that, unfortunately, the Battlefield Park’s comity had blundered and grossly misrepresented the event, using imagery which led people to believe the 2009 planned reenactment was an attempt to whitewash history (such as the thousands of pamphlets representing the event with a smiling Montcalm and Wolfe amicably shaking hands as if nothing had happened, that neither had been victims of agonizing deaths). Luckily, reenactors understood the stakes involved and walked away politely. Ironically, none knew the history and the politics involved better than they did.

This brings me to my main argument in defense of reenactors. They are the vocal faction of the historical community at large. In many ways, they do a better job than most historians at communicating history to the general public. Had they let reenactors explain the situation to the public instead of the park's administrators, this fiasco would most probably have been avoided. I don't recall them asking historians for their opinion either. Suprisingly, many only spoke up after it was too late. Historians often get so wrapped up academic jargon and conferences among peers that they often lose touch with the wider general public. Reenactors are part of this public, and then some: they are the ambassadors of the public. Should we not be as diplomatic and share our knowledge with them as eagerly as they are to share theirs with the rest of the world? I’ve made many a wonderful discovery thanks to reenactors. If some historians scoff at their certain lack of rigor, they certainly can’t fault them for a lack of vigor. To the critics of reenactors, I answer this: I lay blame on historians and archaeologists who are scared to bridge the gap and offer their professional perspective to correct reenactors’ methods of research, writing, and interpretation. We complain constantly that history is not represented enough in society. I see reenactors as another tool to transmit it. Among concrete examples I offer the Open House at fort Saint-Joseph where archaeologists and reenactors share the spotlight each August during this public event. Both are enriched by each other’s presence, but none benefit as much as the public, now made aware of its past.

This is why I took the plunge to visit the yearly Living History Show in Kalamazoo in Michigan last March 17th and 18th. Sure enough, members of the Center for French Colonial Studies where there with me, mingling and mixing with the countless reenactors. We had a terrific time nerding out even beyond the show and back at my hotel room, watching Destination Nord’Ouest and drinking wine, all the while swapping knowledge.

And sure enough, I couldn’t resist buying a new wardrobe for this summer’s New France festival in Québec city. This leads me to recount a funny anecdote involving my reenacting friends. For years now, I’ve been patiently buying pieces of clothes to create my persona for the New France Festival. However, it seems that every time, I buy a piece that is slightly anachronistic or not typically French. Of course, I’m always informed of the fact days after I bought the item when presenting it proudly to my friends. I am regularly the butt of such comments as “Oh, your fleur-de-lys are misaligned and don’t match period patterns!” or “Your three-point hat is British, not French!”. As much as I can agree with them in the end, I am only human and a humble Seven Years War historian, not a fashion historian. As such, I keep reminding them that it could be much worst: I’ve seen true horrors at the New France Festival, such as a pseudo-native wearing a dream-catcher stapled to his back, or a guy decked out in full cardboard armor. And so, as much as I respect their knowledge, Andi’s in particular (oh yes Andi, I know you are reading this right now), whenever they nit-pick my honest efforts to reenact authentically, I shout out: “Cardboard armor!”

Then again, I smile as I think in the back of my mind how much I admire their knowledge and their passion. And most of all, I value their friendship.

Me (left) during my first reenactment back in 2007.  (God forbid I was wearing polyesther and had plastic buttons)

Photo credit: Rénald Lessard.

Unbeknownst to most, Jesuits love Triscuits...

Photo credit: Joseph Gagné

 Believe it or not, this is only one room at the Kalamazoo Living History Show!

Photo Credit: Joseph Gagné.

You're not "accurate" enough for Rick, here...

Photo credit: Joseph Gagné.

Get 'em while they're young!

Photo credit: Joseph Gagné

Ben Franklin on Beer

Fun fact, by the way: it seems Franklin never said the famous phrase "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." but rather said "Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." (source)

A Purrrfect Read

Even my own kitty approves this book

Title: The Well-Read Cat (Originally titled: Des chats passant parmi les livres)

Author: Michèle Sacquin (Translated by Isabel Ollivier)

Publisher: Bibliothèque nationale de France and Officina Libraria

Published in: 2010, Paris

Pages: 207

As the corny yet inevitable title of this review states, I have just polished off a wonderful little book on cats through history. To be more precise, this book is a sampling of images of cats found in the collections of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Anyone who has visited the famed library (or at least its massive website at gallica.bnf.fr) knows that many treasures are to be found there. It was only a matter of time before a cat lover, incidentally the library’s curator, decided to fish out its feline photographs and imagery. Alongside the panoply of paper cats (as the book calls them), we have the pleasure of reading various quotes on these whiskered critters by famous authors. The main text is a brief exploration of the history of the perception of cats in folklore and popular culture. Thanks to the extensive holdings at the BnF, the author is able to present cats not only in a European context, but a Middle-Eastern and Asian one as well. One page might contain the photograph of an Egyptian cat carved in a regal pose, while another will illustrate a turn-of-the-century French milk ad. Speaking of which, it is good to be reminded that the book was previously published in French before being translated in English and Italian (Gatti di Biblioteca). Rightly so: the allure of this four-legged house-pet reaches beyond geography, as pictures of Japanese pussies will attest to. The reader of this book will also appreciate this last cheeky allusion as the author does not shy away from more explicit symbolism and representations of cats. Indeed, she reminds us that for the longest time, cats were not only linked to witchcraft (in fact, regardless of colour until a few centuries ago), but were equally a symbol of female sexuality. Our only qualm with this book is the numerous mentions of other artwork not reproduced within these pages. Then again, we must remind ourselves that the objective of the book is to highlight only pieces found at the BnF. All in all, even though this book is a relatively short read (easily accomplished in less than an afternoon as I have done, sitting next to the lion statues at the Art Institute of Chicago where I picked up my copy), one can spend hours looking at these wonderful representation of cats through the ages. Do not miss this one, especially if you have a feline companion of your own!

A new meaning to Persian cat...

One seriously creepy medieval puss...

A fine feline if ever there was.

H.G. Wells Meets Bruce Wayne