>true indeed, i agree with aaron
>on the points that:
>
>a.) none of what was offered
>here was stuff that afri-ams
>with a sense of self-history
>DIDN'T know... or didn't see
>as a problem. the film
>didn't do much to aid
>race education.
>

What specific things about this subject did Spike not cover? I think this movie was more for the people ignorant to the subject matter. There are people out there like you with a sense of self
history, but there are plenty of people out there who don't. If
they did have self awareness there would be no need for tackling the subject.

>i got the same feeling in
>viewing this as i did
>in high school when my
>white history teacher would pull
>out the textbook and read
>the paragraph on martin luther
>king. it was like, "okay.
>y'all do this EVERY YEAR
>and even without y'all, i
>know more about mjk than
>y'all could teach in a
>lifetime..." and then the teacher
>goes on to talk about
>dogs and hoses and civil
>rights... like the all-black class
>doesn't KNOW about this stuff.

There are plenty of Black people who only know that one
paragraph about MLK. A friend of mine who went to Howard U
with me said he didn't know the words the "Lift Every Voice and
Sing" until he came there (I mean the most common lines in the
song, not the second or third verse that tends to get skipped).

>
>
>that's how this movie ran for
>me. like "did u know
>that hattie mcdaniels played a
>mammy for years and years
>and could never transcend that
>stereotype b/c all society wanted
>to see were mammies and
>uncle toms?"
>
>YES WE KNEW THAT!!!!!!!!
>

Everybody doesn't, if they did would we still have this problem today?

>and did u know that the
>legacy of slavery and stereotyping
>still prevails onscreen today?
>
>YES WE KNEW THAT TOO!!!! and?
>
Who is this "we" because it sure isn't every Black person in America.

>
>i dug the role paul mooney
>played. it was waaaaay complex
>and could've been a movie
>all its own.
>
>and yeah, the roots definitely shoulda
>been better utilized... how'd they
>feel about the show? how
>did that cat who played
>honeycutt feel? it's like none
>of the actors discussed their
>own conflicts about being on
>a show like this one...
>why? and are we to
>believe that tommy davidson was
>the only one who knew
>enough history to have a
>problem perpetuating its repetition?

The problem I'm having with some of the criticisms of this movie
is that people want more Paul Mooney, or more from the Roots, or
more from Honeycutt or more into the process of putting a show
on the air. All this extra stuff would have made the movie 5 hours instead of the 2+ it was.

As for Tommy Davidson being the only one with a problem, remember
the whole concept was a JOKE that Damon and Jada's characters didn't think would even get on TV. Jada was complaining the whole movie, which led to the whole beef between Jada and Damon anyway.

Tommy did it for the money but eventually quit.
Savion did it for the money and fame but eventually quit.
Jada did it out of loyalty and eventually quit.
Damon did it to "stick it to the man" and eventually paid for it.

What other views could there have been? Actually, they could have had a "Al Sharpton" type in the movie with some speaking parts, but I think this was covered by the radio interview and
Mos Def's character (misguided as he was).

Shaun G.