Dahomey: Slavery

Both domestic slavery and the Atlantic slave trade were important to the economy of Dahomey. Men, women, and children enslaved by Dahomey in wars were sold to European slave traders at the coast. Dahomey used magical rituals for slave trading. Prior to being sold to Europeans, slaves were forced to march in circles around the "Tree of Forgetfulness" so they would lose memories of their culture, family, and homeland.[39] The purpose of this ritual was to prevent the spirits of the slaves from returning and seeking revenge against the royalty of Dahomey.[39] Although it is argued by the cultural nationalist Esteban Lucumi, that the tree of forgetfulness and the stories around it are partly mythical.

Other war captives who were not intended to be sold to Europeans remained in Dahomey as slaves. There, they worked on royal plantations that supplied food for the army and royal court, and they were reserved for human sacrifice in the Annual Customs of Dahomey.[6] As pointed out by Stanley Diamond, in Dahomey "slaves were adopted into the joint families for whom they worked. In the absence of a suitable heir, the adopted slave often became the family patriarch. Slaves were eagerly welcomed as extra working hands. There is no indication that they were maltreated, or that they laboured any harder than ordinary joint family members. Slaves could marry, hold property within the families they founded, and their children became freemen."[40]

There is some nuance I guess. But yeah I think absence of maltreatment does not justify slavery. Slavery is not a scale. You just don't.

@cswood said:

My God, how stupid did this movie studio have to be to make this? Found out the Dahomey tribe depicted as the heroes in this movie were in fact major slave traders who sold their slaves to the Europeans. Not only that, when Europeans decided to stop the slave trade, the Dahomey fought to keep it going because they were profiting off of it so much. They also partook in ritual sacrifices.

But, hey, black women were in charge of the tribe so... slay queen?

Is it a documentary about Dahomey? So, this movie talking about little part of history of Dahomey, not their entire story. African's tribe king change often so like their politics.

It's said in the movie that the king's brother sold prisoners as slave.

@pu!s@r said:

Is it a documentary about Dahomey? So, this movie talking about little part of history of Dahomey, not their entire story. African's tribe king change often so like their politics.

It's said in the movie that the king's brother sold prisoners as slave.

lostincinema already posted quotes from the Dahomey wiki. Their entire economy was dependent on slavery where they sold men women and children and used slave labor to farm their food. Show me a Hollywood movie that portrays white southerners who did the exact same thing as anything other than monsters? Instead of lynchings the Dahomey did ritual scarifies.

They were monsters and they do not deserve to have their image rehabilitated by Hollywood simply because they had black women warriors, and bad ones at that.

@cswood said:

@pu!s@r said:

show me a Hollywood movie that portrays white southerners who did the exact same thing as anything other than monsters? Instead of lynchings the Dahomey did ritual scarifies.

Nearly every western and adventure film about the Civil War in the 40s. Prisoner of Shark Island for one.

@felixxx999 said:

@cswood said:

@pu!s@r said:

show me a Hollywood movie that portrays white southerners who did the exact same thing as anything other than monsters? Instead of lynchings the Dahomey did ritual scarifies.

Nearly every western and adventure film about the Civil War in the 40s. Prisoner of Shark Island for one.

Well if we're reaching back that far we might as well throw Birth of a Nation into the mix. Al Jolson was doing blackface in that era as well. I'm thinking more of a movie released post-WW2. Has there been a major movies made in the last, let's say 70 years, where the south were the heroes and the north were the good guys? I could probably find more movies made in that time that made the Nazis sympathetic (though probably not made by Hollywood).

ya said show me! Lol.

ya said show me! Lol. Literally the first half of the 20th Century featured happy slaves and servants in films again and again.

You could look at those 90s Turner Civil war movies that were very sympathetic to the South. No more blatant than Woman King (have you seen it? Not historical at all. They might as well made it a Marvel movie). The 90s movies (can't be bothered to find the names) not one bad word about slaves. Honor in war and so on. I remember seeing them as a history buff rolling my eyes watching them. Ted Turner. You could mention the other Jazz Singer from 1980 where Neil Diamond does black face or any number of black face bit where white men portrayed black men as smiling simple slaves.

So how does Woman King which washes away all the bad slave history any different than the Ted Turner Civil War films that did the same? Instead they both focus on battles and tactical warfare history be damned.

Or how about the Miniseries North and South where Patrick Swayze has dozens of slaves but they admire him because he's good to them? The one black slave that gets physical is portrayed as a crazed animal when he tries to get revenge (Forrest Whittaker). The whole miniseres was doing a both-sides on the North and South. If I remember correctly there's also a character who makes slave freedom her cause and she's treated like a crazy person and every time she tried to help slaves she caused misery and embarrassment to her family (Kirstie Alley).

@cswood said:

My God, how stupid did this movie studio have to be to make this? Found out the Dahomey tribe depicted as the heroes in this movie were in fact major slave traders who sold their slaves to the Europeans. Not only that, when Europeans decided to stop the slave trade, the Dahomey fought to keep it going because they were profiting off of it so much. They also partook in ritual sacrifices.

But, hey, black women were in charge of the tribe so... slay queen?

It's not stupid, man, the point was to rewrite history. It is celebrated by the people that like it because it rewrote history. It took a slave trading dictatorial oppressor that was responsible for her fair share of ethnic cleansing, and rewrote her to a hero.

The entire point was to send a message that they could change history and people would applaud them for it. It's not stupid because it achieved it's intent, and the people defending the film, they are defending the changed reality not the movie itself.

@felixxx999 said:

@cswood said:

@pu!s@r said:

show me a Hollywood movie that portrays white southerners who did the exact same thing as anything other than monsters? Instead of lynchings the Dahomey did ritual scarifies.

Nearly every western and adventure film about the Civil War in the 40s. Prisoner of Shark Island for one.

There is a pretty clear and distinct difference between showing Confederates as real human beings and being "sympathetic to slavery," especially when the situation was more complex than just slavery. If you ever saw "Combat!" they portrayed the Nazis as real humans and still was clearly anti-Nazi.

Just because it doesn't do the post 2016 trope of portraying every straight white person as a knuckle dragging genocidal maniac doesn't mean that it's being "sympathetic," it just means that it has a more realistic depiction than the time of woke propaganda we are currently discussing.

@GenerationofSwine said:

It's not stupid, man, the point was to rewrite history. It is celebrated by the people that like it because it rewrote history. It took a slave trading dictatorial oppressor that was responsible for her fair share of ethnic cleansing, and rewrote her to a hero.

The entire point was to send a message that they could change history and people would applaud them for it. It's not stupid because it achieved it's intent, and the people defending the film, they are defending the changed reality not the movie itself.

And that is exactly why I make a point not to give my time or money to these people. Look, I'm black, was shouting just as loud as the next person to have more blackcentric movies back when I was young and naive, but not more slave/racism stories, or glorifying black historical villains. There are plenty of great real life black stories that could be told that don't revolve around slavery or racism. They made a movie about the white guy who invented the windshield wiper but not the guy that invented the super soaker? Or the guy who created the Famous Amos cookie?

Well, the reason why is because it shows black people (black men specifically) achieving success in spite of their skin color, and Hollywood doesn't want to show that. Any story that doesn't further the "black people are victims/oppressed" narrative is ignored by Hollywood, because god forbid black people start looking inward for their sense of self worth instead of outward at whatever white liberals tell them they're worth.