Because shaka Zulu movie didn’t romanticize anyone. Not Shaka, Not the Europeans. They were as unbiased as possible, and also showed accurate battle strategy done by the Zulu and how by underestimating them, the european lost the battle.
One of the main problems surrounding the criticisms and backlash of the movie is that these critics build a hypothesis and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence before making a hypothesis, especially considering the fact that the majority of those critics have not even known anything about West African history prior to the introduction of the trailer. Maybe you could have covered how this film upset the general public and led to calls to boycott this film, the validity of the criticisms and backlash, the film's merits, and how a Hollywood movie could have done better depicting any West African civilization.
The film should be portraying the Dahomey as these kind anti slavery loving hippies. They weren’t, my ancestors went to war with the Dahomey and I’m sure they knew full well if we lost we’d be enslaved, the Dahomey ironically had to call the Oyo empire to help aid them against us because we would have crushed them in battles. Though I won’t hate on the kingdom cos we all have our evil bones but the Dahomey amazons in this film are very against slavery which is silly
@@THEONLYOBA from many but the group that went to war with them were the Asante. Yes I’m aware we were also cruel at times, but that’s not the point the point is this film is made putting the Dahomey as an liberal esque group when like ancient Sparta they ere anything but liberal
It’s really sad how much criticism and backlash this movie got especially from the black community. We finally got an African period movie and all I see are black people hating on it cus it’s not entirely accurate. Name me the medieval that was 100% accurate. You don’t see a bunch of white people super analyzing those types of movies. If the movie is bad ok then criticize it but if your main criticism is that it’s not 100% accurate then you have no real constructive criticism
It's not because white people grew tired of American mistreatment of there history that black people should do the same. Especially when a movie is said to be "historical" and sugarcoat (you could read butcher) the main facts for pushing a political agenda they didn't ask or pledge for. They choose the strict truth over catchy lies and I think it's very noble of them.
"you don't see bunch of white people super analyzing those kind of movies" what? 😅 Of course there is a lot of ignorants who doesn't care about anything, but others does care and there is huge community of ppl who praise historical accuracy of any film and really give it backlash it deserves. Like recently published most expensive film in history of czech cinematography "Medieval" about czech best warlord and strategist Jan Žižka... I am not proud of it, it's pure shit, just don't watch it please.
Not entirely accurate? What would you think of a movie portrayig the dixies as people desiring to leave slavery and saying they will abolish it once they win they war? That is the level of historical lie of the movie. Problm of the movie is portraying as good people with same or worse moral level than the enslavers you hate so much only because they were violent women. And you are wrong, whites superanalize the movies and comment their mistakes.
I think they addressed the issue of light-skinned warriors and diversity when they explained that some were captured and/or kidnapped and given the choice to become warriors, therefore, treaded as part of the sisterhood
THANK YOU i've been searching for someone who could talk of the historical accuracy of this movie without the cringy "you know we should celebrate the English because THEY fought against slavery" part. Also, as a modern-day practicioner of african-derived religions in Brazil (with HEAVY emphasis on the Yoruba Orixás), it's always nice to see references to Oyo and the Orixá religion. The Ifá divination system is still used today and widely spread in Brazil
I thought the movie was just okay, not bad, just okay. I honestly wish it was a lot better because I think West Africa is an EXTREMELY underused setting for film, which is a shame because it is such an interesting place.
I like how this channel shows and portrays African history. I dislike how it politicizes it and the strawmaning and attacking of modern political opponents that comes with it.
History is inherently political, nerd. Go back to playing HOI4 and try getting a girlfriend so yoy can know the warmth of a woman at least once in your life before doing a Columbine at your local high school
@@jojomojo508 History is not inherently political. History is a discussion about what may have factually happened in the past. Not a debate about the morality of it.
Hey @ fromnothing you continue to do a great job and analysis on all things dealing with African history. As a history professor myself I saw many of the corks that you mentioned in the video. My personal opinion on the lighter completed young women is that the movie should have done a backstory. Many ports along West Africa had European traders who would have mixed race children to create diplomatic connections with those populations they were in alliance with. Secondly I think movie goers should approach this movie as not being historically accurate. But what the movie does show is the complexities of the African identity, personal and historical scenarios that many of our ancestors faced. We have to remember that there were always push and pull factors for all people and we cant judge them by 21st century standards. Lastly I think that it was important to show the religious practices of Ifa and not make it to be something scary and evil. Even though the kingdom of Dahomey largely practiced Vodun, its still showed it in a manner which did not demonize ancient African spirituality. Again I appreciate what you and HomeTeam are doing. Keep it up.
Any movie set in west and central Africa during the 17 to 1800s will likely be dealing with Africans who sold slaves to Europeans. I think some of the critics don't realize this. Dahomey wasn't the only kingdom selling slaves. Lookup the rest of this article. "But the sad truth is that the conquest and capture of Africans and their sale to Europeans was one of the main sources of foreign exchange for several African kingdoms for a very long time. Slaves were the main export of the kingdom of Kongo; the Asante Empire in Ghana exported slaves and used the profits to import gold. Queen Njinga, the brilliant 17th-century monarch of the Mbundu, waged wars of resistance against the Portuguese but also conquered polities as far as 500 miles inland and sold her captives to the Portuguese. When Njinga converted to Christianity, she sold African traditional religious leaders into slavery, claiming they had violated her new Christian precepts." Source: Ending the Slavery Blame-Game By Henry Louis Gates Jr.
I dunno; The Dahomey were slave drivers in real life and I don’t care about the skin color of slave drivers at all. I hate all slave drivers. If the Confederacy was portrayed this way, there’d be hell to pay. Wait…
There has always been light skin Black’s All over Africa even before European and Arab invasion blacks in all shades brown, light, dark, jet black or reddish skin as someone who’s been to different parts of Africa.
The Europeans did not necessarily invade, the traders could also just stay as in Timboktu or the interaction of the Amazigh after the Roman era or in the Roman era.
The boycott thing was really stupid and entirely politically motivated because this was a film with black people in it like these people will praise films like 300 in the same breathe, another thing is that ah buying slaves doesn’t absolve one of owning them
The young girl trainee did not have an affair with the mixed-race man. She had a conversation with him. A wise teacher chooses the kinds of consequences or punishments to be meted out. Her restraint produced a more loyal and effective warrior as a result. Ultimately, the girl freely chose to remain an Agoji.
This content creator didn’t mention that they replacing the slave trade with the Palm all trade. The palm oil would still be work done by slaves.(this movie is not good for the preservation of African history.) I do not recommend people go out and watch this.
You do realize slaver is a part of every culture right? Especially considering that one either killed their enemies or enslaved them, not imprison them.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU(I disagree with that) slavery is not a part of modern day culture(seeing as how almost every country has ended slavery)(regardless of culture)(or ethnicity)
It’s so hard to get a historically accurate movie from Hollywood (or any film producer), but there are some that are closer than others. Thanks for your review.
It appears to be somewhere ranging from the sixteenth to eighteenth century. One clue is Fernando Po (now Bioko) is shown as Portuguese. Portugal ceded its (unenforced) claim of the island to Spain in 1778 in exchange for Uruguay.
The case of the light skinned very likely mixed African girl reminds me a lot of race in Mexico. A lot of people are mixed theres no ways ignoring it. But because of how messed up light skinnedness is valued lighter skinned Indios try to pass as “white” like the Spanish and other European descended Mexicans or the Meztizos that look white. But genetically we know most people aren’t totally white if even. And usually we can tell with our own eyes whose mostly or fully Indio and fully or had a recent white ancestor. Take Narcos: Mexico which did really good casting with nearly all Mexican characters matching their irl ethnicity / phenotype. And then there was Diego Luna whose half white who stands out a lot from the rest of the cast. Some have Spanish heritage but you can tell Diego Luna is actually half white from his skin tone versus the mostly Meztizo and Indio cast (you really notice in his scenes with Tenoch Huerta who is super Indigenous Mexican. And actually Huerta’s characters gf is played by a Swedish Mexicana actress and you really see which people in Mexico are genuinely white versus mixed). All in all, you weren’t off based. Its just sad phenotype even being noted is turned into a matter of controversy if you even note it.
Welp, I finally watched the movie, now I can finally watch this video My thoughts on the movie were relatively the same; I thought it was a great watch! Not perfect but so worth the wait! The dialogue (especially the banter between characters) was really good and it was nice to see an unapologetically African centered movie from Hollywood, despite a few slip ups here and there.
The movie remined me of how to get away with murder but with a African Kingdom lol. Was a pretty good film but im more of a an of the Oyo empire kind of guy an I didnt like how they where portrayed as pure evil. Hopefully the next kingdom that gets a movie is the Kush empire. Love to see Queen Amanirenas rise to power an the kushite kick some Roman empire butt after Rome conquered Egypt.
Why does it have to be a queen. Can we finally get. Lack men seen as positive cause I'm a out suck of this femin¡st narrative all balck men are bad wimps or dumb.
Nah, better, when the nubyans defeated the arabs, that had far more merit. Or gringo empire wont enable any kind of criticism against their petro$ factory?
A discussion on colorism? Let's dig in. But also, have you considered that the Portuguese fathered children with local women? Does it have to be vocally mentioned in the film for you to feel comfortable?
@@cavaugnsharkey2699 I think intermarriage betwixt the two wasn't just one off. It actually was a key to trade, even the slave trade. It's an important conversation to be had, and maybe they should have had it to eliminate confusion.
@@cavaugnsharkey2699Mixture was so common in Africa that there are ethnic groups such as the Fulanis who are related to the Eurasians, Nile Sharians, Amazigh and etc.
As an edo Guy im happy my kingdom independantly ended the slave trade of course they did sell some slaves after the male ban im just happy it wasnt rampant like kongo benin oyo etc
thats the biggest Problem they didnt just take one empire that had slavery they took the slave empire that couldnt survive without slaves . how is it that somehow randomly Picking an african civilization they take Not only the civilization but also the time peroid where slavery was so Important? thats like randomly Picking an european power and just "randomly" selecting nazi germany and swoop under the rock most blatant evil parts and saying they werent that bad. also why is the defense to these points always but the europeans did it too? that doesnt make it better and last i checked not many people side with rome and Crassus during the third serville war.
I'd like to add that I know many unmixed WA with fairly light skin tone, not unlike the odd character in that still shot. My theory on the light skin character is this;; the filmmakers/casting directors made concerted effort to find actors with very dark skin tone. This effort actually creates an unnatural distribution of skin tone in that insge, resulting in that one character standing out. In reality, not all full blooded West Africans bare jet black. The descents of the Amazon's are still alive, I believe there was even a video on UA-cam and not all of them are jet black.
It’s not skin complexion but the girl being mixed Aka not black. Though it’s a minor thing on this stuff which many issues arise in this film and this is a small tiny little thing
@@makeytgreatagain6256 I don't think she is, not in a definite sense(Far from a Meaghan Markle type). She's just lighter than the other actresses in that scene.
@@Morgue12free yeah I think that as well. Still dunno why FromNothing made a big deal over it, I mean the fact that they made a dim glorifying a tyrant king and made him out as a good guy is something he should have dedicated the first few mins of his stuff on instead.
It's because I feel strongly about people having this monolithic view of what it means to be African or African American and I think that portraying her in that role exemplified that.
I always enjoy hearing from your base of knowledge, but the biggest complaint about the movie from my prospective was that they couldn't bother to make a positive movie about an African person, kingdom, or empire. Instead they just pulled another cup of plot from the slavery well. I find it disgusting that with 20,000+ years of history to make a movie about, they chose a slave trader nation... Sigh.
Did you actually watch the movie? The movie was not about the slave trade, the movie was about a woman becoming a king after defeating a tribal oppressor. Consider watching the movie.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU That's not what happened in history. Again, they could have covered something positive and uplifting. If they just made up a kingdom than that would be great, but they didn't. And, no. I will not watch or support this. In the same way you shouldn't watch or support romantization of plantation owners. They are throwing crumbs to a dog and expecting to be praised for their generosity.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU I don't need to see Birth of a Nation to decry it. You are ignoring my point to defend something you enjoyed. If you did enjoy it, I respect that, but I would rather they highlight success instead of candy coat the history of that state.
@@icthulu You are unable to say they candy coated anything if you have not watched it, You make no sense. The point of the Birth Of a nation is about racism, in order to be able to have a discussion about it one would need to watch it, otherwise all you can say its about racism, you can't go into any form of detail about it.
If this is how they treat Sub Saharan African presentation movie theater films then i would hate to imagine how they would treat a Native Oceanian one especially a Australian Aboriginal one yeah.
Did you saw the black pigeon criticism in the movie? 6:28 One thing is make a movie about a nation who benefited from slave trade, something most nations have done in history, and other is do it about a well known of cruel enslavers sayings they did not liked it. They didnt portrayed their crual training methods wich possible inspired MArtin for the Unsullied conditioning. That is like portray nazis as: We are genociding in self defense, in fact we are nice. 9:05 Yes, I too hate 300 movies. Not even that is the story told by one spartan justify all the crap that apears. Not jut entertainment, Im sure it was propaganda for a possible invasion of Iran. It too says the movie denies that the women used gunpowder, or at least I heard that. Too, the movie promotes racial hate. Just the beginnning explanation, everyone is a enslaver, but only europeans are called that. It says movie is good because there are no white saviors. So, to avoid to say the effort England was putting to end slavery in this time is good for politics? Yes, for hate politics. Thanks for show too how the movie doesnt shows true militar training and discipline. Feminists seem to wanna show that women dont need the harsh miiar training. The movie too lies saying they were superhumans, is obvious they werent seeing that french easily defeated them. You gave me a oponion of the movie even worse that I had.
the palm oil production defense was the worst one. like where do you think all the slaves arrived to at least the ones who survived the Trip? to plantations and guess what were you get palm oil? and such a drastic switch from revenue requires stalinist efforts .
@@laisphinto6372 Not so bad, in the end they did it. But they wre liars not showing wat the vudeo commented, switched>lower profit>better return to export slaves>forced to switch after the ocean commmerc ban.
@@laisphinto6372 from agriculture? And what has to do, with stalin, as the European wokers at that time didn't have the same exploitative treatment? Also, it wasn't a defense, it was an alternative to a market, which was damaging the kingdom manpower resources.
@@yannmouy8935 Not the same, sure? If you would have said to a russian peasant of the time that he doesnt know what is explotation, he would had taken it really bad. Dixie enslavers made with the blacks in a big amount the things their ancestros did with the peasants in England.
@@adamnesico yes and? Explotation still exist today and its bad we know it, but if you comparing 19th century explotation (which unfortunately was worldwide), to stalin one were millions die, then you are out of reality.
Based. I am fascinated by West and Central African history, folklore, religion, and philosophy, and I love that you explore this kind of topic without falling into the trap of Hoteppery that someone with an inferiority complex would. I appreciate you presenting this realistically, with nuance, complexity, and an obvious hunger for knowledge.
I saw it twice. 1) It clearly mentions that they acknowledged they partook in the slave trade. 2) There is no fighting between them and the Europeans, the movie is less about the slave trade and more about tribal warfare. It was a great movie!
They act like they were forced to it by Europeans and that they actually don't want to participate in it at all, despite this system being established millenia before the arrival of Europeans, that and dahomey's participation in the slave tradewhich it thrived off of. This was the main criticism of the movie, no one said that they didn't acknowledge the slave trade, just that they thrived off of it
@@retf8977 You clearly did not watch the movie, as I literally said they acknowledged partaking in the slave trade , no place in the movie does it show they were forced to it by the Europeans, in the movie they acknowledge that they were wrong. How could the slave trade be established before the Europeans came? Who did they sell the slaves to? The only slave trade that was before the Europeans were the Arab slave trade and that was initiated by Muslims. In general most African kingdoms had two choices with their enemies Kill them or enslave them. Which makes logical sense , a prison system like we have today for ones enemies is a waste of resources, so kill their enemy or enslave them which makes perfect sense.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU Yes, thy did, but in the movies it was like: We do because europeans forced us to, we did not wanted. And deliberately using a language of racial hate. In fact, english asked the king to stop the trade. The video said cleary there was even a coup for restore slavery, for the restorer slavery was a source of prestige.
1) They may have mentioned it but the issue is that Dahomey's economy revolved around warfare and slave trading. That was their whole culture and way of life. Ghezo was put on the throne by a Brazilian slave trader Francisco Felix de Souza. Ghezo was actually a decent man who tried to reform the culture but it was to no avail. Palm Oil was just not that lucrative for Dahomey. He ended up pursuing the slave trade and even protested European abolition of it. 2. Did you watch the end of the movie? They do fight Europeans. The Agojie attack a slave fort and kill the slavers. That's historically ridiculous. Dahomey surpassed their neighbors in slave trading.
We are such a hypocritical group of people. We are the biggest complainers of historical and racial inaccuracies yet do it to ourselves and its ok cause inguess black girl power of something. These were the second biggest slave traders on the planet and yet the most brutal and the movie was packaged up as something to cheer for. Can't complain about one thing but then go ahead and do it ourselves. Oh and let's not forget the other agenda where it men are bad woman are good and more powerful blah blah.
he tries somehow to view in a vacoom and finds the outrage unjustified. lets not ignore the fact that this movie is just one of long list of terrible Hollywood movies that hamfists propoganda to make woman look good by being as masculine as possible also the whole media circus that literally begins with the movie title
@@laisphinto6372 yup and black panthernis about to fall right in line with it. Hollyweird keeps with the same failed groupe of women good no matter what men bad and our own women contribute to this. Glad it's flopping to be honest, cost 50 mill to make, 25 mill or so to advertise, but only made 19 first week out. Think it's at 34 at this point. Glad to see our people not wanting to see our enslavers be glorified on TV and forced to cheer for them.
Hey, hey it's ok buddy. You can just hate and fear women. You don't have to hide that. It's perfectly acceptable to be honest about your issues online. No one actually knows who you are here. You're safe.
@@Jay-ho9io this is extremely ignorant type of sign language maam. Shaming tactics Don't work on men like it used to because we know what your doing. Instead of the ad hominem attacks how about maybe actually say something intelligent to combat what I said.
Good work mentioning the abolishing of slavery in African kingdoms like Benin. There's a growibg trend these days with people tending towards a believe that African kingdoms were pro Slavery.
Great video I liked the movie overall. Never realized it got so much hate till looking it up after watching it. I wished you had discussed the set and their costumes and the filming location more and how accurate or not they were, because regardless of any inaccuracy, they were pretty beautiful !
I actually enjoyed the review overall until the comment at the end of people that take issue with the film over their “invalid issues”. That’s far too judgmental, especially when there are legitímate historícal díscrepancies and they have just as much right to their opiníon as you do to yours.
I see nothing judgment about calling an issue invalid if it's literally just untrue. So many people are crying about how the movie is glorifying Dahomey as champions of anti-slavery and how the white man is pure evil when in reality the movie highlights the roles of Dahomey, Oyo, and Europe in the practice and there are debates amongst court officials both for it and against it. With that being said, the issues are indeed invalid as they are based purely on assumptions.
@@FromNothing Both the film trailers and this review, portrayed the Dahomey as RELUCTANT słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe. Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a NEW threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a FOREIGN enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned) What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years beføre Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it). This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
@@theman9048 You misunderstood what I wrote and then added GTFHO, so maybe next time don’t be so quick to go to insults when you’re wrong. He made the same argument in his review that the movie also made in the trailer. Both were factually incorrect, in a movie that was supposed to be based on a true story.
Just a quick point, 300 is a bad example of Hollywood being historically inaccurate as the movie is framed as a Spartan story being told before their battle with the Persians. So of course they're gonna "massage" the truth. Brave heart is a good one if you want low hanging fruit.
Sorry, not even being told by a spartan justifies the seudo christian bullcrap in the story, a spartan wouldnt had said they whorshipped satan, and their king died in a christian parable. braveheart has a lot of lies, but none of them affect its core message of rebellion.
As a Beninese and descent of royal line, I really appreciated the movie when I watched it. Not totally accurate but overall a great movie. I loved how they tried really hard to speak the langage in some parts, it was beautiful. I'm discovering your channel, great content so far. Keep up!
The problem is that many viewers (right or wrong) will assume that the assertion 'based on true events' will be indicative of a reasonably high degree of fact. More so if the narrative is an attractive one ... thing is, the movie industry collectively knows this and often applies selective manipulation for various reasons like an ideological nudge.
what i dont get about these defenders of this movie is that we have to pretend this is done out of love and not a political aganda especially since day one they spoke heavily politically about this movie ,also the fact that many lackluster to garbage movies have been produced by Hollywood and their go to strategy to avoid criticsm is calling everyone racist by simply hiring black people as actors and throw them in as meatshields. also how tone deaf the trailer ,the Publicity and the potrayal was that literally scream "how Americans think african people acted" didnt surprise me anymore that two white women are the bosses of that movie
The film trailers and this review portrayed them as rełuctant słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe. Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a new threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a foreign enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned) What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years befure Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it). This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
4:26 We must not forget that since West Africa is a place of a lot of trade, it was not unusual to see the mixed groups of Iberians, Jews and Amazigh who were always in the region trading.
Many films have some historical inaccuracies in them. For example, Tombstone showed Wyatt Earp visiting Doc Holiday right before Holiday died. That didn't happen in history. Not a huge deal. But rewriting history by making the Dahomey fighting against the Europeans to keep slaves from being taken from Africa, when in fact the Europeans were there at that time to stop slavery and the Dahomey were fighting to keep slavery, is a totally different thing. That level of liberty being taken is not artistic license but a full blown political agenda and it teaches people false history for an VERY important issue. That is not acceptable at all. And make no mistake, that switch was done deliberately and for a political agenda. It's orders of magnitude above the typical liberty that a film takes with history. They should be called out for it. All races have taken and held slaves, and all races have been slaves. It's wrong no matter who does it.
And Leonidas in '300' blabs on about fighting for freedom while being the king of a nation where 70% of the population is slaves, yet that movie got nothing but praise when it came out. The controversy against 'Woman King' has nothing to do with people being concerned about historicity, and everything to do with the continuous ramping up of culture war bs.
@@chuckinator11 No. You are missing the point. 300 didn't have a story where the Spartans were fighting against slavery while in history they held slaves. 300 just ignored the slave aspect of their civilization. The problem with Woman King is that the society was a slaveholding society in reality at the time the film is said to take place, but in the film they are fighting against slavery. And the people who are slavers in the film were in reality at that time and place fighting against slavery. Woman King swapped who was pro slavery and who was anti slavery. And that was done on purpose for a political agenda. 300 just ignored the whole slave issue so that is not the same thing at all. Woman King is grossly distorting a very important historical subject, and doing it on purpose. Willfully misleading people. It absolutely deserves to be called out on it.
Based on your comment I take it you didn't even watch the movie. Because your comment is just incorrect. They weren't "fighting against slavery." Uhh no. They were fighting for independence from the Oyo Kingdom whom forced them to pay slaves as tribute. Their goal post-independence was to shift their economy away from dependence on the slave trade. That is historically accurate depending on the king in question. Ghezo (portrayed in the movie was not one of them)
The main criticism that should be leveled against this movie isn't the issue of slavery, it should be the strong feminist undertones that are really anti-black male . Hollywood finally produces a film about an actual African kingdom and what do we get, a heavily fictionalized story. The movie depicts black men in the background of an nation they created & lead. The Agoji battalion was assigned to guard the king, the royal family & the palace, they acted always in a support role to the Dahomey army which was comprised of male warriors. In addition to showing black men in the background, king Ghezo played by John Boyega is shown as cowardly & effeminate, leaving Viola Davis character to assume a more masculine role. Without going into details the Agoji's biggest enemy isn't the French who are there to enslave & eventually colonize, it's actually a unit of male soldiers of the Oyo kingdom led by an brutal/evil general.
@@KSmithwick1989 , It doesn't matter, much of the movie isn't accurate! Viola Davis character" Nanisca" never even existed however she wears the pants in the kingdom. The French are showed in this film & yes the Agoji take them on rather easily. So in a heavily fictionalized war drama supposedly base on a true story, a little thing like 60 years time difference is nothig to overcome.
@@glennpeterson2477 Also I find your idea 60 years is not significant as hilarious. Given the French weren't a significant presence, until roughly 30 years after the film takes place. That 60 years is also a difference between the French using Charleville muskets. To the 8-shot, bolt-action Lebel 1886s they used in the Battle of Adégon. The battle people keep referring to, but conveniently never seem to cite details, other than losses. Such as the French fighting from a fortified position. The introduction of specialized 20 inch bayonets. Or the exaggeration of the bayonet charge's role in the battle. Because why mostly rely on a bayonet. When your rifle can fire 8-shots before reloading. While your enemy is armed with spears, swords, and muskets. 😆
regarding human trafficking, i would prefer to know the life of enslaved trafficked people before the europeans entered the scene. As slavery was a foundation of every empire that has ever existed, before it became twisted into a melanin contest between western europeans and west and central africans!
I know. I already mentioned the Igbo in this video. These warriors are Fon though, not Igbo. And that girl is literally the ONLY one that is light skinned.
@@FromNothing I understand, my bro. Just wanted you to know there are people more "light skinned" than her because you said we (west Africans) are not often as light skinned as her. And yes, we're mostly dark and chocolate. Keep up the good work!
This is like arguing how accurate a Hercules movie is. It is all pure conjecture the further back in time you go. You know people knew the Earth was round in Christopher Columbuses time? The idea they thought it was flat was created by a writer trying to sell more books hundreds of years later and that took on because modern people like to pretend they are mentally superior to those of the past besides just being technologically smarter or having made a few more discoveries.
Who has criticized Hercules movies for not being accurate? Well, my favourite one was quite accurate, is the one who covered most of the legend Ive seen. Yes, the Depardieu movie of Colon had many mistakes and wasnt honest hiding Colons brutality.
This isn't a children's animated musical about literal gods, this is a movie for adults about violence and slavery. It is expected to be more accurate. Also this movie doesn't really take place that long ago compared to Hercules, sure there is always conjecture to some extent but are you saying we should just ignore history books because we weren't there? we have history books on this time period that document things more than you probably realize.
so a south african somehow comes up to west africa and chills there and is important in dahomey? thats like taking an sicilian and throwing him into britain or sweden.
To me, this movie should have received Oscar Awards recognition. This was a great movie, despite trying to thread the needle and not upset Africans or Europeans too much. There is still too much underlying racism in Hollywood to produce authentically, historically correct accounts of Africans successfully pushing back the White European's horrible slave trade tyranny and practices. This is also why the need to include more historically correct teaching in schools is critical to ending this institutionalized racism that has proven to still be thistles in the bodies of melanated people around the world.
9:00 you have to judge history in the context of the time, in the era of 300, the Greek city states were mostly democracies, and even oligarchies like Sparta, had clear limitations on the power of the leaders. ---> Compare that to ancient Persia, in which the kings were heralded as gods, didn't value science as much, and constant prostration was expected from all members of society.
I think you spent too much time discussing an otherwise irrelevant character in the set (the light skin woman). I do agree though on the movie getting extreme hate for the fact that Dahomey was basically another slave state from the region is ridiculous: people who is trying to cancel the movie for that is hypocritical; still, the movie is having a relatively decent box-office & very positive user reviews (85% last time I checked): which proves once more that both wokes & racists talk too loud, but still have pitiful power to drive the masses. From my perspective: everyone did the same at some point, but we need a hero & a villain. Dahomey-Allada, Oyo, Ouidah, Abomey, Ketou, Hogbonu... someone had to be the good guy. & they did mention that Dahomey was an slavery state & the Mahi tribesmen captured at the beginning ended up as slaves: otherwise Nanisca would have not proposed to "end it" in the first place. Nothing else than adding these elephant hunters to my list of favorite historical dramas. Btw, those king's wives... wow.
Seriously why do people act like this is the first time Hollywood has done this, look at 300 in the movie they made them sound like they were anti slavery and fighting for democracy which is nowhere near true Sparta was a military dictatorship whose economy depended on slaves. Or the multiple Viking series where we glorify people who were murderers, rapist, raiders and slavers who sold other Europeans to the Middle East. So why is there an outcry here but none of does series get a mention because their doing the same thing. That being said while this movie has some inaccuracies as this video pointed out. It could be the first step in future movies about African civilizations who hopefully get more attention to details in the future. Two movies I would like to see is one during the battle of Kirina that lead to the rise of the Mali Empire or the war of the Golden stool
@@FromNothing agreed, hey I also like your ATL videos I hope to see more in the future, I’m actually curious about something and would like to ask someone with such a extensive knowledge of African history and culture. If the Tsetse fly went extinct or never existed how would that effect African development in this ATL.
Ummm… you didn’t actually talk about a the REAL problem. Like how they minimize their involvement in the slave trade…. You can point at europeans all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Dahomey would invade other tribes and trade them with goods, and they really weren’t happy when that business stopped . You also don’t talk about what they did to their own slaves. Am not trying to antagonize them, that’s how most cultures were back then. But i wish you would have made a more sincere review of it. Like saying that, this movie like the others historical movies done by Hollywood was one-sides and didn’t represent the reality of what happened and that we shouldn’t expect documentary level of accuracy to a movie that was made to entertain. And the marking for that movie was SO BAD🤦🏾♀️*sigh*
I agree with you, they fought to keep enłaving, even when it was being stopped already (by the Bríts). That’s not a “reluctant” people that would rather sell “palm oil”.
I assume neither of you actually even watched the movie. If you did then you'd know how totally and utterly invalid your argument is. See this is my point. So many people like you are ASSUMING they don't talk about this type of stuff but they do. The Dahomey DO capture slaves in the movie. They DO pay them as tribute to the Oyo Empire and they DO sell them to Europeans. So I don't know where you guys are getting these assumptions. That's exactly my problem with it. A 10:1 dislike to like ratio all because of baseless assumptions like this assuming there is some racial agenda when that's simply just not true. Like literally an untrue assessment.
@@FromNothing The OP and I never said they didn’t “talk about it”, you’re making a straw man àrgument. The film trailers and this review portrayed them as RELUCTANT słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe. Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a NEW threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a FOREÍGN enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned) What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years befure Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it). This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
@@FromNothing I said they MINIMIZE their involvement and how invested their were in the trades. Stop acting like they weren’t romanticizing them, that movie was an one-side “is all europeans fault not us” b*llshit. And what racial agenda? I clearly said the historical Hollywood movies always does inaccurate one-sided stories. I criticize YOU for not being sincere about the review of the movie and avoiding the ACTUEL reason why the movie was criticize
Hmm being a West African I think your light skin problem is strange being that there are naturally light-skinned unmixed West African men and women. You just see them less because most light skin people in America are mixed. Most light-skinned people in West Africa are not mixed they are just light skinned.
I didn't like the fact that the Oyo soldiers in the film had turbans. It continued to grate on my nerves throughout the time I was watching the movie. Oyo was a pagan kingdom, south of the Western Sudan. While Muslims and 'Muslim' garb were not unknown to the Oyo, turbans were not part of traditional Oyo get-up. They had an assortment of hats/caps very different from turbans.
Oh my God, Jabari. Not you, too. I am West African, Southern Nigerian. There are people in my family with skin so light you can't believe it! Of course the vast majority of West Africans have a very dark-skinned tone. But every now and then one encounters individuals in the region with very very light skin, like that girl (and I don't mean albinos). Since it was just her, I wouldn't make too much of it; I'd just count her as one of the outliers scattered throughout West Africa. I would have raised an eyebrow if there were loads of light skinned people.
Personally, I still have trouble with just the Tittle. Why not call her a Queen ? This "woman King" name is just weird. Not that she was really one by any means
@@LiquidSoul06 I'm unconvinced. The word Queen exists, and if Queen isn't appropriate, then the word "King" isn't appropriate either. But well, I've got no clue what the title actually was, though, so you could be right
I feel like this movie got the Vikings treatment. They had a perfectly good story based on legends and historical fact, but CHOSE to change it into a Hollywood trope that's not nearly as interesting, and to thise descended from the people, downright offensive
Hi Jabari and all you good people , yes I saw it, although bootlegged version, as it is not out in Japan , I think the explanation of the light skinned Agoji trainee , was mentioned in the Book called Amazon of Black Sparta, by someone who saw her, it’s one of the book I recommend , and yes liberties were taken , it’s not a damned documentary or bio pic, it clearly states, *Based off True Events* but what pisses me off more than anything, is some Black Men bitchin about Black female agency or empowerment, this they joined with the most rabid white supremacist to drive down viewership , I say to them , write script and offer it up to be made, but stop bitchin about black women shining, and yes support those who made the effort, this is one of the reason why Black folks can’t have nice things .
I literally mentioned the Igbo and Fulani (both of which are found in Nigeria) as examples of people who can sometimes have lighter complexions. Did you miss that part?
@@FromNothing you did mention it, but you said they can never get that light skin, he’s telling you that’s wrong, there’re a lot of people light as that girl with no admixture. But like you said, just nitpicking
The actress at the beginning is from South Africa and probably not mixed. When you see this same girl being captured and exposed at the end of the movie she appears not that light. I've seen a girl from Benin republic who had this complexion and wasn't mixed
South Africa has a very large population of "Colored" people (what they call mixed people.) They also have lots of people of Khoisan ancestry. She may very well be one or both of those. Also I've never seen anyone from that region of Africa with that color and even still, she stands out like a sore thumb, as I said.
@@psa2969 All those peoples are the result of the mix with the fairer skinned khoisan. Too, Southafrican is in highr latitude, so not so much melanin is needed. The question is, how many girls like that in Benin?
@@adamnesico I don't want to drag this thread unecessarily. The Black population of South Africa has some amount admixture. with Khoisans. However, These features are also to be found in other Bantu populations in the Congo bassin from which Black South Africans descend from. My point is that statement of that actrice sticking out like a thumb is just wrong as people with such features and without admixture are to be found from the gulf of Guinea to Southern Africa.
The trailer made it seem like they used accents instead of using the languages of the region. That really turned me off of this, it’s 2022. I know it’s asking a lot but English with accents feels old timey in a bad way.
No they didn't lose the war. In both the movie and in real life the Dahomey Agoji or as you put it "Gay looking women" defeated the Oyo Empire. Based on your comment I assume you didn't even watch the movie considering you assume that their primary antagonists were the French. That's wrong. The only white people in the movie were the Portuguese. Friendly word of advice, watch the movie before judging.
Well, we got the Northman this year, so i for sure can survive a historical movie or two that are not entirely accurate and even a bit hollywood esque, will watch
the northman was mainly so good because how accurate it was . if we want a fantasy movie "based on true events" we have wakanda or all the bullshit medieval Hollywood movies where you can cut through armor and everyone is dirty for no reason
I’m skipping this for now. Dahomey just isn’t something I find all that interesting and don’t want to see a Hollywood version of African history. I’d rather see an African history film with no whites in it i.e. Tilai, Guimba the Tyrant (it’s a fantasy film but set in the past) and Yeelen (same case as Guimba set in the past too). I like the video and always look forward to what’s coming.
@@spiffygonzales5160 why is it sketchy, Africa had a history before Europeans popped up.. While parts of subsaharean africa had contact with europe since ancient times, large parts didn't ... these places still has a history
Tell me you didn't live through the '80s without telling me you didn't live through the 80s or any decade before that. There's literally a trope in Us Media about painting the South as some kind of noble loss cause. I mean it's absolutely repugnant but it's definitely a thing.
UA-cam is throttling this video, as in, I keep having to pause to let this video buffer while I have two other devices streaming 1080P, and even another tab on this computer streaming 1080P while I wait for this video to load and they aren't having any problems. Yea, this is 4K, but it's been months since I ran into buffering on anything. Strange, especially because this video isn't as harsh on the movie as some others I've watched. I still think they chose to create division with the point in history and the Kingdom they chose. 40 years later, or a more sympathetic Kingdom, and the criticisms wouldn't be as valid.
"The people of west Africa don't have that skin tone?" What's this guy smoking? Where do you think yellow bone and redbone came from? It was to denote certain west African tribes that had higher percentages of yellowish or reddish tones.
I literally already mentioned that in the video, the Igbo people in particular so if you missed it then I think you must actually be the one who is smoking something. Also she stood out like a sore thumb. She was the ONLY one in that formation of warriors or frankly the ENTIRE movie with that skin tone. I fail to see how I'm wrong for finding that strange.
It honestly funny how they are okay with a shaka Zulu film when he was a cruel person and leader to his people
well the Dahomey did hold massive sacrifices killing thousands after a death of a King an other reasons as well
Because shaka Zulu movie didn’t romanticize anyone. Not Shaka, Not the Europeans. They were as unbiased as possible, and also showed accurate battle strategy done by the Zulu and how by underestimating them, the european lost the battle.
@@Anme96 The Zulu got lucky they never a threat
But he didn't sell his own to outsiders. Plus he wanted to fight against them.
@@joeparrigen4982 Dahomey didn’t sell their own either
One of the main problems surrounding the criticisms and backlash of the movie is that these critics build a hypothesis and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence before making a hypothesis, especially considering the fact that the majority of those critics have not even known anything about West African history prior to the introduction of the trailer. Maybe you could have covered how this film upset the general public and led to calls to boycott this film, the validity of the criticisms and backlash, the film's merits, and how a Hollywood movie could have done better depicting any West African civilization.
They just hate anything to do with Africa
Marketing and media makes people so agitated and angry these days.
The film should be portraying the Dahomey as these kind anti slavery loving hippies. They weren’t, my ancestors went to war with the Dahomey and I’m sure they knew full well if we lost we’d be enslaved, the Dahomey ironically had to call the Oyo empire to help aid them against us because we would have crushed them in battles. Though I won’t hate on the kingdom cos we all have our evil bones but the Dahomey amazons in this film are very against slavery which is silly
@@makeytgreatagain6256 which ethnic group are you from?
@@THEONLYOBA from many but the group that went to war with them were the Asante. Yes I’m aware we were also cruel at times, but that’s not the point the point is this film is made putting the Dahomey as an liberal esque group when like ancient Sparta they ere anything but liberal
It’s really sad how much criticism and backlash this movie got especially from the black community. We finally got an African period movie and all I see are black people hating on it cus it’s not entirely accurate. Name me the medieval that was 100% accurate. You don’t see a bunch of white people super analyzing those types of movies. If the movie is bad ok then criticize it but if your main criticism is that it’s not 100% accurate then you have no real constructive criticism
It's not because white people grew tired of American mistreatment of there history that black people should do the same.
Especially when a movie is said to be "historical" and sugarcoat (you could read butcher) the main facts for pushing a political agenda they didn't ask or pledge for.
They choose the strict truth over catchy lies and I think it's very noble of them.
"you don't see bunch of white people super analyzing those kind of movies" what? 😅 Of course there is a lot of ignorants who doesn't care about anything, but others does care and there is huge community of ppl who praise historical accuracy of any film and really give it backlash it deserves. Like recently published most expensive film in history of czech cinematography "Medieval" about czech best warlord and strategist Jan Žižka... I am not proud of it, it's pure shit, just don't watch it please.
@@Tkoutlosh Why you say the Jan movie is so bad?
Not entirely accurate?
What would you think of a movie portrayig the dixies as people desiring to leave slavery and saying they will abolish it once they win they war?
That is the level of historical lie of the movie.
Problm of the movie is portraying as good people with same or worse moral level than the enslavers you hate so much only because they were violent women.
And you are wrong, whites superanalize the movies and comment their mistakes.
5:30 the shields are indeed not Yoruba... but Cameroonese
The shields are actually Nigerian mofu shield
They're not Nigerian
I think they addressed the issue of light-skinned warriors and diversity when they explained that some were captured and/or kidnapped and given the choice to become warriors, therefore, treaded as part of the sisterhood
Captured from where?
THANK YOU i've been searching for someone who could talk of the historical accuracy of this movie without the cringy "you know we should celebrate the English because THEY fought against slavery" part.
Also, as a modern-day practicioner of african-derived religions in Brazil (with HEAVY emphasis on the Yoruba Orixás), it's always nice to see references to Oyo and the Orixá religion. The Ifá divination system is still used today and widely spread in Brazil
They did block our ports though...
The English probably knew that if they could abolish slavery they could colonize weak Africa.
I thought the movie was just okay, not bad, just okay. I honestly wish it was a lot better because I think West Africa is an EXTREMELY underused setting for film, which is a shame because it is such an interesting place.
I like how this channel shows and portrays African history.
I dislike how it politicizes it and the strawmaning and attacking of modern political opponents that comes with it.
History is inherently political, nerd. Go back to playing HOI4 and try getting a girlfriend so yoy can know the warmth of a woman at least once in your life before doing a Columbine at your local high school
@@jojomojo508 wow that strawman there, i think you even did a bit of projection with the virgin part 🤣
@@geardestroy Look up what a strawman is cause I don't think you know
My guy you clearly don't care about African History.
@@jojomojo508
History is not inherently political. History is a discussion about what may have factually happened in the past. Not a debate about the morality of it.
Hey @ fromnothing you continue to do a great job and analysis on all things dealing with African history. As a history professor myself I saw many of the corks that you mentioned in the video. My personal opinion on the lighter completed young women is that the movie should have done a backstory. Many ports along West Africa had European traders who would have mixed race children to create diplomatic connections with those populations they were in alliance with. Secondly I think movie goers should approach this movie as not being historically accurate. But what the movie does show is the complexities of the African identity, personal and historical scenarios that many of our ancestors faced. We have to remember that there were always push and pull factors for all people and we cant judge them by 21st century standards. Lastly I think that it was important to show the religious practices of Ifa and not make it to be something scary and evil. Even though the kingdom of Dahomey largely practiced Vodun, its still showed it in a manner which did not demonize ancient African spirituality. Again I appreciate what you and HomeTeam are doing. Keep it up.
Any movie set in west and central Africa during the 17 to 1800s will likely be dealing with Africans who sold slaves to Europeans. I think some of the critics don't realize this. Dahomey wasn't the only kingdom selling slaves.
Lookup the rest of this article.
"But the sad truth is that the conquest and capture of Africans and their sale to Europeans was one of the main sources of foreign exchange for several African kingdoms for a very long time. Slaves were the main export of the kingdom of Kongo; the Asante Empire in Ghana exported slaves and used the profits to import gold. Queen Njinga, the brilliant 17th-century monarch of the Mbundu, waged wars of resistance against the Portuguese but also conquered polities as far as 500 miles inland and sold her captives to the Portuguese. When Njinga converted to Christianity, she sold African traditional religious leaders into slavery, claiming they had violated her new Christian precepts."
Source:
Ending the Slavery Blame-Game
By Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Why would they sell slaves to import gold something they had so much abundance copper was considered more valuable
@@tyronechillifoot5573
I was wondering about that. Maybe Henry Louis Gates meant something else that they imported.
@@CrowdPleezastraight up lies
@@CrowdPleezaperhaps he meant import gold from elsewhere in Africa
I dunno; The Dahomey were slave drivers in real life and I don’t care about the skin color of slave drivers at all. I hate all slave drivers. If the Confederacy was portrayed this way, there’d be hell to pay. Wait…
There has always been light skin Black’s All over Africa even before European and Arab invasion blacks in all shades brown, light, dark, jet black or reddish skin as someone who’s been to different parts of Africa.
when you look at all old slave pictures and n America, there are never any light skin people unless the ones who are in the house.
all over Africa indeed but like in any other part of the world divided by ethnicitys.
The Europeans did not necessarily invade, the traders could also just stay as in Timboktu or the interaction of the Amazigh after the Roman era or in the Roman era.
The boycott thing was really stupid and entirely politically motivated because this was a film with black people in it like these people will praise films like 300 in the same breathe, another thing is that ah buying slaves doesn’t absolve one of owning them
Agreed. It was cringe to say the least.
@@FromNothing like why don’t they boy films about Rome literally a massive state propped up by genocide and slavery
@@tyronechillifoot5573 Don't forgot shaka Zulu a man who was noted for being cruel person
@@FromNothing I knew a little bit of this history but I wanted to hear your opinion on this sense I haven't watched your videos in a while.
@@tyronechillifoot5573 I agree with you
The young girl trainee did not have an affair with the mixed-race man. She had a conversation with him. A wise teacher chooses the kinds of consequences or punishments to be meted out. Her restraint produced a more loyal and effective warrior as a result. Ultimately, the girl freely chose to remain an Agoji.
This content creator didn’t mention that they replacing the slave trade with the Palm all trade. The palm oil would still be work done by slaves.(this movie is not good for the preservation of African history.) I do not recommend people go out and watch this.
You do realize slaver is a part of every culture right? Especially considering that one either killed their enemies or enslaved them, not imprison them.
Sorry but most african tribes practice slavery
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU(I disagree with that) slavery is not a part of modern day culture(seeing as how almost every country has ended slavery)(regardless of culture)(or ethnicity)
@@birdcagegood2972 two words...... human trafficking. It still happens even in developed countries like the United States.
@@professoraregbesola3490 illegal human trafficking.
It’s so hard to get a historically accurate movie from Hollywood (or any film producer), but there are some that are closer than others. Thanks for your review.
Just out of curiosity, what timeframe does the map shown at 6:00 represent?
It appears to be somewhere ranging from the sixteenth to eighteenth century. One clue is Fernando Po (now Bioko) is shown as Portuguese. Portugal ceded its (unenforced) claim of the island to Spain in 1778 in exchange for Uruguay.
Thanks for your comments of the film. Sound very balanced.
The case of the light skinned very likely mixed African girl reminds me a lot of race in Mexico. A lot of people are mixed theres no ways ignoring it. But because of how messed up light skinnedness is valued lighter skinned Indios try to pass as “white” like the Spanish and other European descended Mexicans or the Meztizos that look white. But genetically we know most people aren’t totally white if even. And usually we can tell with our own eyes whose mostly or fully Indio and fully or had a recent white ancestor. Take Narcos: Mexico which did really good casting with nearly all Mexican characters matching their irl ethnicity / phenotype. And then there was Diego Luna whose half white who stands out a lot from the rest of the cast. Some have Spanish heritage but you can tell Diego Luna is actually half white from his skin tone versus the mostly Meztizo and Indio cast (you really notice in his scenes with Tenoch Huerta who is super Indigenous Mexican. And actually Huerta’s characters gf is played by a Swedish Mexicana actress and you really see which people in Mexico are genuinely white versus mixed). All in all, you weren’t off based. Its just sad phenotype even being noted is turned into a matter of controversy if you even note it.
I agree but thinks strictly an New world phenomenon Aka something not found outside the Americas
Welp, I finally watched the movie, now I can finally watch this video
My thoughts on the movie were relatively the same; I thought it was a great watch! Not perfect but so worth the wait! The dialogue (especially the banter between characters) was really good and it was nice to see an unapologetically African centered movie from Hollywood, despite a few slip ups here and there.
Unapologetically?
Love your lies
6:53 where are the human skulls supporting Ghezo's throne?
It is advertized on the website for tourists going to Benin
That's incredibly metal
Well in the Dahomey Kingdom there was often a lot of human sacrifice when a king died so most likely that’s where it came from.
i call this movie "african 300" for a reason.
The movie remined me of how to get away with murder but with a African Kingdom lol. Was a pretty good film but im more of a an of the Oyo empire kind of guy an I didnt like how they where portrayed as pure evil. Hopefully the next kingdom that gets a movie is the Kush empire. Love to see Queen Amanirenas rise to power an the kushite kick some Roman empire butt after Rome conquered Egypt.
My thoughts exactly. Queen Amanirenas would be a great subject for an epic movie.
Why does it have to be a queen. Can we finally get. Lack men seen as positive cause I'm a out suck of this femin¡st narrative all balck men are bad wimps or dumb.
@@laynekobayashi2406 I hope so. I glad people like the woman king. I hope the next african movie does not involve with slavery. Not for a while. 😀
Nah, better, when the nubyans defeated the arabs, that had far more merit.
Or gringo empire wont enable any kind of criticism against their petro$ factory?
@@adamnesico Interesting ... what is a good starting point for the African-Arab conflict?
A discussion on colorism? Let's dig in.
But also, have you considered that the Portuguese fathered children with local women? Does it have to be vocally mentioned in the film for you to feel comfortable?
And how frequent was that? I highly doubt that's a good excuse to include someone of her skin tone unless she was of Igbo descent.
@@cavaugnsharkey2699 I think intermarriage betwixt the two wasn't just one off. It actually was a key to trade, even the slave trade. It's an important conversation to be had, and maybe they should have had it to eliminate confusion.
@@cavaugnsharkey2699Mixture was so common in Africa that there are ethnic groups such as the Fulanis who are related to the Eurasians, Nile Sharians, Amazigh and etc.
As an edo Guy im happy my kingdom independantly ended the slave trade of course they did sell some slaves after the male ban im just happy it wasnt rampant like kongo benin oyo etc
thats the biggest Problem they didnt just take one empire that had slavery they took the slave empire that couldnt survive without slaves . how is it that somehow randomly Picking an african civilization they take Not only the civilization but also the time peroid where slavery was so Important? thats like randomly Picking an european power and just "randomly" selecting nazi germany and swoop under the rock most blatant evil parts and saying they werent that bad. also why is the defense to these points always but the europeans did it too? that doesnt make it better and last i checked not many people side with rome and Crassus during the third serville war.
I'd like to add that I know many unmixed WA with fairly light skin tone, not unlike the odd character in that still shot.
My theory on the light skin character is this;; the filmmakers/casting directors made concerted effort to find actors with very dark skin tone. This effort actually creates an unnatural distribution of skin tone in that insge, resulting in that one character standing out.
In reality, not all full blooded West Africans bare jet black. The descents of the Amazon's are still alive, I believe there was even a video on UA-cam and not all of them are jet black.
It’s not skin complexion but the girl being mixed Aka not black. Though it’s a minor thing on this stuff which many issues arise in this film and this is a small tiny little thing
@@makeytgreatagain6256 I don't think she is, not in a definite sense(Far from a Meaghan Markle type). She's just lighter than the other actresses in that scene.
@@Morgue12free yeah I think that as well. Still dunno why FromNothing made a big deal over it, I mean the fact that they made a dim glorifying a tyrant king and made him out as a good guy is something he should have dedicated the first few mins of his stuff on instead.
It's because I feel strongly about people having this monolithic view of what it means to be African or African American and I think that portraying her in that role exemplified that.
I always enjoy hearing from your base of knowledge, but the biggest complaint about the movie from my prospective was that they couldn't bother to make a positive movie about an African person, kingdom, or empire. Instead they just pulled another cup of plot from the slavery well. I find it disgusting that with 20,000+ years of history to make a movie about, they chose a slave trader nation... Sigh.
Did you actually watch the movie? The movie was not about the slave trade, the movie was about a woman becoming a king after defeating a tribal oppressor. Consider watching the movie.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU That's not what happened in history. Again, they could have covered something positive and uplifting. If they just made up a kingdom than that would be great, but they didn't.
And, no. I will not watch or support this. In the same way you shouldn't watch or support romantization of plantation owners. They are throwing crumbs to a dog and expecting to be praised for their generosity.
@@icthulu Sir , nobody cares if you watch it or not anybody who critiques something they have not watched lacks basic common sense.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU I don't need to see Birth of a Nation to decry it. You are ignoring my point to defend something you enjoyed. If you did enjoy it, I respect that, but I would rather they highlight success instead of candy coat the history of that state.
@@icthulu You are unable to say they candy coated anything if you have not watched it, You make no sense. The point of the Birth Of a nation is about racism, in order to be able to have a discussion about it one would need to watch it, otherwise all you can say its about racism, you can't go into any form of detail about it.
If this is how they treat Sub Saharan African presentation movie theater films then i would hate to imagine how they would treat a Native Oceanian one especially a Australian Aboriginal one yeah.
Very simple: Portraying all them as afros.
Did you saw the black pigeon criticism in the movie?
6:28 One thing is make a movie about a nation who benefited from slave trade, something most nations have done in history, and other is do it about a well known of cruel enslavers sayings they did not liked it. They didnt portrayed their crual training methods wich possible inspired MArtin for the Unsullied conditioning.
That is like portray nazis as: We are genociding in self defense, in fact we are nice.
9:05 Yes, I too hate 300 movies. Not even that is the story told by one spartan justify all the crap that apears.
Not jut entertainment, Im sure it was propaganda for a possible invasion of Iran.
It too says the movie denies that the women used gunpowder, or at least I heard that.
Too, the movie promotes racial hate.
Just the beginnning explanation, everyone is a enslaver, but only europeans are called that.
It says movie is good because there are no white saviors.
So, to avoid to say the effort England was putting to end slavery in this time is good for politics? Yes, for hate politics.
Thanks for show too how the movie doesnt shows true militar training and discipline.
Feminists seem to wanna show that women dont need the harsh miiar training.
The movie too lies saying they were superhumans, is obvious they werent seeing that french easily defeated them.
You gave me a oponion of the movie even worse that I had.
the palm oil production defense was the worst one. like where do you think all the slaves arrived to at least the ones who survived the Trip? to plantations and guess what were you get palm oil? and such a drastic switch from revenue requires stalinist efforts .
@@laisphinto6372 Not so bad, in the end they did it.
But they wre liars not showing wat the vudeo commented, switched>lower profit>better return to export slaves>forced to switch after the ocean commmerc ban.
@@laisphinto6372 from agriculture? And what has to do, with stalin, as the European wokers at that time didn't have the same exploitative treatment? Also, it wasn't a defense, it was an alternative to a market, which was damaging the kingdom manpower resources.
@@yannmouy8935 Not the same, sure? If you would have said to a russian peasant of the time that he doesnt know what is explotation, he would had taken it really bad.
Dixie enslavers made with the blacks in a big amount the things their ancestros did with the peasants in England.
@@adamnesico yes and? Explotation still exist today and its bad we know it, but if you comparing 19th century explotation (which unfortunately was worldwide), to stalin one were millions die, then you are out of reality.
Based. I am fascinated by West and Central African history, folklore, religion, and philosophy, and I love that you explore this kind of topic without falling into the trap of Hoteppery that someone with an inferiority complex would. I appreciate you presenting this realistically, with nuance, complexity, and an obvious hunger for knowledge.
They're the land of the Ancients
I saw it twice. 1) It clearly mentions that they acknowledged they partook in the slave trade. 2) There is no fighting between them and the Europeans, the movie is less about the slave trade and more about tribal warfare. It was a great movie!
They act like they were forced to it by Europeans and that they actually don't want to participate in it at all, despite this system being established millenia before the arrival of Europeans, that and dahomey's participation in the slave tradewhich it thrived off of. This was the main criticism of the movie, no one said that they didn't acknowledge the slave trade, just that they thrived off of it
@@retf8977 You clearly did not watch the movie, as I literally said they acknowledged partaking in the slave trade , no place in the movie does it show they were forced to it by the Europeans, in the movie they acknowledge that they were wrong. How could the slave trade be established before the Europeans came? Who did they sell the slaves to? The only slave trade that was before the Europeans were the Arab slave trade and that was initiated by Muslims. In general most African kingdoms had two choices with their enemies Kill them or enslave them. Which makes logical sense , a prison system like we have today for ones enemies is a waste of resources, so kill their enemy or enslave them which makes perfect sense.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU Yes, thy did, but in the movies it was like: We do because europeans forced us to, we did not wanted.
And deliberately using a language of racial hate.
In fact, english asked the king to stop the trade. The video said cleary there was even a coup for restore slavery, for the restorer slavery was a source of prestige.
1) They may have mentioned it but the issue is that Dahomey's economy revolved around warfare and slave trading. That was their whole culture and way of life. Ghezo was put on the throne by a Brazilian slave trader Francisco Felix de Souza. Ghezo was actually a decent man who tried to reform the culture but it was to no avail. Palm Oil was just not that lucrative for Dahomey. He ended up pursuing the slave trade and even protested European abolition of it.
2. Did you watch the end of the movie? They do fight Europeans. The Agojie attack a slave fort and kill the slavers. That's historically ridiculous. Dahomey surpassed their neighbors in slave trading.
@@retf8977 Dahomey didn't even exist a millennia ago
There’s light skinned people in West Africa. There’s also albinos.
And there are also mixed people, for example in Timboktu there are people descended from Spaniards who arrived from the Andalusian era.
We are such a hypocritical group of people. We are the biggest complainers of historical and racial inaccuracies yet do it to ourselves and its ok cause inguess black girl power of something. These were the second biggest slave traders on the planet and yet the most brutal and the movie was packaged up as something to cheer for. Can't complain about one thing but then go ahead and do it ourselves. Oh and let's not forget the other agenda where it men are bad woman are good and more powerful blah blah.
he tries somehow to view in a vacoom and finds the outrage unjustified. lets not ignore the fact that this movie is just one of long list of terrible Hollywood movies that hamfists propoganda to make woman look good by being as masculine as possible also the whole media circus that literally begins with the movie title
@@laisphinto6372 yup and black panthernis about to fall right in line with it. Hollyweird keeps with the same failed groupe of women good no matter what men bad and our own women contribute to this. Glad it's flopping to be honest, cost 50 mill to make, 25 mill or so to advertise, but only made 19 first week out. Think it's at 34 at this point. Glad to see our people not wanting to see our enslavers be glorified on TV and forced to cheer for them.
They were not the second biggest slave traders in the planets history. Stop for no reason
Hey, hey it's ok buddy.
You can just hate and fear women. You don't have to hide that. It's perfectly acceptable to be honest about your issues online. No one actually knows who you are here. You're safe.
@@Jay-ho9io this is extremely ignorant type of sign language maam. Shaming tactics Don't work on men like it used to because we know what your doing. Instead of the ad hominem attacks how about maybe actually say something intelligent to combat what I said.
Good work mentioning the abolishing of slavery in African kingdoms like Benin. There's a growibg trend these days with people tending towards a believe that African kingdoms were pro Slavery.
That's because some were pro slavery. Like the Dahomey.
@@DaveMiller2 Some, not all.
@@cavaugnsharkey2699 Some, like Dahomey...
Great video I liked the movie overall. Never realized it got so much hate till looking it up after watching it. I wished you had discussed the set and their costumes and the filming location more and how accurate or not they were, because regardless of any inaccuracy, they were pretty beautiful !
I actually enjoyed the review overall until the comment at the end of people that take issue with the film over their “invalid issues”. That’s far too judgmental, especially when there are legitímate historícal díscrepancies and they have just as much right to their opiníon as you do to yours.
I see nothing judgment about calling an issue invalid if it's literally just untrue. So many people are crying about how the movie is glorifying Dahomey as champions of anti-slavery and how the white man is pure evil when in reality the movie highlights the roles of Dahomey, Oyo, and Europe in the practice and there are debates amongst court officials both for it and against it. With that being said, the issues are indeed invalid as they are based purely on assumptions.
@@FromNothing Both the film trailers and this review, portrayed the Dahomey as RELUCTANT słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe.
Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a NEW threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a FOREIGN enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned)
What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years beføre Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it).
This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
@@FromNothing a great way to lose objectivity is to invalidate criticism and support a distorted reality.
@@GhostSal that question is just BS. So u want him to talk about ur belief from a trailer not the actual movie. GTFOH
@@theman9048 You misunderstood what I wrote and then added GTFHO, so maybe next time don’t be so quick to go to insults when you’re wrong. He made the same argument in his review that the movie also made in the trailer. Both were factually incorrect, in a movie that was supposed to be based on a true story.
Just a quick point, 300 is a bad example of Hollywood being historically inaccurate as the movie is framed as a Spartan story being told before their battle with the Persians. So of course they're gonna "massage" the truth.
Brave heart is a good one if you want low hanging fruit.
Sorry, not even being told by a spartan justifies the seudo christian bullcrap in the story, a spartan wouldnt had said they whorshipped satan, and their king died in a christian parable.
braveheart has a lot of lies, but none of them affect its core message of rebellion.
Great vid, you did a very fair look at the film. I think you understand the underlying critique some ppl are making.
As a Beninese and descent of royal line, I really appreciated the movie when I watched it. Not totally accurate but overall a great movie. I loved how they tried really hard to speak the langage in some parts, it was beautiful. I'm discovering your channel, great content so far. Keep up!
if you expect history accuracy from Hwood movies, you will be very disappointed, repeatedly
The problem is that many viewers (right or wrong) will assume that the assertion 'based on true events' will be indicative of a reasonably high degree of fact. More so if the narrative is an attractive one ... thing is, the movie industry collectively knows this and often applies selective manipulation for various reasons like an ideological nudge.
what i dont get about these defenders of this movie is that we have to pretend this is done out of love and not a political aganda especially since day one they spoke heavily politically about this movie ,also the fact that many lackluster to garbage movies have been produced by Hollywood and their go to strategy to avoid criticsm is calling everyone racist by simply hiring black people as actors and throw them in as meatshields. also how tone deaf the trailer ,the Publicity and the potrayal was that literally scream "how Americans think african people acted" didnt surprise me anymore that two white women are the bosses of that movie
The film trailers and this review portrayed them as rełuctant słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe.
Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a new threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a foreign enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned)
What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years befure Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it).
This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
4:26 We must not forget that since West Africa is a place of a lot of trade, it was not unusual to see the mixed groups of Iberians, Jews and Amazigh who were always in the region trading.
Many films have some historical inaccuracies in them. For example, Tombstone showed Wyatt Earp visiting Doc Holiday right before Holiday died. That didn't happen in history. Not a huge deal.
But rewriting history by making the Dahomey fighting against the Europeans to keep slaves from being taken from Africa, when in fact the Europeans were there at that time to stop slavery and the Dahomey were fighting to keep slavery, is a totally different thing. That level of liberty being taken is not artistic license but a full blown political agenda and it teaches people false history for an VERY important issue. That is not acceptable at all. And make no mistake, that switch was done deliberately and for a political agenda.
It's orders of magnitude above the typical liberty that a film takes with history. They should be called out for it.
All races have taken and held slaves, and all races have been slaves. It's wrong no matter who does it.
And Leonidas in '300' blabs on about fighting for freedom while being the king of a nation where 70% of the population is slaves, yet that movie got nothing but praise when it came out.
The controversy against 'Woman King' has nothing to do with people being concerned about historicity, and everything to do with the continuous ramping up of culture war bs.
@@chuckinator11 No. You are missing the point. 300 didn't have a story where the Spartans were fighting against slavery while in history they held slaves. 300 just ignored the slave aspect of their civilization.
The problem with Woman King is that the society was a slaveholding society in reality at the time the film is said to take place, but in the film they are fighting against slavery. And the people who are slavers in the film were in reality at that time and place fighting against slavery. Woman King swapped who was pro slavery and who was anti slavery. And that was done on purpose for a political agenda. 300 just ignored the whole slave issue so that is not the same thing at all.
Woman King is grossly distorting a very important historical subject, and doing it on purpose. Willfully misleading people.
It absolutely deserves to be called out on it.
Based on your comment I take it you didn't even watch the movie. Because your comment is just incorrect. They weren't "fighting against slavery." Uhh no. They were fighting for independence from the Oyo Kingdom whom forced them to pay slaves as tribute. Their goal post-independence was to shift their economy away from dependence on the slave trade. That is historically accurate depending on the king in question. Ghezo (portrayed in the movie was not one of them)
@@chuckinator11 Nothing but praise? See what iranians said about it.
And Im not iranian, but I hate that movie.
The main criticism that should be leveled against this movie isn't the issue of slavery, it should be the strong feminist undertones that are really anti-black male . Hollywood finally produces a film about an actual African kingdom and what do we get, a heavily fictionalized story. The movie depicts black men in the background of an nation they created & lead. The Agoji battalion was assigned to guard the king, the royal family & the palace, they acted always in a support role to the Dahomey army which was comprised of male warriors. In addition to showing black men in the background, king Ghezo played by John Boyega is shown as cowardly & effeminate, leaving Viola Davis character to assume a more masculine role. Without going into details the Agoji's biggest enemy isn't the French who are there to enslave & eventually colonize, it's actually a unit of male soldiers of the Oyo kingdom led by an brutal/evil general.
Are you're aware this takes place over 60 years, before they fought the French Foreign Legion.
@@KSmithwick1989 , It doesn't matter, much of the movie isn't accurate! Viola Davis character" Nanisca" never even existed however she wears the pants in the kingdom. The French are showed in this film & yes the Agoji take them on rather easily. So in a heavily fictionalized war drama supposedly base on a true story, a little thing like 60 years time difference is nothig to overcome.
@@glennpeterson2477 There is no French in the film. Those are Portuguese, their leader is named Santo Ferreira.
The agenda is everywhere.
@@glennpeterson2477 Also I find your idea 60 years is not significant as hilarious. Given the French weren't a significant presence, until roughly 30 years after the film takes place.
That 60 years is also a difference between the French using Charleville muskets. To the 8-shot, bolt-action Lebel 1886s they used in the Battle of Adégon. The battle people keep referring to, but conveniently never seem to cite details, other than losses.
Such as the French fighting from a fortified position. The introduction of specialized 20 inch bayonets. Or the exaggeration of the bayonet charge's role in the battle. Because why mostly rely on a bayonet. When your rifle can fire 8-shots before reloading. While your enemy is armed with spears, swords, and muskets. 😆
regarding human trafficking, i would prefer to know the life of enslaved trafficked people before the europeans entered the scene. As slavery was a foundation of every empire that has ever existed, before it became twisted into a melanin contest between western europeans and west and central africans!
Women ☕️
Yup. So proud of the fon people
Thanks for this. I'm looking forward to watching the movie!
Everyone on earth was participating in slavery until the British ended the practice, God bless em :)
I suggest reading some of Isaac Samuels substack re the role in slave trade, as it's not that simple
I'm Igbo and there are people as light skinned as that girl. Me personally used to but I'm tanned now
I know. I already mentioned the Igbo in this video. These warriors are Fon though, not Igbo. And that girl is literally the ONLY one that is light skinned.
@@FromNothing I understand, my bro. Just wanted you to know there are people more "light skinned" than her because you said we (west Africans) are not often as light skinned as her. And yes, we're mostly dark and chocolate.
Keep up the good work!
This is like arguing how accurate a Hercules movie is. It is all pure conjecture the further back in time you go. You know people knew the Earth was round in Christopher Columbuses time? The idea they thought it was flat was created by a writer trying to sell more books hundreds of years later and that took on because modern people like to pretend they are mentally superior to those of the past besides just being technologically smarter or having made a few more discoveries.
Who has criticized Hercules movies for not being accurate?
Well, my favourite one was quite accurate, is the one who covered most of the legend Ive seen.
Yes, the Depardieu movie of Colon had many mistakes and wasnt honest hiding Colons brutality.
they started with the bullshit "based on true events" line.
This isn't a children's animated musical about literal gods, this is a movie for adults about violence and slavery. It is expected to be more accurate. Also this movie doesn't really take place that long ago compared to Hercules, sure there is always conjecture to some extent but are you saying we should just ignore history books because we weren't there? we have history books on this time period that document things more than you probably realize.
the light skin woman, is a south african choreographer, she is black.
Dark africans would say she is fair skinned, not black.
so a south african somehow comes up to west africa and chills there and is important in dahomey?
thats like taking an sicilian and throwing him into britain or sweden.
@@laisphinto6372 Only that happened. Jfc. You give an example of something like it's impossible when it actually happened all the time.
🤦🏽♂️
@@laisphinto6372 most of the this movie was shot in south africa, even one of the leads is a south african actress
The weird thing, they could have made it like vikings instead of a braveheart bull.
To me, this movie should have received Oscar Awards recognition. This was a great movie, despite trying to thread the needle and not upset Africans or Europeans too much. There is still too much underlying racism in Hollywood to produce authentically, historically correct accounts of Africans successfully pushing back the White European's horrible slave trade tyranny and practices. This is also why the need to include more historically correct teaching in schools is critical to ending this institutionalized racism that has proven to still be thistles in the bodies of melanated people around the world.
9:00 you have to judge history in the context of the time, in the era of 300, the Greek city states were mostly democracies, and even oligarchies like Sparta, had clear limitations on the power of the leaders. ---> Compare that to ancient Persia, in which the kings were heralded as gods, didn't value science as much, and constant prostration was expected from all members of society.
I think you spent too much time discussing an otherwise irrelevant character in the set (the light skin woman).
I do agree though on the movie getting extreme hate for the fact that Dahomey was basically another slave state from the region is ridiculous: people who is trying to cancel the movie for that is hypocritical; still, the movie is having a relatively decent box-office & very positive user reviews (85% last time I checked): which proves once more that both wokes & racists talk too loud, but still have pitiful power to drive the masses.
From my perspective: everyone did the same at some point, but we need a hero & a villain. Dahomey-Allada, Oyo, Ouidah, Abomey, Ketou, Hogbonu... someone had to be the good guy. & they did mention that Dahomey was an slavery state & the Mahi tribesmen captured at the beginning ended up as slaves: otherwise Nanisca would have not proposed to "end it" in the first place.
Nothing else than adding these elephant hunters to my list of favorite historical dramas. Btw, those king's wives... wow.
Seriously why do people act like this is the first time Hollywood has done this, look at 300 in the movie they made them sound like they were anti slavery and fighting for democracy which is nowhere near true Sparta was a military dictatorship whose economy depended on slaves.
Or the multiple Viking series where we glorify people who were murderers, rapist, raiders and slavers who sold other Europeans to the Middle East.
So why is there an outcry here but none of does series get a mention because their doing the same thing. That being said while this movie has some inaccuracies as this video pointed out.
It could be the first step in future movies about African civilizations who hopefully get more attention to details in the future.
Two movies I would like to see is one during the battle of Kirina that lead to the rise of the Mali Empire or the war of the Golden stool
Exactly. The hypocrisy is oozing out.
@@FromNothing I know right, but hopefully we get more movies in tre future maybe tv series that are historically accurate……..enough. Because Hollywood
@@FromNothing agreed, hey I also like your ATL videos I hope to see more in the future, I’m actually curious about something and would like to ask someone with such a extensive knowledge of African history and culture.
If the Tsetse fly went extinct or never existed how would that effect African development in this ATL.
Ummm… you didn’t actually talk about a the REAL problem. Like how they minimize their involvement in the slave trade…. You can point at europeans all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Dahomey would invade other tribes and trade them with goods, and they really weren’t happy when that business stopped . You also don’t talk about what they did to their own slaves. Am not trying to antagonize them, that’s how most cultures were back then. But i wish you would have made a more sincere review of it. Like saying that, this movie like the others historical movies done by Hollywood was one-sides and didn’t represent the reality of what happened and that we shouldn’t expect documentary level of accuracy to a movie that was made to entertain. And the marking for that movie was SO BAD🤦🏾♀️*sigh*
I agree with you, they fought to keep enłaving, even when it was being stopped already (by the Bríts). That’s not a “reluctant” people that would rather sell “palm oil”.
I assume neither of you actually even watched the movie. If you did then you'd know how totally and utterly invalid your argument is. See this is my point. So many people like you are ASSUMING they don't talk about this type of stuff but they do. The Dahomey DO capture slaves in the movie. They DO pay them as tribute to the Oyo Empire and they DO sell them to Europeans. So I don't know where you guys are getting these assumptions. That's exactly my problem with it. A 10:1 dislike to like ratio all because of baseless assumptions like this assuming there is some racial agenda when that's simply just not true. Like literally an untrue assessment.
@@FromNothing The OP and I never said they didn’t “talk about it”, you’re making a straw man àrgument. The film trailers and this review portrayed them as RELUCTANT słave traders and Eurøpeans as only interested ín cołonization. The Eurøpeans are evíl and the Dahomey are the heroes fighting to keep their way of lífe.
Film synopsis: “In the 1800s, a group of all-female warriors protects the African kingdom of Dahomey with skills and fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen. Faced with a NEW threat, Gen. Nanisca trains the next generation of recruits to fight against a FOREÍGN enemy that's determined to destroy their way of life.” - Google (original author not mentioned)
What the film łeft out and this review left out (which would be ok on a film that is fiction but not one that’s supposed to be based on facts and history): Their way of life being killíng their neighbors, ensłavíng the survívors, mass humàn sacrífice and canníbalísm. Their fíght was about keeping this way of lífe at a time when the Britísh and French were fíghtíng to end słavery. The Dahomey were far from “reluctant”, while the Eurøpeans called them “Amazøns”, the tríbes they ensłaved called them “frenzíed canníbals”. Also, while the review is quick to bring up the fact, demand from Eurøpeans før slaves created a bigger market for it. It’s important not to leave out the fact that slavery had been going on for thousands of years befure Eurøpeans came to Afríca. Here is the other thing, it wasn’t just because the Dahomey finally got a conscious and stopped (as the chart showed) then moved into trading palm oil. That was because the Brits and French førced an end to słavery (if you are going to błame Eurøpeans for increased demand, you should also give them credit for putting an end to it).
This is an important fact of history, the main conflíct with Eurøpeans during Kíng Ghezo's reígn came through the efforts of the British and French to bring an end to the słave tràde. “The słave tràde has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their víctories and the mother lulls the chíld to sleep with notes of tríumph over an enemÿ reduced to słavery." - King Ghezo (King of Dahomey).
@@FromNothing I said they MINIMIZE their involvement and how invested their were in the trades. Stop acting like they weren’t romanticizing them, that movie was an one-side “is all europeans fault not us” b*llshit. And what racial agenda? I clearly said the historical Hollywood movies always does inaccurate one-sided stories. I criticize YOU for not being sincere about the review of the movie and avoiding the ACTUEL reason why the movie was criticize
@@FromNothing I get where you are coming from.
Hmm being a West African I think your light skin problem is strange being that there are naturally light-skinned unmixed West African men and women. You just see them less because most light skin people in America are mixed. Most light-skinned people in West Africa are not mixed they are just light skinned.
I didn't like the fact that the Oyo soldiers in the film had turbans. It continued to grate on my nerves throughout the time I was watching the movie. Oyo was a pagan kingdom, south of the Western Sudan. While Muslims and 'Muslim' garb were not unknown to the Oyo, turbans were not part of traditional Oyo get-up. They had an assortment of hats/caps very different from turbans.
Oh my God, Jabari. Not you, too. I am West African, Southern Nigerian. There are people in my family with skin so light you can't believe it! Of course the vast majority of West Africans have a very dark-skinned tone. But every now and then one encounters individuals in the region with very very light skin, like that girl (and I don't mean albinos). Since it was just her, I wouldn't make too much of it; I'd just count her as one of the outliers scattered throughout West Africa. I would have raised an eyebrow if there were loads of light skinned people.
I'm interested to know where the idea that africa is the cradle of all human beings first started out was stated.
Many reasons. Africa has the most genetic diversity, the oldest known human remains, and the largest variety of hominid remains.
@@FromNothing So, middle XX century?
Personally, I still have trouble with just the Tittle. Why not call her a Queen ? This "woman King" name is just weird.
Not that she was really one by any means
The english word for her title doesn't exist. The The woman king is the best translation. That was my understanding
@@LiquidSoul06 I'm unconvinced.
The word Queen exists, and if Queen isn't appropriate, then the word "King" isn't appropriate either.
But well, I've got no clue what the title actually was, though, so you could be right
Thank you 😘
I think the main reason for having a light skin girl was for representation. The film probably didn't want to be accused of colorism
Same
She's wasn't that light skin, there different tones of blackness in the African not correspond to eugenics
Never mind
@@jmute44Even so, it cannot be denied that West Africans mixed with the Amazigh, Italians, Arabs and Spanish traders, even with Jews.
2:23 fulani?...daughter of a Hausa merchant and an Amazigh woman?..Nothing
I feel like this movie got the Vikings treatment. They had a perfectly good story based on legends and historical fact, but CHOSE to change it into a Hollywood trope that's not nearly as interesting, and to thise descended from the people, downright offensive
i prefer Cudjo Lewis's description of their nature
My two theories on the lighter girl are 1/ import from further north or 2/ albino ....
Albino people don't have black hair and tan skin.
Hi Jabari and all you good people , yes I saw it, although bootlegged version, as it is not out in Japan , I think the explanation of the light skinned Agoji trainee , was mentioned in the Book called Amazon of Black Sparta, by someone who saw her, it’s one of the book I recommend , and yes liberties were taken , it’s not a damned documentary or bio pic, it clearly states, *Based off True Events* but what pisses me off more than anything, is some Black Men bitchin about Black female agency or empowerment, this they joined with the most rabid white supremacist to drive down viewership , I say to them , write script and offer it up to be made, but stop bitchin about black women shining, and yes support those who made the effort, this is one of the reason why Black folks can’t have nice things .
The 1st point is no good bro man. I'm a nija man n we do have brownskins like that. She didn't stand out when I watched...but I hear u
I literally mentioned the Igbo and Fulani (both of which are found in Nigeria) as examples of people who can sometimes have lighter complexions. Did you miss that part?
@@FromNothing I may have. My apologies if so...but I did hear the mixed bit...I'll go and have a proper listen
@@FromNothing you did mention it, but you said they can never get that light skin, he’s telling you that’s wrong, there’re a lot of people light as that girl with no admixture. But like you said, just nitpicking
Black people did everything good from the beginning of time
The actress at the beginning is from South Africa and probably not mixed. When you see this same girl being captured and exposed at the end of the movie she appears not that light. I've seen a girl from Benin republic who had this complexion and wasn't mixed
South Africa has a very large population of "Colored" people (what they call mixed people.) They also have lots of people of Khoisan ancestry. She may very well be one or both of those. Also I've never seen anyone from that region of Africa with that color and even still, she stands out like a sore thumb, as I said.
@@FromNothing I lived in South Africa. I met Zulus, Sothos and Tswanas with that skin complexion.
@@psa2969 Yes again, south Africa has alot of people who are mixed with European, Indian or Khoisan.
@@psa2969 All those peoples are the result of the mix with the fairer skinned khoisan.
Too, Southafrican is in highr latitude, so not so much melanin is needed.
The question is, how many girls like that in Benin?
@@adamnesico I don't want to drag this thread unecessarily. The Black population of South Africa has some amount admixture. with Khoisans. However, These features are also to be found in other Bantu populations in the Congo bassin from which Black South Africans descend from. My point is that statement of that actrice sticking out like a thumb is just wrong as people with such features and without admixture are to be found from the gulf of Guinea to Southern Africa.
The trailer made it seem like they used accents instead of using the languages of the region. That really turned me off of this, it’s 2022. I know it’s asking a lot but English with accents feels old timey in a bad way.
🙂
5:30 these shields are actually from the mofu people of nigeria
I have no desire to see this movie. It's just me. There are a lot of movies I haven't seen.
It looks like an interesting movie based on real historical events.
In the real story, the gay looking women lost the war...
No they didn't lose the war. In both the movie and in real life the Dahomey Agoji or as you put it "Gay looking women" defeated the Oyo Empire. Based on your comment I assume you didn't even watch the movie considering you assume that their primary antagonists were the French. That's wrong. The only white people in the movie were the Portuguese. Friendly word of advice, watch the movie before judging.
Well, we got the Northman this year, so i for sure can survive a historical movie or two that are not entirely accurate and even a bit hollywood esque, will watch
The Northman shows the consequences of slavery.
the northman was mainly so good because how accurate it was . if we want a fantasy movie "based on true events" we have wakanda or all the bullshit medieval Hollywood movies where you can cut through armor and everyone is dirty for no reason
I’m skipping this for now. Dahomey just isn’t something I find all that interesting and don’t want to see a Hollywood version of African history. I’d rather see an African history film with no whites in it i.e. Tilai, Guimba the Tyrant (it’s a fantasy film but set in the past) and Yeelen (same case as Guimba set in the past too). I like the video and always look forward to what’s coming.
Have you seen Sia, the reve du python?
I saw too a movie about Sundiata legend, but budget was under the basement.
Yes I recently got it.
It’s possible to show African history in film without Europeans showing up
I listed films that are period pieces without Europe involved.
@@spiffygonzales5160 why is it sketchy, Africa had a history before Europeans popped up.. While parts of subsaharean africa had contact with europe since ancient times, large parts didn't ... these places still has a history
Just change the roles..... How about southern rebels being portrayed as the brave strong hero's.... How would that go over.
Lol they have been
@@LiquidSoul06 In what movie?
Tell me you didn't live through the '80s without telling me you didn't live through the 80s or any decade before that. There's literally a trope in Us Media about painting the South as some kind of noble loss cause. I mean it's absolutely repugnant but it's definitely a thing.
@@Jay-ho9io They might of been bad Americans, but they were still Americans, not sure building a statue to them is a big deal.
@@dski8097 Ofc you wouldn't see statues built for them as a big deal: you're a Confederate sympathizer.
🚬🐛
UA-cam is throttling this video, as in, I keep having to pause to let this video buffer while I have two other devices streaming 1080P, and even another tab on this computer streaming 1080P while I wait for this video to load and they aren't having any problems. Yea, this is 4K, but it's been months since I ran into buffering on anything. Strange, especially because this video isn't as harsh on the movie as some others I've watched.
I still think they chose to create division with the point in history and the Kingdom they chose. 40 years later, or a more sympathetic Kingdom, and the criticisms wouldn't be as valid.
"The people of west Africa don't have that skin tone?" What's this guy smoking? Where do you think yellow bone and redbone came from? It was to denote certain west African tribes that had higher percentages of yellowish or reddish tones.
I literally already mentioned that in the video, the Igbo people in particular so if you missed it then I think you must actually be the one who is smoking something. Also she stood out like a sore thumb. She was the ONLY one in that formation of warriors or frankly the ENTIRE movie with that skin tone. I fail to see how I'm wrong for finding that strange.