Parker is still scheduled to appear at the Toronto Film Festival, but a source in communication with him says that he’s in a low place. He vacillates between thinking the case is resurfacing now after 17 years because of a Hollywood conspiracy against him or just bad luck. He’s disappointed over the backlash on social media and that the African-American online community hasn’t been more supportive. And he’s even mad at himself, for underestimating the public’s interest in a court case that happened so long ago.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/nate-parker-interview-rape-trial-birth-of-a-nation-1201841223/

Since 1976

it was gonna come up sooner or later in these SJW afflicted times. his people decided to jump out in front of it.

who got one of their agents to serve as pr and give him his initial horrifically unaware initial statements

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

apparently not.

the movie and Nate Parker was in headlines before this scandal because of the record high 17.5 million dollars it cost Fox Searchlight to acquire the film at the Sundance Film Festival. I think I remember the sale making news on this website, but I could be wrong about that.

.
.
.

There are people who will not support him based on a ceryain event that took place in his past as well as his choice in mate.

So..

Let him be disappointed because there are people who are even more disappointed in him.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Hilary/GetFileAttachment-1.jpg

.
.
.

Are they mad at Woody Allen and Roman Polanski every time they release movies and people bring up their past? Someone out there might be mad about the success of his movie, but it probably isn't Hollywood.

>Are they mad at Woody Allen and Roman Polanski every time
>they release movies and people bring up their past? Someone
>out there might be mad about the success of his movie, but it
>probably isn't Hollywood.


Or maybe he's not playing by the rules on some levels and bucking the system. But to bring an allegation up as fact to try an destroy this brother is awful


.
.
.

No, I'm not a Woody Allen fan, I've never watched a single movie of his, but I've read enough on the whole Woody/Mia/Soon shits to know that he didn't do what he's been accused of.

---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

but I'm sure there are plenty of people who arent fans of this movie or the poster images with a flag for a noose.

Was that hard GUT punch to America. Someone didn't like that at all.. But I haven't see anyone in Hollywood come to his aid


.
.
.

you see how okp does in any post about rape...

people are way too quick to call you rapey if you dont bring a pitchfork.

its fucked up this has become a bigger convo than the actual movie.

Form what I read he didn't rape anyone


.
.
.

when it comes to public opinion tho, it doesnt matter.

once you get that label, its a wrap.

>when it comes to public opinion tho, it doesnt matter.
>
>once you get that label, its a wrap.


.
.
.

and she was white and now she is dead...

its over.

The film will come out in a few theatres, it will be seen by US and will be on DVD by Christmas.

the more he fightd to clear his name the guiltier he is in their eyes.

Or is it just life catching up?

.
.
.

but thats because he knew it was going to come up.

i never heard this story before so why now?

we arent talking about Nat Turner and there is a reason for that.

but like Boogie said, Fox, married to a white woman, movie about killing white people without a white hero... the chances of pulling this off without some bullshit was slim.

widely accepted.
.
.
.

apologize for whatever actions he can admit he should have done differently, while maintaining his innocence.

>the more he fightd to clear his name the guiltier he is in their eyes.

>apologize for whatever actions he can admit he should have
>done differently, while maintaining his innocence.
>
>>the more he fightd to clear his name the guiltier he is in
>their eyes.


.
.
.

WOW!!!! I went off on my rant at the bottom of this post...but hell...I may need to take that shit back!!!!!

That's cold blooded!!!!

Fuck!!!!

they getting him outta there.

.
.
.

That's enough

He should have known something was up when Fox
got involved. Fox and this theme don't mix.

-No white savior.
-The white folks ain't painted in a good light.
-They were killed indiscriminately due to oppression they inflicted

You gotta refuse all major white funding for a film like that.
But this dude is married to a white woman on top of being
accused of rape by one in college. I can't say I expect
revolutionary thinking from him, given his obvious addiction.

himself it didn't happen. Or at least, that his acquittal was the final word on the matter. Plus, this was half his life ago, so to him it probably feels like some other, different, earlier version of Nate Rape was involved in this, not the present, 2016 Nate Rape.

That's the only reasonable explanation for how he handled this (dealing with it in the last few weeks) so poorly and it seems to have gotten away from the frame he wanted to set up for it.

.
.
.

read every word said the reason he was acquitted and Celestin was convicted was because Nate and the girl had had previous, consensual sex, so the jury didn't buy that this time was not consensual.

If that's true, then yes, he raped her.

Maybe one day soon I'll read every word of the complaint from the lawsuit against the school for myself.

Celestin doing it. I don't know what criminal charge that falls under for him though.

facilitating a gang rape when his crew ran a train on a female
.
.
.

What do I mean. I know a couple of dudes in HS and in the Army that were charged with Rape. The HS case was dropped but once you're charged there's a record. The Army case went to a wrongful conviction - Messed up too. Those dudes got something like 12 yrs and they were like 18 and 19


The HS incident happened after my boy ( a football player)had sex with a chick after school. He fronted on her and didn't share the same level of public feelings, so she said he raped her.


The Army situation happened when two young enlisted friends had sex with a German local chick that later said they raped her. But they didn't. She was very willing to do a threesome and then felt bad. At the same time, they didn't really treat her like a queen after.

I have way too many HS and Army stories like this.

.
.
.

and then the woman accuses him of rape.

.
.
.

never understood the appeal.

I had a long dry spell when I first got to VA and when i finally found some booty my boy was like "oh, it was her? awhy didnt you call me?"

calling another dick into the equation was never in my playbook.

Would i have done something if i was extremely drunk myself tho....idk?

and if she was down to suggest or with a wild suggestion, I would just let her loose and keep it moving.
.
.
.

since you were just basically learning how to fuck anyway and was thirsty for whatever you could get.

That same awesome story about that freak you pulled at the club gets ruined when that nigga Steve keeps on interrupting about how his stroke was stronger then yours.

The passivity of the female/receptive participant is implied.

You don't "surprise" someone with sex with another person, and fully eliminate elements of coercion. That's even if the person is sober.

.
.
.

You read the original apology and on paper it looks fine for someone trying to apologize being a young dickhead without admitting guilt. He was trying to show that he's grown since then and was a new man; but it could come off insensitive without making the focus primarily on the woman who felt/was violated.

He couldda weathered that storm...


...then the court docs leaked that make him look callous during the whole situation on top of it looks like he was involved with getting her harassed out of campus.

Doesn't mean he raped her; hell if he didn't it might have even made him MORE empowered to spread the rumors and have his people go at her. It was ruthlessly shitty though. So it was more important to make mention of her and give at least a non-apology because...


...When her family started giving interviews and it was found out that she killed herself and they consider the alleged rape as the turning point...it was career over.

After that during the noise he finally put up a real apology that acknowledged the woman but it was too late.

PR move a firm could make successfully.

that nigga coulda donated the first week proceeds to rape victims and he would still be in hot water.

no fucking way a black man can escape the wrath of white america when it comes to raping a white woman who then commits suicide.

you cant win that chess game fam. If she was alive then maaaaaybe cause you could try and get an interview but suicide?

nah... not in America and not with this movie

specifically black women...it was a wrap. He ain't have to lose them imho because we want to support this film.

Like think about how many extra black cool points he had for making a Nat Turner movie! Now imagine how many he had to have lost to get us here, lol

if he made it about her, said something about raising our men right(less cosby poundcake, more boho black family), said that no matter what happened that night he doesn't want to raise 5 girls in a world where no doesn't mean no or if you're a too drunk its a man's right to take advantage..etc

The thing is Nate was never going to get white people to like him. But he fucked up by not realizing who he was really trying to apologize to; black women.

All the op eds that hit my time feed were by black woman, hell OKP had one on the front page.

*Although I wonder if he could have crossed over into white audiences if Hollywood decided the Nat Turner movie was going to be their token movie of the year

a perfect apology wasnt going to win over Black women.

Say she's got roots in Louisiana, let everyone assume that bitch is creole:

http://frostsnow.com/uploads/biography/2015/12/22/sarah-disanto.jpg

BAM. Call Nate up: "Give me 3% of the gross my nigga, including streaming deals"

LOL!!! She got something in her. Seriously.

Obviously not in terms of going to jail, but if he had been originally convicted, he could now just do a full-on public apology/confession. Just rip the band-aid off, pour the peroxide on it, let it sting and then get back in people's good graces.

He was between a rock and a hard place from the get-go because in the eyes of the law he was cleared, but the facts suggest guilt, and people, particularly black women, want him to essentially renounce his acquittal, which would make him a fool to do.

Covert white supremacist supporting

subverse tactics of the industry.

Niggas especially feminist are the new mercenaries of white supremacist joining boule negros and boot licking disorganized bottom feeding leeches.

No, motherfucker, that is not how this works

Ya'll just let this fuckery slide?!

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

admit to rape. And that is what people (black women) want him to do. And Oprah would probably not be kind to him on that front.

to a crime after he's been acquitted of it. That would actually make me sick.

In his mind, he had consent. That's the point. Men don't understand consent.

I would love to see him do an interview with Byron Hurt about rape culture and college athletics or something like that.

though he thought he did? I'm not OKLegal, but that sounds like admitting to a crime, to me. Sure, not premeditated necessarily, but to my lay brain, that sounds at least like admitting to some lower type of sexual assault.

I don't expect anything.

Unless he is able to make this about more than his "pain" and his film, and use his platform, however tarnished, to teach other young Black men about consent, I'm good on this situation.

He wasn't the first young Black man to direct his misogyny towards a white woman and at this rate, he won't be the last.

it to make people happy.


>admit to rape. And that is what people (black women) want
>him to do. And Oprah would probably not be kind to him on
>that front.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

is maury still a thing?

no snark.. i have no idea

but her opinions are still pretty well respected.

on anything since Obama and that purse

It seems like she's had to resort to relying largely on black folks, and increasingly men, since apparently alot of her white fan base stopped paying close attention to her.

man i was hype for this movie. been a fan since the great debaters.

still gonna go see it, but I feel for dude because he is officially black listed before this movie even comes out. the heat is only gonna get hotter the closer to release.

definitely should have made the apology about the victim. reminds me of my wife telling me that it doesn't count if you are explaining your apology. say i messed up and stop talking lol.

who knows, maybe the movie will suck. when I saw the trailer i got a sinking feeling because of all the imagery. i saw 12 years in the theater and never want to see it again. thought i would go support Nate because Nat Turner IS a hero, but if he fumbles it then maybe its not as bad for him professionally and he can still work.

dude got 5 daughters, don't know how he messed that apology up. smh.

I envision any real interview going like this

NP: I want to apologize...

Interviewer: What are you apologizing for, exactly?

NP: For harming this woman's life.

Interviewer: In what way did you do that?

NP: Well, I myself didn't rape her, and I was acquitted, but my best good buddy Bubba Celestin took advantage of her.

Interviewer: The guy you co-wrote this movie with?

NP: Yeah, him.

Etc.

Any decent interviewer would eventually drill down to him not admitting to rape, even though it looks like rape. He can't talk his way around that basic logic, or sort of fake-apologize, or apologize for nothing, so to speak.

Dude is in a lose lose. I don't see anyway out of this, film might even get canned now.

The climate we are in today leads to pitchforks and hyper sensitivity. Rape is a non starter for me. Even the hint of rape is enough to send me the other way. I am headed over to buzz feed now to read the documents, but in the space of 30 min I've gone from still going to see this movie to on the fence. There are levels to dumb teenage shit man.

He should have got out in front with charitable donations to rape orgs and did speaking engagements on this topic alone a long time ago. Hindsight yeah, but now his masterpiece is in jeopardy.

that's the best he can do.

Along the lines of 'While I maintain I did not rape her, that doesn't excuse my behavior that night and subsequently nights. As I look in my daughters eyes I hope that they, or anyone's daughters, sisters or mothers for that fact, will grow up in a world and feel safe and not target because they are women. To my accuser, all I can do is apologize for my behavior that night and to tell her that I sorely regret my actions that have brought her pain and distress...go into the whole personal growth thing...etc"

Follow that up with making a point you are doing things with anti-rape orgs and you can be set. There is a line where you can say you didn't rape her but you were a fucking dick that night and subsequently in the trial


>I envision any real interview going like this
>
>NP: I want to apologize...
>
>Interviewer: What are you apologizing for, exactly?
>
>NP: For harming this woman's life.
>
>Interviewer: In what way did you do that?
>
>NP: Well, I myself didn't rape her, and I was acquitted, but
>my best good buddy Bubba Celestin took advantage of her.
>
>Interviewer: The guy you co-wrote this movie with?
>
>NP: Yeah, him.
>
>Etc.
>
>Any decent interviewer would eventually drill down to him not
>admitting to rape, even though it looks like rape. He can't
>talk his way around that basic logic, or sort of
>fake-apologize, or apologize for nothing, so to speak.

Along the lines of 'While I maintain I did not rape her, that doesn't excuse my behavior that night and subsequently nights. As I look in my daughters eyes I hope that they, or anyone's daughters, sisters or mothers for that fact, will grow up in a world and feel safe and not target because they are women. To my accuser, all I can do is apologize for my behavior that night and to tell her that I sorely regret my actions that have brought her pain and distress...go into the whole personal growth thing...etc"

afterwards its seen as disingenuous (because how come you aint tell us you felt that way the first time?!?)

i think he found out about her death between the two statements but i'm not sure.

of an outright confession of rape. Not admitting to being a Penn State Wrestling douchebag, or being insensitive, or believing in patriarchy, or half a dozen other things that aren't serious crimes. They want to hear him acknowledge that he committed a serious crime.

troupe has to die. It.Has.To.Die.

Women have value independent of the men in their lives.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/afi-cancels-birth-of-a-nation-screening-nate-parker-qa-1201843429/

.
.
.

So many men are loyal to a fault. This is a bromance gone wrong.

-He invited Celestin to have sex with the accuser
-He lied to the accuser about Celestin's involvement until she lied about being pregnant.
-He publicly harassed the girl with Celestin.
-He wrote this film with Celestin.

I think he could've skirted a lot of this if he didn't still associate with Celestin, let alone write this film with him. I'd rather be a fair-weather friend than an accomplice to rape, personally.

-He publicly harassed the girl with Celestin.

that is alleged right, not necessarily proven?

nm

after as claimed.

The other stuff you said we do know.

just making that distinction.

similar to laws that said men can't rape their wives. It's a fundamentally flawed ruling.

The University settled the civil suit regarding the harassment, again, on flawed grounds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3749071/Birth-Nation-s-Nate-Parker-accused-harassing-rape-accuser-18-arrested-claimed-feared-safety.html

participant, she said she was blacked out drunk. Its entirely possible that she was a willing participant and forgot about it the next day or whenever.

The stuff about the harassment, i didn't know all the details. Just bc the school settled doesn't mean he did all the stuff that was alleged in the complaint.

If there was evidence of the harassment, the DA shoulda added those charges or tried to get his bail revoked.

You no understand consent

My first sentence says 'I'm not saying that a rape didn't happen'

it doesnt matter.

once the story said rape it was a wrap. If this was a movie about football i doubt it comes up.

its the content of the movie and the color of the alleged victim that did him in.

His biggest mistake was thinking America would be okay with this story. He shoulda passed this movie off to another brotha cause that rape accusation was going to kill it regardless of how he played this friendship.

>it doesnt matter.
>
>once the story said rape it was a wrap. If this was a movie
>about football i doubt it comes up.
>
>its the content of the movie and the color of the alleged
>victim that did him in.
>
>His biggest mistake was thinking America would be okay with
>this story. He shoulda passed this movie off to another brotha
>cause that rape accusation was going to kill it regardless of
>how he played this friendship.

the whole "I've changed" narrative would have had a chance if he'd stopped associating with Celestin. I often think to myself that I wish Ryan Coogler has written this story and not him.

of whatever money this makes for him (his cut, I mean) to sexual assault/rape related charities and organizations. Do you think that would have a big positive effect?

>Do you think that would have a big positive effect?

a lot of people will dismiss and forgive disgusting and heinous things folks have done as long as you give them a W.

Look at Kobe.

except its much easier to do in sports/music.

with Kellz.

just 2 or 3 years, this would be a non-issue now (all else equal, which I know is a bit of a stretch to imagine).

People feel like he got away with it, which is the source of the anger.

He's going to have to pay a price. Luckily for him he didn't have to go deal with Freddie/Omar and them on Riker's, buit it seems like his price is that he's not going to be the darling of Hollywood for 2016 and 2017.

nobody really cares about Celestin at all.

>nobody really cares about Celestin at all.
>

why isnt he getting hit over the head with articles?

do we know what he looks like?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html

Like Tek said, part of what's hurting Nate in the eyes of public opinion is that he seemingly got away with it.

Celestin served less than a year, but he served something.

if he'd been convicted i doubt there'd be so much firestorm.

if it was celestin's film they'd be all over him.

You are who you associate with. Parker associates with celestin. Stuck by him, gave him a credit etc. So that makes parker look like a pos, in addition to whatever parker may have done himself.

i don't have a problem w/him standing by his friend. and i disagree that we are the ppl w/whom we associate. if my homie is a rapist and he and i work that out between us and i stick by him that doesn't make me a rapist. it makes me several other things but not a rapist.

even a rapist needs love and if that's my man 40 grand, my ace boon coon, i'm not necessarily going to abandon him when he's down and out. even if it's HIS fault that he's down and out. if he's my ride or die and he's facing judgment and recrimination from all sides i'm not necessarily going to abandon him even though my loyalty to him makes some folks clutch the pearls. b/c even the lowest of the low deserve love. i'm not a Xtian anymore but i raised like that and i guess i took some of those lessons to heart even though i'm now an atheist. so i wouldn't necessarily abandon the homie just b/c he's guilty of something heinous. it would depend on several factors.

anyway, that's why i don't automatically cast aspersions on Nate b/c he stuck w/Jean here.

http://biblehub.com/john/15-13.htm

King James Bible
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

amen.

He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Proverbs 1:10-11
My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause.

Romans 16:17
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Ephesians 5:11
Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.

Lots of great lessons in the Good Book. Nice chatting as always.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.


Matthew 7:1-3
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

amen.

their actions BECAUSE I love them.

It is what it is. 'The system' that allows police to shoot Black men seemingly w/o repercussions is also 'the system' that let this nxgga off the hook.

this muhfugga said “You were all for it, you know what I mean,” he said. “It’d, it’d be different if you were just laying there, but you weren’t. You were active, you know what I mean?”

y'all gon get enough of tryna retroactively persecute muhfuckas now that our perspective as a society has progressed. this is some bull$hit and it won't work out well in the long term.

there is no absolute truth, esp not in this circumstance. Fk the dude. Fk the movie. Go READ THE STORY of Nat Turner. Do some community building. Anything more productive than arguing about this rubber-faced muhfugga. LOL

I'm just saying I get it if Nate didn't throw his friend away. I don't know what I would do but I don't think I would DEFINITELY throw my homie away in this circumstance.

This f*cker needs to shut up!!!

You beat the rap, get over it! Why would I who has an issue with idiots like Nate (no matter what color of the rainbow they are), think that just because I'm BLACK that I need to stick up for something is dumb ass did damn near 20 years ago.

And, maybe its your guilty conscience. What have you don't for black people that we are supposed to ride sooooooo hard for you for? You made Birth of a Nation. Respect. But what else?!

I don't ride for Pill Cosby and he's done a LOT for black people and education! So screw you Nate Parker! Who gives a flying fuck about your "disappointment".

That's why I'm waiting for Birth of a Nation to come on cable/Netflix...idiot!

How is it that Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still get love but Nate Parker is getting blackballed?!!!!

FUCK THAT!!! He was acquitted so I can't really hate on him.

I'm going to see this movie IN THEATERS on principle!!!!

>How is it that Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still get love
>but Nate Parker is getting blackballed?!!!!

Woody Allen catches hell each and every time he releases a movie. he's released so many of them since the various accusations were made about him that it's old hat now. but just a couple years ago there was this during Oscar season when Woody was set to receive an award:

http://gawker.com/what-you-should-know-about-the-abuse-allegations-agains-1500274468
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

and recently there was:

http://www.people.com/article/woody-allen-ronan-farrow-column-abuse-allegations-controversy-cannes-2016
http://fusion.net/story/301699/woody-allen-abuse-allegations-celebrity-comments/
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/07/woody-allen-kate-winslet-justin-timberlake-movie

same w/Roman Polanski:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/16/entertainment/la-et-jc-geimer-book-20130916
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/roman-polanski-rape-victim-unveils-591015

Some people may write articles, that no one reads, but dude still gets top tier A-listers to work on his movies every single year,still gets nominated for Oscars, etc. Nate Parker is getting blackballed and now a surefire Oscar nominated movie prolly wont receive a single nomination. Woody Allen does not catch hell.

11 minutes to go from mad on one end to mad on the other.

hearing and kinda glancing but all I got is

him and his man's ran a G on a chick in college...


how/when did it turn into rape?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html

there are so many articles to read if you wanna catch up on this. that's just one of them.

in the leaked testimony on the phonecall between them he tells her that she was actively participating and she doesn't deny it(that's not proof either way, she couldda just been ignoring his point)... but then when she asked if someone else was in the room was helping out/in the room he initially denied it in the same convo. Basically its he said/she said.

gotta be a yt girl
yeah i'll stop typin now.... thx

times have most certainly changed

yeah...times have changed.

Nate called this third friend in to participate in the rape with him and Celestine.
He saw the girl said she wasn't moving at all , her arms or legs, and was unconscious. He left because he said it didn't seem right.

Not only that, this same guy told Celestine not to go in when Nate called him in.

That's why he didn't get charged with rape. He is also black.
That's a third witness.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

>He saw the girl said she wasn't moving at all , her arms or legs, and was unconscious. He left because he said it didn't seem right.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html


Kavamahanga testified that Jennifer was a “six seven” on a scale of one to 10—one being sober and 10 being passed out.
In a November 1999 statement to police, Kavamahanga also noted Jennifer was “coherent but noticeably drunk.” At the trial, the defense introduced some doubt on his testimony, asking Kavamahanga whether his memory of that night “slack off” because he had four to five rum-and-cokes before arriving at Silver Screen. He admitted, “Yes.”

and he didn't say anything about her being unconscious. He never saw them having sex

http://deadline.com/2016/08/nate-parker-sex-case-the-birth-of-a-nation-oscar-race-fox-searchlight-1201799115/

"At trial, a third man, Tamerlane Kangas, testified that Parker waved him and Celestin to join him when they spied Parker and the woman having sex in the bedroom. While Celestin accepted the invitation, Kangas declined, and left the apartment. He was not charged with any crime. “I didn’t believe that four people at one time was — you know, it didn’t seem right,” he testified."

His trial testimony...
https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/kangas_testimony/2
He says her arms and legs were not moving, though they switched positions several times!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/demetria-lucas-doyley-/we-need-to-discuss-nate-p_b_11532782.html
"According to Kangas’ testimony in the trial transcripts published by Deadline, he and Celestin witnessed Parker having sex with the woman, and Parker invited both men to join him. Kangas testified that he advised Celestin not to go into Parker’s room and did not enter himself but watched Parker and Celestin have sex with her for a short time before leaving. Parker and Celestin both maintained that their accuser was conscious and the encounter was consensual."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/movies/the-birth-of-a-nation-nate-parkers-heralded-film-is-now-cloaked-in-controversy.html?_r=0
"A friend of the two men, Tamerlane Kangas, who was visiting them the night of the incident, testified that Mr. Parker beckoned for Mr. Kangas and Mr. Celestin to join him with the woman in sex. After Mr. Celestin did, Mr. Kangas watched them switch positions with her — Mr. Kangas testified that he did not see her move — and left."



Note: this is Nates friend who was with him the whole night. And went back to the apartment with them after hanging out.

When the accuser called him to ask how many people she had sex with he never mentions this guy as having sex with her because he saw what happened and left because he knew it was wrong. He even warned Celestine not to get involved.


People don't believe a rape happened until a male witness says he personally saw it. So for the people who need that before they can believe, here it is. Tamerlane is a black male witness.

________________
___________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

That's just him saying he doesn't like trains. That doesn't speak to whether she consented or could consent.

The second part, though, about her not moving is completely relevant.

>Kangas’s recollection differs from those of the wrestlers: Parker’s bedroom door was open, he testified, and Kangas and Celestin both peered inside and saw him on top of Jennifer having sex. The room was dimly lit by a blue-colored bulb fixed above the futon.
Parker noticed them and “motioned for us to come inside the room,” Kangas testified.
Kangas said Jennifer didn’t see them or say a word. Her arms weren’t moving, he said; her legs were pressed to her chest, her feet propped in the air.
“We went out into the hallway and Jean said, ‘Let’s go inside the room,’ and then I said, ‘No, you don’t want to go inside the room,’ and then after that we went back into the doorway and he walked into the room,” Kangas testified. “Shortly after that—or he got undressed and stood towards the head side of the futon and shortly after that I left.
“I personally didn’t go into the room because I wasn’t attracted to Jennifer and I didn’t believe that four people at one time was—you know, it didn’t seem right,” the Air Force officer added at the trial.

I didn't read your links but basically you're saying Kangas said he witnessed them raping her and did nothing, just left?

>
>
>I didn't read your links but basically you're saying
Kangas
>said he witnessed them raping her and did nothing, just
left?

He not exactly a hero but he isn't a rapist. He saw his
friends commit a crime, literally said he wanted no parts of
it  and left. He told Celestine not to go into the room when
Nate called him to join. Nate or Celestine called Kangas and
he went to the door way. Says he saw them switching positions
and when that happened her arms nor legs where moving. Then
jetted. 

Kangas was never under suspicion because when the police set
up the sting to tape the victim asking Nate what happened on
the phone because she couldn't remember, Nate lied and said
that he was the only one who had sex with her.
Then when she questioned if that was true because she could be
pregnant then he changed his story and say it was him and
Celestine.  Both Nate and Celestine testified Kangas was
there, left and never has sex with this woman. 

Why even bother lying to a person who was sober and fully
aware of what was going on and consented to this threesome? 

Here is the transcripts of the phone call...
It's only 3 pages big font. 

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/callexcerpt-wm.pdf




___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

He states he didn't believe she was intoxicated (pg 295) and
that the sex was consensual (bottom of page 296)


>>
>>
>>I didn't read your links but basically you're saying
Kangas
>>said he witnessed them raping her and did nothing,
just
>left?
>
>He not exactly a hero but he isn't a rapist. He saw his
>friends commit a crime, literally said he wanted no parts
of
>it  and left. He told Celestine not to go into the room
when
>Nate called him to join. Nate or Celestine called Kangas
and
>he went to the door way. Says he saw them switching
positions
>and when that happened her arms nor legs where moving.
Then
>jetted. 
>
>Kangas was never under suspicion because when the police
set
>up the sting to tape the victim asking Nate what happened
on
>the phone because she couldn't remember, Nate lied and
said
>that he was the only one who had sex with her.
>Then when she questioned if that was true because she
could be
>pregnant then he changed his story and say it was him and
>Celestine.  Both Nate and Celestine testified Kangas was
>there, left and never has sex with this woman. 
>
>Why even bother lying to a person who was sober and fully
>aware of what was going on and consented to this
threesome? 
>
>Here is the transcripts of the phone call...
>It's only 3 pages big font. 
>
>https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/callexcerpt-wm.pdf
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>
>
>DJTB YOMM


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face.
Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He stated clearly that her arms and legs were not moving and
they, meaning the men who had sex with her, manually changed
positions! 

He wasn't in the room the whole time but that's what he saw
during sex. He wasn't there to hear her give consent to Nate
or Celestine. He didn't see her consent to shit because he
wasn't there when both men started having sex with her. 

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face.
Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

at the VERY least it was a 'situation I wouldn't put myself in'.

you ever had someone (a lyin-a$$ someone) try to convince you of some $hit that happened and your instincts tell you they fulla $hit cause they end everything with "remember?"

Thass how this nxgga comes off in the report.

"You said it was cool, remember?"

"..we've been over this before...remember?"

No, nxgga I don't. I remember YOU fkin...and I remember somebody ELSE fkin that WASNT you.

That's very problematic.

nm

The Nat Turner story has to be told
Im interested in seeing how its told

i dont condone rape alleged rape
trains or any of that never partook in that crap in college

but i also dont condone my peoples stories and struggles
getting written out of History

If the movie is still released im going to see it
and that's that

it depends in part on what Nate says and does going forward. i'm still torn.

I still watch Woody Allen's Movies, and wish I could catch episodes of the Cosby Show, despite my opinions of both of those driving force individuals being pieces of shit.

Even though I looked upon Cosby disparagingly since the pound cake speech days, I was able to look past it to still enjoy his show. Understanding that television isn't made by lone individuals, but by dynamic teams of people, with whom I have no issues. I see Woody Allen w/ Soon Ye featured during Knicks game time-outs...I don't boycott the NBA.

I spend cash with George Washington's slave holding face on it everyday. Every pay-check I receive, Federal tax dollars are taken out to pay for things I impassionately disagree with. Especially in the South, taxes fund public works like highways, memorials and edifices celebrating the treasonous confederacy. The Veterans Administration only days ago decided to end the flying of JohnnyReb flags in National Cemeteries...on certain days.

Got damn right I'm going to go see this film, but not to support Parker.

There are many sources that we can use to learn about Nat Turner. I don't support rape culture or misogynoir, so yeah I'll pass.

They don't do all of this when it's Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. Bryan Singer had allegations of pedophilia levied against him--no outrage. This is sabotage, plain and simple.

Nate Parker, at the very least, did something very stupid. He involved himself in a situation that could turn into a predicament...which is what this scandal is. I'm willing to bet that if his film wasn't opening with Oscar buzz attached most of this heat wouldn't exist. It's not like he hasn't been getting work in Hollywood this entire time. The Great Debaters was released in 2007. The victim's suicide happened in 2012. Why didn't this come up when he was doing press for Beyond the Lights?

And like someone else already posted....this film is too important to not support. I can support this film and think that Nate Parker is terrible at the same time.

Issues of consent and rape and how our ideas about them are shifting (or should shift) have already been big topics of discussion, campus rape in particular, and his case hits all of the bad notes.

- Incapacitation from drinking
- harassment after the fact
- college being sued for not acting in the victims interest
- him getting acquitted based on the antiquated, bullshit notion that because she'd previously given consent for sexual activity that consent could be assumed continuously

That all makes the story ripe to piss off a lot of people already pissed off about how rape allegations are treated in our society. He did himself no favors with his poorly formulated non-apology, but he probably couldn't have said anything to really fix this.

And unlike Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, he does not have strong, long established connections in the industry to shield him, and again, this is coming to the public's attention at a very different time culturally. Basically, he was fucked from the start. Sucks for him, but I don't feel sorry for him because it honestly seems like he probably did rape her, and while I think this is an important movie and I'll probably still see it, he doesn't deserve uncritical support personally from the black community just because he made it. Fuck him

it's perfect timing and it's on purpose

when he first referenced the incident...was that the first time it was mentioned in public? Did someone pick it up after that and is attempting to run a smear campaign? if he hadn't mentioned it in that first interview, would it have come out anyway?

someone was about to drop a bomb.

bc there had been multiple requests for the court documents.

probably should have came out with it as soon as they latched on to the project(not sure how that stuff works)

The girl having committed suicide certainly was an unexpected monkey wrench in their strategy

he really thought people would shrug this off?

own heart and soul about it. And part of that for alot of people is spinning it in your own mind. Especially since he was acquitted, so he didn't really suffer much until now. So when you spin it for long enough internally, you can sort of forget how the actual factuals will come off to people, especially random strangers he'll never be face to face with.

if not for that, he mighta been able to hang on to the wrongfully accused bit since he did go to court and was exonerated.

Buuuut, inviting a dude in that she doesn't remember or (had to ask who was that or who else) and the girl killed herself smh, there's no way around that.

but even if she was alive and it was just an accusation of black out drunk sex = rape he would get the same treatment.

once the word rape and white girl are in the same sentence a black man is going to receive hell... especially if he has a movie out about Nat Turner.

of this false charge. People can stand behind him and say he was tried and exonerated and has been an upstanding citizen in every aspect of life.

No one wants to do that bc he still boys with the dude that got convicted(although overturned) that the girl didn't even know who he was and bc she killed herself.

Of course it was gonna come up, regardless of the subject matter of the movie. It doesn't take a conspiracy

Will I see the movie...most likely.

Will I see it theaters...probably not.

Do I have a problem with Nate Parker? His attitude and the nonchalant way he dismissed this all in the beginning is very assholish, makes him look really bad...especially to those who are sexual assault survivors and the supporter of sexual assault survivors, of which I am.

To me it calls into question whether he should have been acquitted. And he gets the side eye from me.

Given that I'm a huge history buff, I want to see the movie. But I refuse to add to his box office revenue.

And that's the real.

X-Men First Class, Jack The Giant Slayer, X-Men Days
of Future Past, or X-Men Apocalypse?

Not since I found out about that scandal. Which was earlier this year...

So it is what it is.

Just like I don't watch Bill Cosby anymore. And I definitely don't phuck with the Rrrruh.

There's a reason you didn't find out, and there's
a reason you ARE finding out about this now.
This definitely isn't by chance.

It seems like the decision to see this movie in the theaters or not is weighing so heavily on your mind.

2 for Birth of a Nation...
no wait, 2 for Mr. Chuckee
wait, 2 for Birth...
ugh... wait, when is the next showing?
nah.. 2, 2 for Birth...

I'm sorry yall... lemme check the internet one last time to see what the consensus is on Nate.

>I'm sorry yall... lemme check the internet one last time to
>see what the consensus is on Nate.

has he worked with that Celestin dude in the past for movies and/or TV shows?

http://www.theroot.com/blog/the-grapevine/harry-belafonte-on-nate-parker-what-has-he-done-that-requires-this-kind-of-animus/

smh at Kitt...

that shit is depressing. "They wanted white women so I went out and married a white man"

Hollywood yo

Sidney and Harry have 3 white wives between them. If Harry did say that to her forreal, that's as fucked up as what she said.
All these Hollywood negros are screwed in the head.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

I'm shocked when i see a Black star with a Black SO.

and every new Black actor seems to have one on their arm

and Harry and Ertha and them..

She's ALWAYS been the type who put Black men down
while actively trying to get Black women to date
white men. Like literally on some "girl you better
try it" type of shit, so every time I see a Root
article written by her, I know there's about a 95%
chance a Black man will be cast in a negative light
or a white man put in a positive one. Her articles
are NEVER subjective, and she even goes around on
social media attacking Black men.

I WOULD like to hear his response about what he
allegedly said to Eartha Kitt tho lol.

But anyway, the George Zimmerman comparison is stupid,
because his case has never gone away and is his very
"claim to fame." Nate's been in movie after movie.
This accusation doesn't come up every time his name is
mentioned. It only comes up now that he's getting ready
to release this particular movie. I really don't think
that's coincidence. We can say the situation is fucked
up AND recognize that his movie is being sabotaged.

If you only want to acknowledge one of those... fine,
but don't act like people are crazy for simply being
on the opposite side of the same coin.

Aja King cuz I heard she KILLED this role & she fine as wine!

https://www.instagram.com/ajanaomi_king/

but yeah its sad that they gotta suffer too cuz of this idiot.

EDIT: scratch her off the list just seen her YT boyfriend -
http://i.imgur.com/qErKL96.gif

.
.
.

Figured I'd share this piece in here as well, as
I found it be a pretty balanced view.

http://thegrio.com/2016/08/25/nat-turner-nate-parker-past/

Nat Turner’s story is way too important to be lost in Nate Parker’s past

by David A. Love | August 25, 2016 at 9:23 AM Filed in: News,

Before Nate Parker’s film “The Birth of a Nation” hits theaters in October, there is something we must get straight. Rape and sexual violence are epidemics we must address now. Yet, boycotting an important film about Nat Turner will not push that debate forward, but it will help to silence the issues of our country’s legacy of systemic racism and #BlackLivesMatter that the film dares to broach.

Al Sharpton Defends Nate Parker: Hollywood Wants To “Kill The Message” Of Film

The film–which Fox Searchlight bought for $17 million at the Sundance Film festival, depicts the 1831 Nat Turner slave rebellion– was being promoted as an Oscar contender. And then came the controversy about Parker’s past, specifically a 2001 rape trial arising from a 1999 incident as a college student at Penn State, for which he was acquitted. The film’s co-writer, Lean Celestin, was found guilty initially, and the conviction was overturned.

Meanwhile, news that the woman who accused Parker committed suicide in 2012 surfaced in recent weeks. The compelling accounts of her struggle with trauma in the wake of the incident suggest the legal system failed this woman. After filing complaints with both the police and Penn State alleging she was raped by Parker and Celestin, she filed a Title IX sex discrimination lawsuit charging the school with failing to properly respond to her harassment. “Our client took the actions she did with the goal of protecting other women from sexual assault and harassment, and to do what she could to ensure justice for rape survivors,” said the Women’s Law Project, which represented the woman, in a statement. “These objectives have not been achieved in either (the criminal justice or the campus) system, as has been well-documented.”

Twitter Responds To Finding Out That Nate Parker Has A White Wife

Surely in a nation where one out of every six women will survive an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime, sexual violence is not an issue we can ignore or fail to address.

With that backdrop, the American Film Institute cancelled a Friday screening of “Birth,” and a press conference inToronto was cancelled. Questions are being raised about the film’s viability in light of the accusations against him, and some Oscar voters are proclaiming they cannot separate the man from his work, and cannot watch his film, much less vote for it.

Parker, who wrote on Facebook that “As a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith, I look back on that time as a teenager and can say without hesitation that I should have used more wisdom.” He also said “I have changed so much since nineteen. I’ve grown and matured in so many ways and still have more learning and growth to do. I have tried to conduct myself in a way that honors my entire community – and will continue to do this to the best of my ability.”

Parker, who said “no one who calls himself a man of faith should even be in that situation,” also expressed disappointment in the black community’s response to his rape case. To be sure, Parker must be disappointed in himself and must deal with his role in this. We must not give him a pass because he is black, and it is time the black community take a stand, and address its complicity. Just because Nate Parker is black, that doesn’t mean we should all rush to his defense.

Studies have shown that anywhere from 1 in 4 black girls to sixty percent of black girls have experienced sexual abuse before reaching the age of 18. And for every black woman who reports a rape, at least 15 of them do not, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

-Anthony Anderson Comes To The Defense Of Nate Parker

So can we separate the artist from his work? The film industry has asked that question with Roman Polansky and Woody Allen. And the answer to that question might not even be the issue. The question is, who is bigger, Nate Parker or Nat Turner?

The story of Nat Turner comes to the big screen at a time when the black community complains, and rightly so, about the shortage of films that tell our story. While some would boycott this film because of Parker’s past, others would rather have this move go away so we don’t deal with the underlying matters of Black Lives Matter and racism that “Birth” broaches, and in a necessary way.

Simply put, this film could be historic in that it gets to the heart of what this country always was about: That “peculiar institution” of slavery, white fear and paranoia, and keeping the slaves in line so they don’t take over the plantation. The public schools do not teach this country’s history, opting for American exceptionalism rather than the exceptionally shameful legacy of racial oppression and economic and sexual exploitation. And African-Americans always pay the price of white folks’ ignorance over issues they’d rather not confront. Talk of black revolution–not to mention an armed slave insurrection in the name of Jesus Christ– is bound to make people uneasy. Meanwhile, negative media images of black people have cost black people their rights and their lives. The original “Birth of a Nation”—D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film– depicted the emancipated slaves as irredeemable, inept and violent rapists, and black power as a nightmare. It sparked race riots and helped reorganize the Ku Klux Klan. And the film is still taught in film schools. Will Nate Parker’s film have an opportunity to be as groundbreaking, this time in a positive light by shifting the national talk about race? Will we ever know?

-Nate Parker Reacts To News Of Woman Who Accused Him Of Rape Committing Suicide

Given last year’s pathetic absence of color at the Oscars, one must question whether the old-white-male-dominated Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would have endorsed a film where there are no white heroes saving the day or saving helpless Negroes, even before the current Parker controversy. True, “12 Years A Slave” won three Oscars in 2014, but those are few and far between. We should just make sure that in shutting down “Birth,” we are not enabling those who care little about Nate Parker, and don’t want you to know what Nat Turner did.

Getting rid of the film tries to make Nat Turner disappear, and that doesn’t help address racism or sexual violence.

its fucking disgusting hearing folk say that shit...

same people prolly ran barefoot to see Django but some real ass history with Nat Turner and they let white folk pull the okey doke.

'we' keep tying our $hit...relying on YT folx support.


READ THE STORY OF NAT TURNER.

TAKE YO ASS TO THE LIBRARY. TAKE THE KIDS.

ENGAGE THEM IN A DISCUSSION.

the money/proceeds from the movie will go to corporations, and back into the economy, back into this oppressive system. It changes nothing about 'our' plight. That $hit starts at home. Not with Nate fucking Parker. Fuck that nigga.

I agree we need to read... won't find may people
who advocate us reading our scholars more than me,
but images matter just as much since that trains
the brain. I'm not saying this has to be THE movie
about it or THE image, but I am saying that images
cannot be discounted.
It's cool if you have other movies/images lined up, but
we can't just say 'read and all will be fine'.

Nothing wrong with reading up on Nat Turner and also viewing a film by a black man that hopefully does his story justice.

miss me with that yt corporation bullshit tho..

unless its printed by a black press company (they exist but aren't plentiful) we are going to put money in the systems pocket.

I don't know Nate Parker to say fuck you or not but I think yall are a little too quick to bury this man.

its a shame.

when I say fuck Nate I don't mean it like that. I'm just seeing a LOT of weight being put on this movie and I 'feel' like nxggas is saying ths Nat Turner flick is gon save blk America.

I feel like no matter your culture..the issues start at home. This aint a documentary per se; I see it as more factual allegory.

Even if the books were printed by WYPIPO..where did NP get his info? The information is out there.

I DEFINITELY want the movie to happen, but I fear at the end of all the controversy...the baby and the bath water gettin' tossed. If I have to choose, I won't choose Nate. I choose the subject of the movie and its premise is all.

respect

early on I said I dont really care about Nates issues i just want the art.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/08/exclusive-nate-parkers-former-classmates-penn-state-alumni-speak-out-in-support/?

Exclusive: Nate Parker’s Former Classmates, Penn State Alumni Speak Out in Support
In a statement of support shared exclusively with The Root, four people who were at Penn State University around the time of the rape allegations express sympathy for the accuser while remaining adamant in their belief that Parker is innocent.

The Root Staff
BY: THE ROOT STAFF
Posted: August 25, 2016

Four Penn State University alumni have come out in support of embattled actor Nate Parker and writer Jean McGianni Celestin, releasing a statement exclusively to The Root late Wednesday night.

In the letter, Penn State alums LaKeisha Wolf, Assata Richards, Lurie Daniel Favors and Brian Favors all state their belief in the innocence of Parker and Celestin regarding the 17-year-old rape charges, and outline 10 points they say are missing from the dialogue around the allegations.

“We are both dismayed and disappointed at the gross and blatant misinformation campaign regarding the events that took place during that time period,” the statement reads. “We feel compelled to speak truth to this situation as the media has cherry-picked the most salacious elements while ignoring the actual record.”

The foursome, who state they were students, staff and alumni during the trial, later add: “We believed some 17 years ago that Jean Celestin and Nate Parker were innocent of rape and we believe that now.”

Parker has been embroiled in controversy of late since stories by Deadline and Variety began circulating about the sexual assault accusations, coinciding with buzz around his film, The Birth of a Nation—a story about Nat Turner’s slave rebellion.

In the statement, the four say they were there for the trial and that many details are being overlooked. They point out the accuser’s race as a factor, as well as the heated racial climate on the campus at the time of the trial. The four also say allegations of harassment made by the woman who accused Parker and Celestin of rape (and later committed suicide in 2012) are untrue despite the fact that the university eventually settled with the woman for $17,500 over the claims.

“Neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were named in the civil lawsuit, neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were ever interviewed or contacted about that civil suit—nor were they able to defend themselves in that suit and were not aware of its existence until it was settled,” the statement reads.

The four also point out that during the trial it was revealed that the accuser had a history of depression unrelated to the assault charges and that one witness for the prosecution actually changed his testimony, although in the statement, they don’t go into detail over which exact testimony this pertains to.

The four write that they were “deeply disappointed” in Parker and Celestin’s choices back then, but that they stand behind the longtime friends and collaborators, saying they are innocent of rape. The four also say “they hope to encourage our community to embrace as vibrant of a discussion about misogyny, misogynoir and toxic masculinity, as we do about racism and white supremacy.”

The four are joined by the Rev. Al Sharpton and actor-activist Harry Belafonte as those who’ve come out in support of Parker and Celestin in recent days.

Read their full statement below:

Who We Are and Why We’re Making This Statement

We are members of the Penn State community who were present during the time when Nate Parker and Jean McGianni Celestin were accused and charged with the rape of a fellow Penn State student. We were present during the entire trial and ultimate exoneration of both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin. At the time, we were college students, staff and alumni who were deeply involved with countering the violently hostile racial climate that thrived in the Penn State community . Today, we are educators, lawyers, professors, academics and entrepreneurs who are actively engaged in community development and advancing social justice. Since our time at Penn State we have dedicated our lives to doing the healing and restorative work for our community and will continue to do so.

We have received several requests for comment on this matter by a wide array of parties and media outlets seeking additional information from people who witnessed the trial and were present during the time leading up to and after the trial. While we have refrained from making public statements, in light of recent media reports, we feel compelled to release this statement. To be clear: We are both dismayed and disappointed at the gross and blatant misinformation campaign regarding the events that took place during that time period. We feel compelled to speak truth to this situation as the media has cherry-picked the most salacious elements while ignoring the actual record.

Our goal in speaking out is to provide accurate information about what really took place during that time. We also hope to encourage our community to embrace as vibrant of a discussion about misogyny, misogynoir and toxic masculinity, as we do about racism and white supremacy.

It is important to note that as a group of people deeply involved in this case, we were saddened to learn of the death of the young woman involved from news reports last week. Even as we make this statement, we are deeply respectful of the pain and loss of her family and friends. We do not and cannot ignore the deep pain that this case, and so many like it, brings to everyone involved.

We believed some 17 years ago that Jean Celestin and Nate Parker were innocent of rape and we believe that now. This belief was supported by the evidence that eventually fully cleared both Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker. Evidence that many media outlets have chosen to ignore, overlook or mischaracterize today.

Our belief in and support of Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker was validated when we witnessed how racially biased the investigators were throughout the years leading up to the trial. This investigation took place during a time period of intense racial hostilities both on and off campus (which you can read more about in depth here ).

The trial was one of the longest non-murder trials in the history of the area. Here are a few key points related to the investigation and the trial:

1. The woman making the claim was a white college student and the criminal trial was decided by 11 white jurors and one black woman in Centre County, Pa. Nate Parker was fully acquitted at trial and Jean Celestin was wrongly convicted on one charge which he later successfully appealed.

2. Despite what’s been widely reported, Jean Celestin ultimately served nearly two years in prison while he fought to clear his name. His conviction was later reversed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals and he was fully exonerated. The court that reversed Jean Celestin’s conviction overturned less than 15 percent of all the convictions appealed in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania that year.

3. Witnesses were threatened by the investigators who were trying to build a case against Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin. As a result of those threats, some witnesses (including one of the undersigned) had to seek legal protection from the very investigators charged with finding the facts.

4. A key prosecution eyewitness changed his statement several times after being threatened and coerced by police investigators.

5. The allegations of torture, stalking and intimidation of the woman involved in the case are absolutely untrue. Neither Mr. Parker, Mr. Celestin, nor any members acting on behalf of the Black Caucus ever stalked or harassed the young woman. As a routine part of the university and police investigation into this matter, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin had bail orders that barred them both from certain parts of campus and from approaching the young woman involved. Had those orders been violated, both would have been arrested before their criminal trial. Neither the Black Caucus leadership, nor the group’s academic adviser was ever contacted about any supposed harassment of the young woman by black student members.

6. From the date of their arrest until after their trial, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin were under strict bail conditions to have absolutely no contact with the young woman. Had they violated that order, their bail would have been revoked. Claims of harassment were used to support a civil suit filed against Penn State University for payment after the criminal case. Neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were named in the civil lawsuit, neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were ever interviewed or contacted about that civil suit—nor were they able to defend themselves in that suit and were not aware of its existence until it was settled.

7. Contrary to repeated inaccurate media reports, there is nothing to suggest that the ruling had anything to do with prior intimate contact with the young woman involved. The jury made no mention of this when they rendered their verdict. The jury’s decision was based on prosecution and defense witnesses and evidence in the court record that indicated that the young woman was both conscious and engaged during the evening in question.

8. Misinformation suggests that a spiral into depression was triggered by the alleged incident in 1999. However, court records and testimony by medical professionals revealed a history of chronic depression that dated back to childhood and the use of antidepressant medication that preceded this event.

9. Publications and the public have relied heavily on partial excerpts of one recorded phone call. There were multiple recorded transcripts calls. These multiple calls, in their entirety, were played in court for the jury to consider and to provide proper context to the narrative.

10. Celestin and Mr. Parker have always maintained that what happened that evening was consensual and never hid from the complexities of this even when they were facing more than 20 years in prison. Mr. Parker has spoken about this case dating as far back as 2008. Mr. Celestin wrote a memoir about his experience after he was exonerated which he plans to publish. He has spoken about his experience in the community for more than 10 years.

Copies of the relevant court documents that support the claims contained in this letter are located at factchecktoday.

It is unfortunate but still necessary to state that some of us are women who have survived sexual violence. We know that rape and sexual violence are rampant throughout our society. We also know that our society does not typically engage in discussions around this topic in ways that challenge notions of toxic masculinity. We know that most rape survivors never come forward because of how rape culture can prevent us from receiving justice.

Also, some of us also have family members who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit—including those who were falsely accused and convicted of rape charges. Family members who spent decades in prison before being released. We recognize that racism and white supremacy have historically combined around notions of sexuality and at times have created climates where lynch mob mentalities resulted in the destruction of entire black communities and black lives. Many of us viewed this incident involving Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker as yet another example of the blatant racism and violent hostility faced by black students on Penn State’s campus. We ask that you read more about that time period here to better understand the racial terror we faced.

Our belief in Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker’s innocence was validated as we sat through the court trial, heard all of the evidence and witnessed a justice system that was trying its best to lock both men up for as long as possible. But that system couldn’t bury them completely. The facts that spoke to their innocence, and the community that was unwilling to allow two additional young black men to be wrongfully convicted of something they did not do, would not allow it.

While we were deeply disappointed with the personal choices in this matter, we stood with and supported Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker then because we believed they were innocent of the crimes of which they were charged. Our disappointment also stems from our belief that far too many young men participate in patriarchal, misogynistic structures without consideration of the long-term implications. We acknowledge that we can be disappointed and desire that they had not been in that room, while recognizing that they should not have been jailed for something that they were not guilty of. The facts of their story (in their totality —not the snippets referenced by media outlets) made sense. We made the choice to stand up and speak out against injustice some 17 years ago, and despite those who may attempt to attack or discredit us again from near and far, we are choosing to make the same choice today.

Nate Parker and Jean Celestin have never shied away from this incident and have always taken accountability—we, members of their village, required them to take responsibility. And, they have owned this incident in their personal lives and have used this moment to empower themselves to be change agents in their communities ever since. Indeed, both of them have frequently spoken about this period in their lives in an attempt to influence others in our community to make better choices and to build healthier communities.

This story is Nate and Jean’s testimony—one of growth and maturation. Though this story is a challenging one, we refused to leave them behind almost two decades ago or be silent now because we are committed to creating true justice. Indeed, we are talking about this moment in their lives precisely because this situation was not the end of their story. Now more than ever, our village will not allow their critically important and timely contributions to be derailed by a campaign of untruths or distorted perceptions. It is our hope and prayer that the outpouring of emotion and discussion that this topic has generated can ignite a process toward healing in our families and communities—a process that is so desperately needed if we are going to bring about true social change.

Sincerely,

LaKeisha Wolf, Artist & Entrepreneur, PSU Alumni
Dr. Assata Richards, PSU Alumni
Lurie Daniel Favors, Esq., PSU Alumni
Brian Favors, Education Consultant, M.Ed.; M.S.Ed, PSU Alumni

i already questioned earlier why they weren't prosecuted for violating their bail with the alleged harassment?

I never saw anything that said Parker and Celestin made direct contact with her to harass her, rather, intimidation tactics were used on their behalf, and that their involvement was suspected.

Still, how could she have consented to both acts if she wasn't fully sure that one of them (w/ Celestin) occurred?

This is the most even-handed defense of Parker I've seen though. He should have consulted with this group before he spoke out about it.

>I never saw anything that said Parker and Celestin made
>direct contact with her to harass her, rather, intimidation
>tactics were used on their behalf, and that their involvement
>was suspected.
>
>Still, how could she have consented to both acts if she wasn't
>fully sure that one of them (w/ Celestin) occurred?

She knew there was another black guy there, she didn't know who he was.

>This is the most even-handed defense of Parker I've seen
>though. He should have consulted with this group before he
>spoke out about it.
>
>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html
It's pretty far down the page so I took a screenshot.

https://postimg.org/image/kpp4a5k4n/

Whether it was established that she did know, I couldn't discern that from this article. But unless this article is omitting something, like writers of The Root piece argues, it appears that at first, he was trying to convince her that there wasn't a second person.

appealed don't get overturned

Of racist organizations.

Also death threats were sent to Black students a year or two later and white nationalist organizations were threating to kill Black students after a dead Black person was found not too far from campus.

>>>5. The allegations of torture, stalking and intimidation of the woman involved in the case are absolutely untrue. Neither Mr. Parker, Mr. Celestin, nor any members acting on behalf of the Black Caucus ever stalked or harassed the young woman. As a routine part of the university and police investigation into this matter, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin had bail orders that barred them both from certain parts of campus and from approaching the young woman involved. Had those orders been violated, both would have been arrested before their criminal trial. Neither the Black Caucus leadership, nor the group’s academic adviser was ever contacted about any supposed harassment of the young woman by black student members.

I never saw a claim that said Parker or Celestin made direct contact with her. The piece cited members of the wrestling team in the harassment, and for hiring a private investigator to find info on her. So no Black Caucus members were reported for harassment. Bet. But what about members of the Wrestling team?

6. From the date of their arrest until after their trial, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin were under strict bail conditions to have absolutely no contact with the young woman. Had they violated that order, their bail would have been revoked. Claims of harassment were used to support a civil suit filed against Penn State University for payment after the criminal case. Neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were named in the civil lawsuit, neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were ever interviewed or contacted about that civil suit—nor were they able to defend themselves in that suit and were not aware of its existence until it was settled.

Ok.

7. Contrary to repeated inaccurate media reports, there is nothing to suggest that the ruling had anything to do with prior intimate contact with the young woman involved. The jury made no mention of this when they rendered their verdict. The jury’s decision was based on prosecution and defense witnesses and evidence in the court record that indicated that the young woman was both conscious and engaged during the evening in question.

From the article: "court transcripts show the jury had questions about what constituted consent." If the jury had questions about what consent is, how was the verdict based on the certainty of her consciousness and engagement?

8. Misinformation suggests that a spiral into depression was triggered by the alleged incident in 1999. However, court records and testimony by medical professionals revealed a history of chronic depression that dated back to childhood and the use of antidepressant medication that preceded this event.

These aren't mutually exclusive though. She had depression and was on medication for it before the alleged assault, and the events after the alleged assault had a negative impact on her mental health. The Daily Beast article said that her depressed pre-dated the incident.

I legit have these questions. I appreciate that they appeared to have taken a restorative justice approach with Parker and Celestin. The letter seems to be responding to the spin-off/think pieces about the incident, but it doesn't challenge much of what has been reported by reputable outlets.

>From the article: "court transcripts show the jury had questions about what constituted consent." If the jury had questions about what consent is, how was the verdict based on the certainty of her consciousness and engagement?

Likely that just meant that they asked the judge to repeat his instructions re what constitutes consent (or perhaps they were able to ask specific questions re consent that the judge answered) Anyway based on that, they were able to render a decision that the victim showed consciousness and engagement enough to say she consented (at least according to the authors of the letter).

I'm just asking.
.
.
.

she's actually been pretty reasonable and levelheaded.

There is more information that says he's innocent. And if he is innocent isn't that worth the energy? Or are you sure he's guilty?
.
.
.

Like, really really want to know?

I believe that there are a lot of young men like Parker and Celestin were out there, who look at rape as something that only happens when you use force or threats. I also believe that they think there are women that are for "dating", as Parker said in a reported conversation with an officer, while others are down for whatever, including sex with your friends. The problem with this, is that this thinking leads to the belief that there are women who can't be raped.

As I mentioned above, I believe that Parker believed he had consent. I believe that he looks back on the situation and realizes that having sex with someone who was drunk and inviting his friend to have sex with her as well put everyone involved in a precarious situation.

It's textbook rape culture. If Parker had to have his freedom in jeopardy to learn about consent, so be it, but I would love for this to be a lesson for all men.

Just treat all women like human beings, and go from there.

props to you

nm

That's some rape culture stuff.

But go'head and reply with some Twitter-ass, gender warz, which-one-would-you-choose-meme-ass trash that helps no one, men included.

projections.

If you all are so committed to justice and not just defending a Black man off GP, look up the case. I'm not making any of this up and it's not based on my "opinion" or "emotions."

"based on their ability to be victims of abuse", those are HER words.

Nate basically said some women are wifey material and some are jumpoffs which is true.

seem to have it out for Parker. But I can see that your feelings are based on an overall opinion of the general situation and not the actual facts.
.
.
.

>seem to have it out for Parker. But I can see that your
>feelings are based on an overall opinion of the general
>situation and not the actual facts.
>.
>.
>.
While I appreciate the letter that the four women, two of whom work for The Nate Parker Foundation, wrote on his behalf, they didn't challenge much of what was reported on. They got some of the think piecers together, maybe.

But from what I read, the guy is innocent. But that's just based on what I've read. None of us were there.
.
.
.

You don't have to ignore the facts of the case. Just say you don't care enough to look them up.

I asked you a respectable and honest straight up question. You answered and i appreciate that fact. I didn't disagree or debate with you or come at you in anyway. So have a cup full of chills with rest and we can be cool about it all.

The only FACTS that you know 100% to be true is the fact that you were not there. But you're entitled to your opinion - to which i respect and so are the rest of us.

Peace Queen!



.
.
.

by taking my response, based on the reporting of the case done by The Daily Beast, and called it my "feelings" and "opinion."

I wasn't there and you weren't either. If that's all you're basing his innocence on, you have no argument.

This is the last imma say about it: You can't extend someone's sexual consent to someone else. Whether he had consent or not, Celestin definitely didn't. You can't offer up a woman's body to your friend.

I don't care if people see the film or not. I will, however, challenge anyone who tries to change the definition of consent. Support him if you want to, but don't try to tamper with what consent is.

Peace.

I didn't come at you out of pocket. Everything you said was based on your feelings and opinion. And so is my perspective.





.
.
.

.

From the Daily Beast Article


The charade exposed Jennifer’s identity, the civil suit claimed, and resulted in her harassment on campus. THE WRESTLERS and their pals allegedly “constantly hurled sexual epithets” at Jennifer while trailing her on campus. They also made harassing phone calls to her dorm, the lawsuit claimed.
While Parker and Celestin did not comment on the lawsuit, and were not parties to the civil suit, the university denied Jennifer’s claims. “Penn State acted responsibly every step of the way,” a school spokesman told the Collegian.





>>>>5. The allegations of torture, stalking and intimidation
>of the woman involved in the case are absolutely untrue.
>Neither Mr. Parker, Mr. Celestin, nor any members acting on
>behalf of the Black Caucus ever stalked or harassed the young
>woman. As a routine part of the university and police
>investigation into this matter, both Mr. Parker and Mr.
>Celestin had bail orders that barred them both from certain
>parts of campus and from approaching the young woman involved.
>Had those orders been violated, both would have been arrested
>before their criminal trial. Neither the Black Caucus
>leadership, nor the group’s academic adviser was ever
>contacted about any supposed harassment of the young woman by
>black student members.
>
>I never saw a claim that said Parker or Celestin made direct
>contact with her. The piece cited members of the wrestling
>team in the harassment, and for hiring a private investigator
>to find info on her. So no Black Caucus members were reported
>for harassment. Bet. But what about members of the Wrestling
>team?
>
>6. From the date of their arrest until after their trial, both
>Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin were under strict bail conditions
>to have absolutely no contact with the young woman. Had they
>violated that order, their bail would have been revoked.
>Claims of harassment were used to support a civil suit filed
>against Penn State University for payment after the criminal
>case. Neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were named in the
>civil lawsuit, neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were ever
>interviewed or contacted about that civil suit—nor were they
>able to defend themselves in that suit and were not aware of
>its existence until it was settled.
>
>Ok.
>
>7. Contrary to repeated inaccurate media reports, there is
>nothing to suggest that the ruling had anything to do with
>prior intimate contact with the young woman involved. The jury
>made no mention of this when they rendered their verdict. The
>jury’s decision was based on prosecution and defense
>witnesses and evidence in the court record that indicated that
>the young woman was both conscious and engaged during the
>evening in question.
>
>From the article: "court transcripts show the jury had
>questions about what constituted consent." If the jury had
>questions about what consent is, how was the verdict based on
>the certainty of her consciousness and engagement?
>
>8. Misinformation suggests that a spiral into depression was
>triggered by the alleged incident in 1999. However, court
>records and testimony by medical professionals revealed a
>history of chronic depression that dated back to childhood and
>the use of antidepressant medication that preceded this
>event.
>
>These aren't mutually exclusive though. She had depression and
>was on medication for it before the alleged assault, and the
>events after the alleged assault had a negative impact on her
>mental health. The Daily Beast article said that her depressed
>pre-dated the incident.
>
>I legit have these questions. I appreciate that they appeared
>to have taken a restorative justice approach with Parker and
>Celestin. The letter seems to be responding to the
>spin-off/think pieces about the incident, but it doesn't
>challenge much of what has been reported by reputable outlets.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.
.
.

and he said some dumbass comments.
there's no conspiracy

lmao

and she had consensual sex the morning after with Nate parker.
Hence the acquittal.
The doc below lays it all out.
The media's account is completely based on assumptions although they keep citing "court docs"

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1186487.html

Fuck Nate Parker tho.

.
.
.

Which isn't a good enough reason, hence Celestin's conviction being overturned.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Also considered by me is the fact that the Commonwealth a week before the case filed a motion with this Court that said that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for sexual assault.   When the Court denied that motion and refused the Commonwealth the opportunity to nol pros or to dismiss the sexual assault counts against Mr. Celestin and Mr. Parker and the Commonwealth was forced to go to trial, it was, in fact, that count alone that Mr. Celestin was convicted of.   And, as I referenced earlier, made the statement at that time that the theory that the Commonwealth was going to trial on was that if the victim was, in fact, conscious during these acts, that none of these perpetrators, Mr. Parker or Mr. Celestin, was guilty of anything.   If she was unconscious, then they were, in fact, guilty of everything....


...And, lastly, I again need to reference the fact that although there has been a great deal of suggestion made in the media and otherwise, phone calls that I have received, letters that I have received that this was, in fact, a rape case and it clearly was a rape case by the Court can't sentence on what was, the Court must sentence on what is.   The jury determined that many of the aggravating circumstances that would lead a Court to an aggravated sentence in this case were not present by the time that we went to sentencing.   The jury determined that there was no unconsciousness of the victim;  that there had been no force or threat of force;  that there had been, in fact, just one offense committed, one charged offense committed and that was the sexual assault.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

...False Accusations in General

I've had a bunch of conversations about this (and I am about done talking about it) but one of the interesting things that come out of it is the insistence from some people that what NP and his dude did was disgusting EVEN if the girl consented.

Which is fair to say and I am not here to judge anyone's morality but alot of people are blurring what they find distasteful (three way sex) with what is a crime (non-consensual Sex). You can only argue so much with people about how much it goes on and how common place it is before the wives at the table start looking at you funny and the dudes are kicking you under the table.

I also think it's ironic that it is this POV about the disgustingness of this sort of sex that would lead a person to deny having it consensually in the first place.

Anyway, just something I've been thinking...but can't really share in polite conversation.






**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

week really poorly. Because they didn't seem to refute very much (some, but not much) of the basic idea that they had sex with an unconscious girl.

that she committed suicide. No PR team can make that sound not terrible.

2. And even when we talk about PR team, it's not like dude is Hillary Clinton and has an army of people trying to put things in the best light. He is an actor who sold an indie film (and I am sure the studio that bought the film didn't want to touch that land mine) dealing with something that no one one can spin into something better. He always was going to take a hit.


>week really poorly. Because they didn't seem to refute very
>much (some, but not much) of the basic idea that they had sex
>with an unconscious girl.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

from what I understand.
Like I said, it's crazy to think Fox had his
best interest in mind, given the content of the
film.


>He is an actor who sold an indie film (and
>I am sure the studio that bought the film didn't want to touch
>that land mine)

by her and others that she was never unconscious.

http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/nate-parker-rape-charges-consent#axzz4IkEXquEl

i think he's on the right path.

Like lately I've been wondering if the Barney character from How I Met Your Mother would fly in this day and age because his whole thing was about tricking women into having sex with him...which to a different degree Men do all the time. Like my one dude had no problem telling a chick he loved them and sell them the dream to get into the panties and then lose interest as soon as it was over.

Or just in general going out and trying to figure out which girls were "down" and focusing all your energies on them.

I remember the "wait out" being a thing where two dudes would be trying to get at the same girl all night and end up staying out to the early morning waiting for the other dude to give up and go home so you can be alone with the chick.

I was in college around the same time NP was and the male culture was not at all healthy. Like dudes took Snoop Dogg's "Ain't No Funn" very very literally.

I don't know. At least I know what to be talking to my sons about.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

from that sort of scheming and subterfuge. It seems to be having an effect because studies are coming out saying that Millenials are having way less sex than the previous few generations. That's not direct proof, per se, but it does suggest that this generation seems less focused on having sex than we were.

In fact the issue is that the only thing dudes are taught is that they need consent, not all the other stuff like even if a woman is down doesn't mean you should do it.




>from that sort of scheming and subterfuge. It seems to be
>having an effect because studies are coming out saying that
>Millenials are having way less sex than the previous few
>generations. That's not direct proof, per se, but it does
>suggest that this generation seems less focused on having sex
>than we were.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It follows from that that they're less likely to just do whatever it takes to get a girl to say yes. It stands to reason they're more likely to fall back if she doesn't seem enthusiastic the whole time, or if it looks like it'll be too much "work" or effort.

millennials are having less sex but it isnt because they are less pressed. They have more access to high quality pron, social media, etc...

even on here we see people asking how to ask for a date after texting back and forth on apps for a month.

iont think its less pressed.. just more distracted. Once they do hook up tho, I think the same rules apply and lines are often blurred.

he just doesn't get it. i had hope initially that he would be able to turn this around that he could steer this drama and weather the storm and come out on top.

NOPE.

i was ready to see the movie...and i still kinda want to see it. but this dude is so vile that now i'm torn.

especially b/c i'm not all that excited about Nat Turner's story to begin with. i mean, they KILLED HIM. lol. i don't think it's all that crucial. it's cool that he and they did what they did but their act resulted in the deaths of hundreds of slaves who had nothing to do w/the rebellion. so i'm kinda like...so what? when it comes to Nat Turner and his story.

anyway here's Nate's latest bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8QRGE9NBH4

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/nate-parker-doesnt-apologize-on-60-minutes.html

Nate Parker Doesn’t Apologize Over Rape Allegations on 60 Minutes, Insists Birth of a Nation’s Story Is ‘Bigger Than All of Us’

October 2, 2016 9:08 p.m.

On 60 Minutes Sunday night, director Nate Parker offered no apology over the 16-year-old rape allegations that have come to light in advance of the release of his Nat Turner biopic, The Birth of a Nation, and insisted to those hesitant about supporting the film that Turner's story deserves to be seen.

Sitting down with Anderon Cooper, Parker, as revealed in a clip released in advance of the episode’s airing, wouldn't apologize for his actions surrounding the allegations against him and his roommate, Jean Celestin, for sexually assaulting a college freshman in 1999. In the 2001 trial, Parker was acquitted; Celestin was convicted, but his verdict was overturned on appeal. The woman declined to testify again. She later dropped out of school, and committed suicide in 2012. "I don’t feel guilty," Parker said about the events. When pressed, he added, "As a Christian man, just being in that situation, yeah, sure. I’m 36 years old right now. And my faith is very important to me. So looking back through that lens, I definitely feel like it’s not the lens that I had when I was 19 years old."

"But, you know, at some point I have to say it," Parker continued, struggling to maintain composure. "I was falsely accused. I went to court. I sat in trial. I was vindicated — I was proven innocent. I was vindicated. And I feel terrible that this woman isn’t here. I feel terrible that her family had to deal with that. But as I sit here, an apology is, no." Elsewhere, Parker said that he was surprised at the criticism of his continued relationship with Celestin, who helped write the script of the film, and insisted that Celestin is also innocent. "The reality is Jean went to jail for something he did not do," he said.

In other interviews taped before the news of Parker's accuser's suicide broke, and after Birth of a Nation's record-setting $17.5 million acquisition at Sundance, Parker and Cooper traveled to Southampton County, Virginia, the site of Turner's rebellion. "I'm reclaiming a hero," Parker said, adding that his project, which had been years in the making, wasn't meant to be 100-percent historically accurate. Instead, he argued that, bloody as his rebellion was — Turner and his fellow rebels killed dozens of white slave-owners, women, and children indiscriminately, and, in retaliation, white mobs killed hundreds of slaves also indiscriminately — Turner's story deserves to be remembered, like George Washington's or those of America's other founding fathers. "I don't want a story that’s digestible," Parker added. "I want this to be something that makes us think, that makes us question who we are."

To that end, Parker said that he hopes his film inspires viewers to realize that "resistance is an option" and encourages "a riotous disposition to injustice." In place of the tools of Turner's revolt, he said people should employ nonviolent means of protest, through social media, for instance.

Near the end of the segment, Cooper asked Parker to address those who may not see the film in light of the allegations against him. "I do feel that’s unfortunate," Parker said, insisting that the story and Nat Turner's legacy is "bigger than me. I think it's bigger than all of us."

someone to sit next to him during these interviews.

they should've sent Gabrielle Union w/him to all the rest of the interviews about the movie.

She seems to be keeping a very safe distance.

ALSO... I thought he was moving in the right direction (from a posture standpoint, that is) after he took all that flack. He did an interview with Ebony that led me to believe he had hired a new PR person who was getting his comportment on track.

But alas... here we are.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-union-nate-parker-birth-nation-rape-allegation-20160902-snap-story.html

^ that's why i'm saying she should be out there w/Nate doing these interviews. she has the right tone.

But I didn't read this as her defending him. She towed the line like shit, though. Like, she feels she has an obligation to speak as a woman and a victim of sexual violence in a way that doesn't impact those checks.

I get it.

>But I didn't read this as her defending him. She towed the
>line like shit, though. Like, she feels she has an obligation
>to speak as a woman and a victim of sexual violence in a way
>that doesn't impact those checks.
>
>I get it.

yep
i feel for her
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

She's better at this than Nate.

apologized?

I mean dude tried to toe the line before and say I am really sorry that it turned out the way it did and feel bad for the girls suicide which was an honorable thing to try and do, but everyone took that as an admission that he raped the girl...which he has maintained since day 1 that he didnt' do.

But real talk, if he were falsely accused, why should he apologize?






**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1872928

The following statement by Kobe Bryant was issued after sexual assault charges against him were dropped:

"First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman
involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this
year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only
imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to
her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and
supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.

"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives
of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has
agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil
case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was
consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this
incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery,
listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now
understand how she feels that she did not consent to this
encounter.

"I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of
this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil
case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be
decided by and between the parties directly involved in the
incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on
the citizens of the state of Colorado."\


^^

Nate could've just twisted these words to fit his story and used that. it'd be fine.

b/c though HE thinks the sex was consensual the accuser didn't think it was. and then apologize for what he did (the sex, inviting his homie) and what the accuser experienced.

I also think there are factual differences between Kobe's situation and NP that could have made it a different story.

I think both Kobe and her accuser were probably being honest in their recounting of the incident and two people walked away with two different takes of the same incident. There isn't much a discrepncy between both of their retelling of the incident.


In NP and his accusers situation someone is lying. If it's NP, he should never live it down and dude should be under the jail. If he ain't lying and the accuser is lying, then he shouldn't be compelled by public pressure to apologize to her.






>http://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=1872928
>
>The following statement by Kobe Bryant was issued after sexual
>assault charges against him were dropped:
>
>"First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman
>involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my
>behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered
>in the past year. Although this
>year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can
>only
>imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to
>apologize to
>her parents and family members, and to my family and friends
>and
>supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.
>
>"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the
>motives
>of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She
>has
>agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the
>civil
>case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was
>consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view
>this
>incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing
>discovery,
>listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I
>now
>understand how she feels that she did not consent to this
>encounter.
>
>"I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part
>of
>this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the
>civil
>case against me will go forward. That part of this case will
>be
>decided by and between the parties directly involved in the
>incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain
>on
>the citizens of the state of Colorado."\
>
>
>^^
>
>Nate could've just twisted these words to fit his story and
>used that. it'd be fine.
>
>b/c though HE thinks the sex was consensual the accuser didn't
>think it was. and then apologize for what he did (the sex,
>inviting his homie) and what the accuser experienced.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Was I not clear?

(Well, Mistake #1 was obviously raping that girl with his friend. That's the only mistake that really matters here. Or running a non-rape train, if you go with that story.)

Put out one press release. Something like, "In the past, I did things I'm not proud of, but I was exonerated from the accusations. I believe that decision was just. Hence forth, I'd like to put the focus on my film, which I believe tells a very important story blah blah blah."

Then, just like Woody does every time a movie comes out, every time someone even *tries* to bring it up, someone asks you an unsavory question, some protester screams at you, you don't respond. Or if you do, you say, "I addressed this issue in my press release on date X, I'll refer you to that. I'm here to discuss the movie." And you'll have to say it over. And over. And over. And over. And over.

But eventually, just like with Woody, 99% of the media will give up. They don't ask Sean Penn about Madonna or Josh Brolin about his wife or Morgan Freeman about his granddaughter or literally any other celebrity who has some awful unsavory shit off-screen, alleged or proven. Why? Because those guys simply Will. Not. Talk. About It. And if you give them nothing new, then they have nothing new to say, and those units stop moving, so the question stops getting asked.

So you're saying, "Why should he apologize?" when that's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is "Why is he far enough into an interview on this conversation that he even has that question presented to him, and why in the fuck would he answer it?"

That's how it's done. He issued a statement and can use it to deflect questions.

>That's how it's done. He issued a statement and can use it to
>deflect questions.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Nate needs to apologize to keep his paper $tr8. This Hollywood. It's about perception - how things look. What the audience believes. How the audience feels. Fuck his feelings and his beliefs. He needs to sell an apology to the world in order to clear the way for thi$ movie to score a profit. If the movie doesn't bring in a profit for the studio he won't get another shot for a while, maybe. So without regard for what actually happened Nate needs to make the ppl believe he is sorry for what he did bc the ppl believe he is a rapist. We don't care that he was acquitted bc we know that the courts don't always bring justice. We know a rapist can be acquitted though he's actually guilty. Like the white men who raped the black women in Nate's movie - they would've been acquitted if they could have been tried. But they're still rapists (yes, BG I know the facts are different and that doesn't matter for my point - try to keep up, bro). So Nate needs to put on the performance of his life and sell an apology to save the movie. Or maybe it'll be okay even though he's given these toxic interviews. He at least needs to stfu if he won't apologize.

power structure, he should cave and cower to the white power structure?

Fuuuuuck that. He's a man first. A man raising a family who have to look at him every day and he going to allow folks to call him a rapist? Naaaah.

If he stood his ground from day one and maintained that he was being falsely accused by a white woman and dogpiled by the media, Black folks, especially black woman, would have gotten behind him.


If he had place his trial in the proper context of a long history of black men being falsely accused of such crimes and another example of the systemic issue of the criminalization of black men by the criminal justice system, he would have found a lot of support.

Instead he gave into the narrative that he must have done something wrong in order for this white girl to agree to have sex with him and his friend. He should have called that bullshit out that no matter the scenario, the black man is the aggressor and the white woman is the victim.

He is starting to switch gears now but it's probably too late.

It's super ironic that if he were more militant like Nat Turner and less an appeaser, he probably would have weathered this better.




>Nate needs to apologize to keep his paper $tr8. This
>Hollywood. It's about perception - how things look. What the
>audience believes. How the audience feels. Fuck his feelings
>and his beliefs. He needs to sell an apology to the world in
>order to clear the way for thi$ movie to score a profit. If
>the movie doesn't bring in a profit for the studio he won't
>get another shot for a while, maybe. So without regard for
>what actually happened Nate needs to make the ppl believe he
>is sorry for what he did bc the ppl believe he is a rapist. We
>don't care that he was acquitted bc we know that the courts
>don't always bring justice. We know a rapist can be acquitted
>though he's actually guilty. Like the white men who raped the
>black women in Nate's movie - they would've been acquitted if
>they could have been tried. But they're still rapists (yes, BG
>I know the facts are different and that doesn't matter for my
>point - try to keep up, bro). So Nate needs to put on the
>performance of his life and sell an apology to save the movie.
>Or maybe it'll be okay even though he's given these toxic
>interviews. He at least needs to stfu if he won't apologize.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

The trial transcript and the deposition transcript ruin that cute attempt. He wouldn't have a leg on which to stand with that since the ppl would be able to read those and reach our own conclusion. That's why we've concluded Nate is a rapist even though he was acquitted. We know that he was acquitted in part bc back then when he was tried info about the victim's sexual history was admitted that wouldn't be admitted in a similar trial today. So I don't think that stance would've worked well. The backlash would be intense.

and they found him not guilty.


>The trial transcript and the deposition transcript ruin that
>cute attempt. He wouldn't have a leg on which to stand with
>that since the ppl would be able to read those and reach our
>own conclusion.

Who gives a shit that people who read a couple of articles and transcript excerpts concluded he was guilty when the people who looked at everything, an almost all white jury mind you, found him not guilty?

Even the jury for the other dude concluded that the accuser wasn't unconscious when the incident occured even though they found him guily of rape. Correctly, the appellate court found that finding and the finding that he was guilty of rape were incompatible and reversed and freed the dude.



That's why we've concluded Nate is a rapist
>even though he was acquitted. We know that he was acquitted in
>part bc back then when he was tried info about the victim's
>sexual history was admitted that wouldn't be admitted in a
>similar trial today. So I don't think that stance would've
>worked well. The backlash would be intense.

Again, your suggestion is he cower to the backlash. I think it would have been better for him and even the movie if he stood up for what he believed in and fought the system. That sort of controversy would have been good because at least people could rally behind him. Hard to rally behind him now since he hasn't been very clear about where he stood on this (i.e., were you unjustly accused or did you do something wrong with the girl?).


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and they were only presented facts allowed by the law and the rules of evidence.

we in the court of public opinion are not so constrained.

>Who gives a shit that people who read a couple of articles and
>transcript excerpts concluded he was guilty when the people
>who looked at everything, an almost all white jury mind you,
>found him not guilty?

ppl who are trying to $ell a movie to the public should give a shit about what the public has read about the movie's director and star that may impact the public's decision to buy movie tix.

*shrugs*

I'd much rather be judged by people "only presented facts allowed by the law and the rules of evidence."

Definitely, wouldn't want to defer to low information public opinion.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

but we're talking about a person who is a director and actor in a Hollywood movie. he has reason to be concerned w/what the public thinks about him as that could impact the financial success of this movie and his future projects. that's why he needed to apologize for the rape and convince us that he means it. he's an actor - if he's any good he should've been able to sell that apology. if he's not willing to make the apology and sell it then maybe he's not cut out for Hollywood.

they have the justice system to snuggle up to at night

and LEO
omg you know THEY love them some legal justice
phew
thank god all those cops dont have to face us and just the justice system instead
PHEW

dude your job man
i dont now how you deal with these people
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

He wants to defend his own honor but doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy and/or non-feminist.


Woody has accepted that some people will forever think he is a rapist.

nate wants to convince people he is not a rapist, but doesn't want to go in to hard on a dead accuser and play the sensitive feminist role.





>(Well, Mistake #1 was obviously raping that girl with his
>friend. That's the only mistake that really matters here. Or
>running a non-rape train, if you go with that story.)
>
>Put out one press release. Something like, "In the past, I did
>things I'm not proud of, but I was exonerated from the
>accusations. I believe that decision was just. Hence forth,
>I'd like to put the focus on my film, which I believe tells a
>very important story blah blah blah."
>
>Then, just like Woody does every time a movie comes out, every
>time someone even *tries* to bring it up, someone asks you an
>unsavory question, some protester screams at you, you don't
>respond. Or if you do, you say, "I addressed this issue in my
>press release on date X, I'll refer you to that. I'm here to
>discuss the movie." And you'll have to say it over. And over.
>And over. And over. And over.
>
>But eventually, just like with Woody, 99% of the media will
>give up. They don't ask Sean Penn about Madonna or Josh Brolin
>about his wife or Morgan Freeman about his granddaughter or
>literally any other celebrity who has some awful unsavory shit
>off-screen, alleged or proven. Why? Because those guys simply
>Will. Not. Talk. About It. And if you give them nothing new,
>then they have nothing new to say, and those units stop
>moving, so the question stops getting asked.
>
>So you're saying, "Why should he apologize?" when that's not
>the question you should be asking. The question you should be
>asking is "Why is he far enough into an interview on this
>conversation that he even has that question presented to him,
>and why in the fuck would he answer it?"


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

If I recall hearing correctly, the studio was in full support of Parker's idea to "get out in front of this controversy" with that dreadful Deadline interview.

I'm sure now that Searchlight has moved on and given up on this movie's Oscar hopes, and Parker's riding solo with all these interviews, tailspinning on his lonesome.

This is why my advice for most any celebrity is *don't talk about your sordid past ever ever ever ever ever.* When you combine massive egos with out-of-touch lifestyles and then get them talking about hot-button issues publicly, it so rarely ever works out. Doesn't apply to every celebrity, obviously-- but it's painfully apparent that Parker is woefully out of touch.

I think they had to get out in front of it. There really is no two ways about that. If he were my client, that would be my counsel.

Where they completely shat the bed exists on two fronts:

1. Wholly and completely underestimating how big a deal this was/is (it's rape, duh), but then not even seeing how the other elements of the story (i.e., Penn State, suicide, Nat Turner) would magnify that; and,

2. Not appropriately preparing him such that he came off as the rapiest rapist that ever raped. Everything he said (save for the Ebony piece) has been so tone deaf as to double down on #1.

Then, there's a controlled statement made to the media, and your star never has to ramble in front of a camera/tape recorder about it.

Except that's just not how it works. I wish it did. But releasing a statement does NOT prevent the media from reporting on it, citizen journalists and whomever from tweeting about it, and interviewers from asking about it.

That just isn't a realistic expectation.

So while the PR professional in me sits down and the human in me stands up, I'll just say that all accounts point to him being a raping ass rapist, and ultimately, there's precious little PR technique that will fix that.

he made robin roberts correct him juts today
not wanting to address it
and saying he did 60 mins
and shes like
FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT WATCH THAT
hello
you think the work is over?
thats not how this works bud

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

and he gives a big time interview that's equally contrite where he answers "tough" questions that cover most of the same stuff covered in the statement then he can reach a point where lobbing more questions at him makes the journalists into bullies. Also he would need his wife next to him at some point so the questioning can be said to be hurtful to his family.

But this assumes his initial statements are contrite. That he owned responsibility for the rape (or the victim's experience during and after the sex that she said wasn't consensual). This could be done but it's tough now bc Nate shat the bed.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Otherwise, as we both said elsewhere-- make one brief statement and then refuse to talk about it. Let people write their pieces, but don't respond. Unless you have an eloquent and apologetic reply, there's no point to it-- and Nate certainly has had neither apology nor eloquence.

He handling it better than I would as I would attack the interviewer and her sister for using any words indicating that I was anything but innocent.

w/o video this guy would have to refer to his accuser as a victim too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM3gygwUFAw

Those who are claiming they "want" to support him
are just lying. Nothing he says will sway them,
b/c they decided he was guilty the moment they found
out he was accused. They're just not honest enough
to say that.

same people who shrugged at Bowie having sex with a minor cause it was the 70's are now all righteous and torn on seeing a movie about Nat Turner..

made it way easier for me though
thanks nate!

sadly for him its black womens opinions on this that truly counts

i'll watch but i'll be bootlegging that mug
word is it not even worth all this
and not even that good
welp
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

*didn't realise link already posted*

I skimmed the body of the message and thought it was just about 60 minutes.

for something i didnt do. he's right. but he's wrong in this PC society where being accused and found not guilty (in an absolute railroading effort at that) still means you're a rapist.

fwiw i dont even care about the movie lmao.

and to $ave the re$t of my career. and i'd work on finding a way to apologize in a way that leaves me comfortable.

but if i were in Hollywood working as an actor and/or director i'd understand that i'd have to compromise my 'morals' on a few issues more than once over the course of my career if i want to have a long, successful career. it happens.

also, the public reaction to Nate's situation is not rooted in any desire to be 'pc' (whatever the fuck that means). 'pc' generally is just about ppl's interest in not being assholes to vulnerable ppl like various minority groups. this is not about any wish to be sensitive to the rape victim in the case as much as it's about independent analysis of facts. it's about not being brand new, basically. it's about ppl's reading of the facts of Nate's case. \

several of us have concluded that he raped that woman even though a jury acquitted him. several of us understand that a jury may acquit b/c the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as controlled by the law and the rules of evidence. we understand that the law and the rules have changed since that trial happened such that some evidence was admitted back then that wouldn't be admitted today. so his trial would be different today. but even w/o that consideration we've read enough about the facts of the situation to reach our own conclusion w/o being constrained by the jury's verdict, the law or the rules of evidence.

so much that he put up his own money to
make the film.
You're talking about finding comfortable ways
to do things and compromising the integrity
of your innocence for money. Nate isn't
doing that, and Nat obviously gave less
than a damn about making anyone comfortable
with his rebellion. You've already stated
in the post that Turner's lack of finesse makes
you uninterested in the story, because he
was killed and put other Black people in
danger. I'm pretty $ure he wouldn't have
been bought off by any money... neither could
MLK or Malcolm or Assata. Props to Harriet
for finding a way to accomplish it w/o
having to be bought off. Not comparing him
to them... just spelling out why the story
likely resonates with him.
It's fine if you're no revolutionary individual
and can't relate to them or anyone like them.
Just be thankful for those of us who won't
be bought off for the purpose of maintaining
the status quo. This is why we don't even
have any mainstream Black media right now.
Too many of us can be paid to keep folks comfy.

beautifully.

WELL. DAMN. the New Yorker went IN on the movie. yikes. partial swipe below:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending


“The Birth of a Nation” Isn’t Worth Defending
Nate Parker’s retelling of Nat Turner’s rebellion does not succeed as art or as propaganda.

"There are talented black filmmakers making movies today—Ava DuVernay, Ryan Coogler, and Barry Jenkins, to name a few—whose work addresses urgent material via genuinely original means. We do them and ourselves a disservice by lowering our expectations, and extending undue credit to bad art.

For Parker, in any case, that credit is less likely to be extended now. The unsettling circumstances of his trial at Penn State threw into even sharper relief the question of the importance—the necessity—of his movie. As with that first wave of awestruck reviews, focus remained on Parker’s person, rather than on his movie. Some commentators—including a number of prominent black women, among them the writer Roxane Gay—declared that they wouldn’t see it. “I cannot separate the art and the artist,” Gay wrote. Others insisted that Parker’s subject was justification enough to overlook or entirely ignore his personal flaws. Parker, sensing that the success of his movie depended on his performance in the media, cast about awkwardly, citing his wife and daughters as signs of his maturation, and referring to what happened with the now deceased woman he knew in college as “one of the most painful moments in my life.” In August, he told Ebony that he was never taught the meaning of consent in sex.

“The Birth of a Nation” is not worth the efforts of its defenders. It’s hard even to call it a successful attempt at propaganda. The early euphoria surrounding the movie was prompted by the way it seemed to answer the demands of its time, sublimating the eye-for-an-eye Old Testament ethos of such fiery agitators as Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad into the safer precincts of the screen. That fire was checked by a different political imperative: the need to listen to and respect the stories of women who have suffered at the hands of men. The first telling of Turner’s story was prompted by fear—a political force, yes, but also a primal feeling, as palpable today as it was almost two hundred years ago, in Southampton County.

In the “Confessions,” after Turner has said his piece, Thomas Gray reflects, “The calm, deliberate composure with which he spoke of his late deed and intentions, the expression of his fiend-like face when excited by enthusiasm, still bearing the stains of the blood of helpless innocence about him; clothed with rags and covered with chains; yet daring to raise his manacled hands to heaven, with a spirit soaring above the attributes of man; I looked on him and my blood curdled in my veins.”

Gray gives the criminal-justice system the last word. After a listing of the charges, the judge declares, “Your only hope must be in another life.” As for earth: nothing but the satisfaction of the public’s lust for revenge. “The judgement of the court is, that you be taken . . . to the place of execution, and on Friday next, between the hours of 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. be hung by the neck until you are dead! dead! dead! and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul.”

Slavery in this country was never a hero’s journey. It is a ghost story, and Nat Turner is its poltergeist, dashing pottery against America’s walls. “It will be long remembered in the annals of our country,” Gray wrote of the revolt. “And many a mother as she presses her infant darling to her bosom, will shudder at the recollection of Nat Turner, and his band of ferocious miscreants.” This has proved true so far, and it will likely always be so, with or without Nate Parker’s interjections. Thomas Gray’s little book is free for download."

ouch.
further, i hear there's little or no violence toward the slaveowners depicted.

what in the fuck???? that's like the main reason i wanted to see the shit.

i am not bothering w/this movie.

i guess i'll have to stick w/Django Unchained (best slave movie ever - 12YAS is #2, btw).

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

But even as Parker’s own past becomes a conversation outside multiplexes, there’s no question that what he puts on the screen is artistry that can’t be ignored.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/10/04/review-birth-of-a-nation-nate-parker-movie/91485792/

I've grown to like VSB
headline HEAT and fire in these words


Support Birth Of A Nation Or Not, But Just Know That Nate Parker Is Probably Peak Fuckboy

http://verysmartbrothas.com/support-birth-of-a-nation-or-not-but-just-know-that-nate-parker-is-probably-peak-fuckboy/

I have never seen anything like what’s happening with Nate Parker right now. Of course, I’ve seen prominent public figures suspected and/or accused of wrongdoing do the apology tour thing. And I’ve also seen many of these types of figures eschew the tour thing, either because they were advised to by their lawyers/publicists/management — who figured, for whatever reason, that doing it would be more harmful than not — or they just didn’t care enough the controversy to bother. Either way, what’s done is done out of an instinctual need for self-preservation. For people to ultimately do what they believe is necessary to save their own ass.
Nate Parker, however, seems to want to somehow un-save himself. Despite countless attempts to help him remove his own foot from his own mouth — and even actually successfully doing it for lack a week — he seems hellbent on placing it back in there and keeping it there for perpetuity. Like he likes the taste of size 12 Timberland and can’t get enough of it. It’s like a kid being told by everyone — parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and even a speaking Doberman Pinscher — to not eat the cat poop he’s holding in his hand. And then being convinced to drop the cat poop. And then everyone says “Yay. Good for you for dropping the cat poop!” And then right when they’re done congratulating him, he stuffs a fistful of cat poop in his mouth.
Below is a small list of people who have either allowed Nate to explain himself or even just came out and said “You know what…you’re not prepared to handle the consequences of eating this cat poop. So go sit down and I’ll do it myself.”
1. Fans of Nate Parker
2. Classmates of Nate Parker at Penn State
3. People who’ve seen Birth of a Nation and believe it’s an important movie that needs to be seen
4. People who haven’t yet seen Birth of a Nation, but wish to and recognize that it’s an important movie that needs to be seen
5. The homie Britni Danielle at EBONY
6. Jesse Williams, in a way
7. Fox Searchlight
8. Gabrielle Union, who, by sharing her poignant and powerful words about her own experience with sexual assault, has practically made herself Nate Parker’s kevlar vest
And yet, somehow, someway he still found a way to show his ass on 60 Minutes, expressing his lack of guilt and regret over what happened that night — and what he did in the weeks/months/years following that night — and the fallout from it. And, just in case anyone went to bed early last night, he reiterated his feelings on Good Morning America, and even got a little short and testy with Robin Roberts.
There is no discernible upside to him continuing to do this. He must know that any national interview will probe that topic. And he also must know that there’s no way for him to say the words “I don’t feel guilty” and it not be the only thing anyone will remember about that interview. Which either means that he’s not smart (which we know is not true) or that he’s so thoroughly entrenched in Peak Fuckboy that his arrogance has made him oblivious.
The part about this all that’s most perplexing is the fact that no one wants to do this. Whenever a prominent figure — particularly a prominent figure who happens to be a Black male — goes through the criticism ringer for suspected misdeeds, there’s also a criticism to the criticism. Particularly a criticism from Black people aimed at other Black people who happen to be critical.
What these people fail to realize is that we (the critical people) were ready and willing to drink the Nate Parker and the Birth of a Nation Kool-Aid too! I’d much, much, much rather be writing about the 36-year-old Black man who produced, directed, and starred in a film about America’s most storied slave revolt than about a 36-year-old fuckboy who doesn’t seem to have changed much in 17 years. I, like most other people, would prefer to be able to go and see the movie without the aid of any cognitive dissonance. I was even willing to gloss over the fact that, as Soraya McDonald brilliantly articulated at The Undefeated, Birth of a Nation might not even be that good.
We were rooting for this dude. No one was sitting around thinking “I really, really, really, really hope that this dude has some unsavory rape allegations in his past. And that, when given multiple opportunities to express any type of remorse about it, he digs his foot deeper into his mouth. Because I would definitely love for that to cloud, color, and complicate my feelings about this film!”
Anyway, the movie comes out this week. Go see it, or don’t go see it. It’s whatever. Just know Nate Parker doesn’t seem to give any fucks about your spiritual and emotional support. Or not making you look like a damn fool for supporting him. Just your money.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Just tone deaf to all around him. Since this is OKP and ive got a few snarks left in me before the end of the work day, I wonder if its just that weird hollywood bubble Longo said above or that weird Christian self-righteousness that makes it so...damn....hard to be contrite.

And it sucks, even if Birth sucks, to see a black production through and through go down in flames with this dickhead. And it should have been so easy too; anyone remember when Jonah Hill had a gay slur tirade a few years back on tape? Nope. Because that nigga made sure you knew he felt bad about it.

Even if falsely accused, that shit was 20 years ago my dude...why you putting up the Jesus Christ pose, particularly when in the original statement you mentioned you were a dickhead back then and have grown since then?

Fucking clueless.

>.... contrite.

is that what you really want?

he said this:

These are my words. Written from my heart and not filtered through a third party gaze. Please read these separate from any platform I may have, but from me as a fellow human being.
I write to you all devastated…
Over the last several days, a part of my past – my arrest, trial and acquittal on charges of sexual assault – has become a focal point for media coverage, social media speculation and industry conversation. I understand why so many are concerned and rightfully have questions. These issues of a women’s right to be safe and of men and women engaging in healthy relationships are extremely important to talk about, however difficult. And more personally, as a father, a husband, a brother and man of deep faith, I understand how much confusion and pain this incident has had on so many, most importantly the young woman who was involved.
I myself just learned that the young woman ended her own life several years ago and I am filled with profound sorrow…I can’t tell you how hard it is to hear this news. I can’t help but think of all the implications this has for her family.
I cannot- nor do I want to ignore the pain she endured during and following our trial. While I maintain my innocence that the encounter was unambiguously consensual, there are things more important than the law. There is morality; no one who calls himself a man of faith should even be in that situation. As a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith, I look back on that time as a teenager and can say without hesitation that I should have used more wisdom.
I look back on that time, my indignant attitude and my heartfelt mission to prove my innocence with eyes that are more wise with time. I see now that I may not have shown enough empathy even as I fought to clear my name. Empathy for the young woman and empathy for the seriousness of the situation I put myself and others in.
I cannot change what has happened. I cannot bring this young woman who was someone else’s daughter, someone’s sister and someone’s mother back to life…
I have changed so much since nineteen. I’ve grown and matured in so many ways and still have more learning and growth to do. I have tried to conduct myself in a way that honors my entire community – and will continue to do this to the best of my ability.
All of this said, I also know there are wounds that neither time nor words can heal.
I have never run from this period in my life and I never ever will. Please don’t take this as an attempt to solve this with a statement. I urge you only to take accept this letter as my response to the moment.

What words would you need to see for it to pass your bar of standard of contrition?

i stole this part from Kobe's statement:

"I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences (the victim) suffered...."

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was
consensual, I recognize now that she did not view this
incident the same way I did. I now
understand how she felt that she did not consent to that
encounter."

...that would've worked, i think.

This isn't a case of two people viewing the same incident differently. Again, Kobe and his accuser had basically the same story as to what happened.

In NP's case, they had two very different versions of events and someone is lying.

The only thing he could say is what he actuall, said, which is, I didn't do it, but I regret putting myself in that situation and all the fallout that happened including all the bad stuff that happened to my accuser, who btw falsely accused me.


>i stole this part from Kobe's statement:
>
>"I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for
>the consequences (the victim) suffered...."
>
>"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was
>consensual, I recognize now that she did not view this
>incident the same way I did. I now
>understand how she felt that she did not consent to that
>encounter."
>
>...that would've worked, i think.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

particularly these bars:


>I cannot- nor do I want to ignore the pain she endured during
>and following our trial. While I maintain my innocence that
>the encounter was unambiguously consensual, there are things
>more important than the law. There is morality; no one who
>calls himself a man of faith should even be in that situation.
>As a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith, I
>look back on that time as a teenager and can say without
>hesitation that I should have used more wisdom.
>I look back on that time, my indignant attitude and my
>heartfelt mission to prove my innocence with eyes that are
>more wise with time. I see now that I may not have shown
>enough empathy even as I fought to clear my name. Empathy for
>the young woman and empathy for the seriousness of the
>situation I put myself and others in.

This sentiment seems starkly absent in his promotion tour.

he said those words

you *seem* to think they were "contrite" (your word)

is the issue, currently, his inability to stay on message?

what exactly has he said to make those words no longer sufficient, or alternately, were those words the *start* of what you want to see that he never fully arrived at?

i don't get what exactly you want to see

>he said those words
>
>you *seem* to think they were "contrite" (your word)
>
>is the issue, currently, his inability to stay on message?
>
>what exactly has he said to make those words no longer
>sufficient, or alternately, were those words the *start* of
>what you want to see that he never fully arrived at?
>
>i don't get what exactly you want to see

too many black men have done two hypocritical things during this specific issue

a. for this specific type of issue suddenly have the utmost faith in the justice system and the law. the myopia surrounding when sexism and misogyny trumps reason escapes yall for the same sexist and misogynist lack of logic and reasoning
clearly yall believe zimmerman is innocent

b. believe inconsistencies and believe when one still shakey but on the right path apology is suddenly enough for someone who is is being very inconsistent and clearly has no clue what he did wrong and is still doing wrong
but hey yall buying all those apologies for racism right?????
yall love you some chris matthew, mel gibson, michael richards, tila tequila, steve king, hulk hogan now since they apologied right?
work is done right?
i mean yeah when is enough enough!
stop torturing those folks who apologized!
and no one died so they not racist no more yay yall!


okp still with the astounding lack of hypocritical logic
not amazed
at all
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>a. for this specific type of issue suddenly have the utmost
>faith in the justice system and the law. the myopia
>surrounding when sexism and misogyny trumps reason escapes
>yall for the same sexist and misogynist lack of logic and
>reasoning
>clearly yall believe zimmerman is innocent


No. My position is based on knowing how corrupt the criminal justice system is towards black men. If the corrupt system which looks for any excuse to throw black men in jail couldn't convict two brothers who had sex with a white woman with an almost all white jury in Pennsylvania, then we know they barely had a case against them and perhaps he didn't do it.





>
>b. believe inconsistencies and believe when one still shakey
>but on the right path apology is suddenly enough for someone
>who is is being very inconsistent and clearly has no clue what
>he did wrong and is still doing wrong
>but hey yall buying all those apologies for racism right?????
>yall love you some chris matthew, mel gibson, michael
>richards, tila tequila, steve king, hulk hogan now since they
>apologied right?
>work is done right?
>i mean yeah when is enough enough!
>stop torturing those folks who apologized!
>and no one died so they not racist no more yay yall!
>
>
>okp still with the astounding lack of hypocritical logic
>not amazed
>at all

This is barely coherent but if you are saying what I think you are saying then you haven't been listening. People defending Nate in here aren't saying leave the man alone he apologized already. They are saying dude had nothing to apologize for in the first case if he were falsely accused of rape.

>~~~~
>When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so
>that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
>~~~~
>You cannot hate people for their own good.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

2 niggas in central PA rape a white woman and no on does serious time because Black men get all the breaks?

These fools fell for the okey doke

misogyny doesnt need fame
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>No. My position is based on knowing how corrupt the criminal
>justice system is towards black men. If the corrupt system
>which looks for any excuse to throw black men in jail couldn't
>convict two brothers who had sex with a white woman with an
>almost all white jury in Pennsylvania, then we know they
>barely had a case against them and perhaps he didn't do it.


No
ya'll position assumes the only element that take effects in the justice system is racism with no regard for misogyny
misogyny dictates women lie and men can rape women who already agreed to sex once
as a society we now know this is not true (well some of us with logic)
then not so much
and penn state and rape???
horrible track record for rape especially then
that stat, that school and jocks??? especially have no credibility in this misogynistic rape realm
esp considering the facts of the case the out right confession he did on those recordings and his little buddy there convicted and only reoleased because the damn victim was tired of the bullshit thats it not "innocence"
cont below



>This is barely coherent but if you are saying what I think you
>are saying then you haven't been listening. People defending
>Nate in here aren't saying leave the man alone he apologized
>already. They are saying dude had nothing to apologize for in
>the first case if he were falsely accused of rape.

incoherent to someone who does not understand misogyny
misogyny like racism HAS no logic

and the fact that you believe he has nothing to apologize for in the first place means for everytime you said yes to you lending someone else money
means you cant get mad when they run up in YO house and take that shit
and additionally inviting friends to run your pockets
and additionally the bank is also invited because you believe in the federal system that damn much that everyone is right once your ass says yes
and there is nothing to apologize for because you said yes once
because once YOU say yes it always means yes
it also means you blame everyone who got robbed for saying yes to lending money at any time ever
because they lent someone money and it now means they have no right to control that money flow
and oh but because the system is usually racist there are NO other issues that causes the system to weight men against women in any way unfairly ever
this is your sad lack of logic

meanwhile you still forgive racists because it was only done once
and they apologized and white folks dont really believe those are real racists and no court has ever convicted them hence and therefore
they arent guilty either
this is yall
with NO sense
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>is the issue, currently, his inability to stay on message?

Like, take two steps back. Let's say hypothetically he's completely innocent and she's was lying. You've got a person who killed herself and the story is she killed herself because you and your man raped her.

Who's more sympathetic? It's not a court of law, what do you win for continually making the point that you didn't do it? Cool, but by your own admittance you were involved and she ultimately killed herself, not a good look player

While defending your honor looks good in the court of law,in the court of public opinion you look shady and fucked up.

Every time he's gotta say a sentence about he's innocent of the specific crime it should immediately be preceded with a -paragraph- about however his behavior isn't morale and about the woman, similar to that message you posted. He gonna be right, but wrong, to his grave, lol

*shrugs*

she killed herself...

I will buy a ticket and see for myself if its a good movie or not.

fuck all these reviews, think pieces and excuses.

Obviously you can't do a FULL apology tour for something you didn't do. But he's been coming up awful in these interviews; that he could have fixed with good PR. It would be an issue, but it wouldn't be THE issue.

Going on National TV should be the time you try to paint yourself as sympathetic towards the whole situation and he didn't even try.

I am going to watch the movie myself (already copped tickets actually) since it's not just about Nate (multimillion dollar movies dont get made by one man). I am just frustrated at how dumb he's been.

She suffered from depression before she met him, she had episodes and other incidents for years, decades after him including having her child taken away from her.


But your point stands, if you have to argue "she would have probably killed herself anyway" you are in a bad place.

Again, he was going to have a hard time anyway, I think once you start going down the "I did something morally wrong path" everyone is going to assume that meant you raped her.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ZLXoUdJyI
-----
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.

and he wanted to give dude a chance to talk about it outside of just the charge

-----
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.

and i'm still going to see it.

the rest is noise. i'm not fake-caring about jack shit.

If the shit were said to be a great piece of art then I'd go see it despite the drama. But ppl and entities whose opinion I respect are saying it ain't all that. Plus I have never been that thrilled about Nat Turner's story bc he dies. I'm here for a Harriet Tubman epic whenever Hollywood makes that movie about America's greatest hero.

that might put a better dent in this country psyche


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Well at least this New Yorker reviewer.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending

I have to say, without the controversy, I can see a liberal magazine like the New Yorker going in so hard on a movie like this even if the writer is black.


It's dizzying how quickly dude went from the toast of Sundance to a cautionary tale. Welp, at least he got paid.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_birth_of_a_nation_2016/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-birth-of-a-nation

Look at the RT/Metacritic scores. You posted one review and says "the reviews are in and people think it's trash." That's one review!

I've read a couple of negative reviews, a good number of "it's sloppily made but an interesting and worthy debut" reviews, and a decent number of raves as well. In no world is this movie "trash" from a broad critical perspective.

the lengths some of these so called pro black OKPs are going to discredit this movie is amazing.

every other slave movie okp was all... WE MUST GO, NEVA FORGET OUR HISTORY.

As soon as a brother makes a film about Nat muthafukkin Turner they are all screaming bootleg.

That ice must be cold as fuck...

Don't lump me in with them folks jumping on an excuse not to go see it. I fully support the movie.



....still might not be a good movie though.


>the lengths some of these so called pro black OKPs are going
>to discredit this movie is amazing.
>
>every other slave movie okp was all... WE MUST GO, NEVA FORGET
>OUR HISTORY.
>
>As soon as a brother makes a film about Nat muthafukkin Turner
>they are all screaming bootleg.
>
>That ice must be cold as fuck...


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I made clear I was only talking about one review.

My real question is would critics be openly trashing it if it weren't for the scandal?




>Look at the RT/Metacritic scores. You posted one review and
>says "the reviews are in and people think it's trash." That's
>one review!
>
>I've read a couple of negative reviews, a good number of "it's
>sloppily made but an interesting and worthy debut" reviews,
>and a decent number of raves as well. In no world is this
>movie "trash" from a broad critical perspective.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-birth-of-a-nation-is-an-epic-fail/

 ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Is an Epic Fail
From its depictions of black women to the representation of slavery itself, Nate Parker’s film is deeply flawed and historically inaccurate.
By Leslie M. Alexander
Yesterday 12:18 pm

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print

Nate_parker_birth_of_a_nation_rtr_img

Nate Parker attends the premiere of The Birth of a Nation in Hollywood, September 21, 2016. (Reuters / Jonathan Alcorn)


A firestorm of controversy has swirled around Nate Parker and his film The Birth of a Nation in the two months since several media outlets revealed that Parker and his co-author, Jean McGianni Celestin, stood trial for raping a young woman in 1999. Across the country, social media lit up as people debated Parker’s guilt, questioned whether to boycott the film, and expressed outrage about violence against women. As the storm raged, however, one critical issue went ignored. No one questioned the fundamental value or quality of the film. Based on the standing ovations it received at the Sundance Film Festival, we assumed that The Birth of a Nation was inherently valuable, inspirational, educational, and transformative.

We were wrong.

The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner, leader of the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history. A film on Turner is long overdue, and as a professional historian of the black experience in the nineteenth century, I have anxiously awaited one. I was especially encouraged by September’s issue of Vanity Fair, in which Parker stated that he had become “obsessed with the idea of telling Nat Turner’s story” and that he sought to create “historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.”

Nearly everything in the movie is a complete fabrication.

After attending an advance screening of the film, however, I now know that Parker failed miserably in his mission. Contrary to his promises of “historical fidelity,” Parker created a deeply flawed, historically inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history of slavery in America. Nearly everything in the movie—ranging from Turner’s relationship with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the rebellion itself—is a complete fabrication. Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious: Nat Turner did not murder his owner, nor did he kill a slave patroller. Turner’s rebellion was not betrayed by a young boy, or by anyone else involved in the revolt. To the contrary, the rebels fought until the bitter end. The shootout depicted in Jerusalem, Virginia, never happened, because the rebels were stopped by the militia before they ever reached Jerusalem. The list of inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications goes on and on.

Admittedly, historical accuracy probably matters more to me than to most people. And Parker was correct when he, somewhat flippantly, told journalist Anderson Cooper that “nothing is ever 100 percent historically accurate.” But how do we feel when the film contains only a smidgen of historical fact? And what if the historical inaccuracies are damaging and insidious?

Consider, for example, the film’s troubling depictions of black women. A crucial turning point in the movie occurs when Turner’s wife, Cherry, is brutally gang raped by a group of slave patrollers—an attack the film portrays as the spark that ultimately drove Turner to launch his rebellion. But there is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest that Cherry was ever raped by slave patrollers, nor is there any evidence to indicate that an attack on his wife inspired Turner to rebel. By all accounts, Turner took up arms against slavery because he believed slavery was morally wrong and violated the law of God. In the months prior to the rebellion, he reported receiving a series of visions and messages from God predicting a cataclysmic “race war” that would destroy slavery, and by early 1831, Turner believed that God had selected him as the person to lead the revolt. According to the historical record, these were the only inspirations for Turner’s rebellion. This fact is important because it demonstrates that black people not only fought against slavery because of its extreme violence and brutality, but also because they knew in their hearts that slavery was an unjust, exploitative system that violated moral laws. In other words, they fought simply because they wanted to be free.

I absolutely do not want to deny the painful reality of the rape and sexual violence perpetrated against black women during slavery. Enslaved black women endured an endless onslaught of sexual violence, and there is even evidence to suggest that (rather than slave patrollers) Samuel Turner, Cherry and Nat’s second master, raped Cherry. So, then, why does it bother me that Parker and Celestin invented a false scenario about a brutal gang rape?

The rape storyline is carefully constructed to redeem black masculinity at black women’s expense.

Like the film’s other fabrications about black women, the rape story line is carefully constructed to redeem black masculinity at black women’s expense. According to The Birth of a Nation, all of the women in Turner’s life were passive victims in desperate need of black male protection. This fabrication flies in the face of historical fact. There is overwhelming evidence that Turner’s mother fought valiantly against slavery, even attempting to commit infanticide when Nat was born to prevent him from being enslaved. Yet Parker and Celestin depicted her as a meek, mild victim who resigned herself to slavery. Cherry and her daughter are also portrayed as helpless victims who suffer unspeakable horrors until Turner rides in on his horse and vows to seek vengeance on their behalf. The only other major black female character in the film, who is brilliantly played by actress Gabrielle Union, does not speak a single word during the entire movie. She literally has no voice, and like all of the other black women in the film, she has no agency. Instead, like Cherry, she is a victim of a horrifying rape, which must be avenged by the black male heroes in her life.

I will let others speculate on the reasons why Parker and Celestin decided to fabricate a story line about rape—specifically gang rape—to spin a false tale about the motivation for Nat Turner’s rebellion. I will simply say that their story is not only untrue but it also perpetuates destructive lies about black women. Enslaved women fought for their dignity and freedom, and they exercised agency over their lives, in spite of unimaginable horrors. This is the story that deserves to be told, not one that disseminates archaic and damaging myths that cast black men as courageous saviors and black women as helpless victims.

Parker and Celestin’s portrayal of slavery is also shallow and superficial. At its core, The Birth of a Nation is a collection of every cliché image and story line from every movie you’ve ever seen about slavery: Slavery was bad. Black people were treated badly. Black people got whipped, tortured, raped, and killed. Black people fought back, but still got whipped, tortured, raped, and killed.

Of course slavery was horrific and brutal. But, personally, I don’t need to see any more images of black people getting brutalized. Every day, when I turn on the news, I see black folks being gunned down in the streets with wanton disregard, so I’ve seen enough. Perhaps Parker hopes that audiences will see the parallels between anti-black violence during slavery and anti-black violence in America’s communities today. If so, his strategy is detrimental. Repeated images of violence against black people are ultimately dangerous, not revelatory or enlightening, because they desensitize us to violence against black men, women, and children. Black people get reduced to tortured, brutalized victims—stripped of their humanity—and the brutality becomes normalized. Meanwhile, black people in the 21st century keep getting gunned down.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

I am not suggesting that we should stop making movies about slavery. Americans still need to be educated about slavery, because there is a glaring silence about it in this country. It’s probably why most black people wanted (and still want) to see the film. On some deep level, we hope that films about slavery will be cathartic for us—that they will heal our psychological wounds, honor our ancestors, and force whites to face their racism. I understand that. But we will not find healing or redemption in The Birth of a Nation, because it does not live up to the hype.

It’s time for different messages in films about slavery—ones that depict slavery and the people who endured it in a holistic fashion. Black people were not just victims of a cruel and dehumanizing system. They were survivors who fought valiantly to retain their dignity, culture, and humanity despite their circumstances. We need movies that show how spirituality and African culture helped enslaved people survive unspeakable conditions. Ones that show enslaved people’s resiliency during slavery, particularly their ability to celebrate family and community, and even to find joy in the midst of pain and sorrow. Black people were not just brutalized “bodies”—they were dynamic, loving souls with a spirit and an indomitable will to survive.

Perhaps most importantly, we desperately need stories about rebellion to remind us that moral appeals and reform movements were not enough to end slavery. Slavery was an economic, political, and social institution with deep, powerful roots, and those who benefited from it were not going to let it go without a fight. Ultimately, we need a film to remind us that there were people who loved themselves and the black community enough to risk their lives to destroy a corrupt and oppressive system. These are the lessons I hoped that The Birth of a Nation would convey.

Is there anything redeeming about this film? Yes. But the benefits do not outweigh the negatives. The Birth of a Nation is a deeply problematic movie that misrepresents Turner and his rebellion, and sends insidious messages about slavery and the multifaceted roles of black women in the battle for freedom. Despite Parker’s bluster about Nat Turner’s heroism and his claims to historical accuracy, he failed to provide a truthful rendering of Nat Turner’s life, his rebellion, or the experience of black people during slavery. As a result, Parker and Jean Celestin pimped black suffering for financial gain and proved that they have no respect for black history or for the people who fought for our freedom.