Black History Fun Fact Friday: What Hollywood Left out the Harriet Movie

I did not intend on writing about this today but then…

I saw the Harriet movie.

Yep. I went to see it.

I know many are protesting the film, but I don’t jump on bandwagons. I wanted to see it for myself to develop my own opinion. I also knew I wanted to write about it.

There are some truths, such as her being referred to as Moses. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of inaccuracies. The movie is Hollywoodish and leaves a lot out. In an interview, I heard the script was written twenty years ago, so that may have something to do with it. In any case, if you are planning to see it, here are some things you may want to know.

  • Harriet Tubman never had a friend named Marie Buchanon.
  • There was never a Black Bounty Hunter named Bigger Long after Harriet Tubman. The same is true of the Brodesses son. They did have a son (Jonathan) but little is known about him. His role in the movie is made up.

While “Bigger Long” is a fictional character, it shouldn’t be overlooked that Black trackers existed and were active during slavery. I think it is vital that as we are striving for historical accuracy, we are not so “Pro-Black” that we forget that a lot of our own people sold us out, and continue to sell us out. While Bigger Long may not have been a real person in Harriet’s life, there were black slave catchers. The movie, it seemed to me, had a lot of ‘women vs. men’ undertones. Not only was Bigger Long the sole antagonist against Harriet (even more so than the Brodesses, son), he was also the one responsible for the death of one of the Black women in the most diabolical, sinister, and brutal way.

The William Still character is based on a real historical figure. Still was a black abolitionist based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, businessman, writer, and conductor on the Underground Railroad. In the movie, he was over-the-top with his reactions to Harriet’s return from the missions. Holding his hand to his chest, spinning Harriet around, and at one point, he even falls out of a chair. Some people laughed, but I didn’t find it funny. To me, it made him look like a bufoon.

The Black men in this movie seemed weak to me. I worry this was intentional. Hollywood has a habit of showing black men as less capable when contrasted against the black woman’s strength. Rarely is there a balance to showing black couples as equally competent. The imaginative Marie shows Harriet how to shoot a gun and helps her in her cause. Harriet was a warrior but I am certain the surrounding men weren’t that simple-minded and faithless.

  • Tubman didn’t change her name when she reached freedom. She changed it before then, around the time of her marriage, possibly to honor her mother.
  • Three of Tubman’s sisters were sold, not just one.
  • Two of Tubman’s brothers, Ben and Harry, accompanied her (1) they went with her initially, at the onset of her escape not later as depicted in the film (2) after a notice was published in the Cambridge Democrat offering a reward for her return, Harry and Ben had second thoughts and returned to the plantation so she made the voyage alone.
  • Tubman had spells, dream-states, and visions (I believe she was deeply spiritual, her spells were my inspiration for Nora’s spells in Renaissance), but she also endured seizures, severe headaches, and narcoleptic episodes for the rest of her life from the hit to the head.

This next point wasn’t in the movie but since we are talking about Harriet Tubman I think it’s important to mention.

The Fake Quote:

It’s a good quote and a powerful one. I wish I could say it belonged to Harriet but with every source I checked there’s no documented, historical proof that Harriet Tubman ever said:

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”

According to Africacheck.org, The Maxwell Perspective, and Snopes, there are a few possible origins of the quote’s attribution to Harriet:

  • The confusion began when feminist writer Robin Morgan updated her 1970 essay “Goodbye to All That” during the 2008 US Democratic Party’s primary presidential candidate race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Morgan supported Clinton, and in the essay challenged other women who did not. She wrote: “Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, ‘I could have saved thousands – if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.’” The implication was that women who didn’t support Clinton were similarly enslaved, and didn’t know it.
  • One expert was Milton Sernett, professor emeritus of history and African American studies at Maxwell School“My impression is that this is a late 20th century quote from a fictionalised account of Tubman’s life,” Sernett told history blogger Ralph Luker, who first queried the quote.
  • More than this, at meetings in 1858 and 1859 Tubman repeatedly said she had personally rescued 50 to 60 people from slavery. So she would never have said she “freed a thousand slaves”.

A quote that has historical proof, and that has been proven to come from her that you can use:

“I was the conductor of the Underground Railroad for eight years, and I can say what most conductors can’t say — I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger.” 

– Harriet Tubman at a suffrage convention, NY, 1896.

“During public and private meetings between 1858 and 1859, Tubman repeatedly told people that she had rescued 50 to 60 people in 8 or 9 trips (this was before her very last mission, in December 1860, when she brought away seven people.) Sarah Bradford exaggerated the numbers in her 1868 biography. Bradford never said that Tubman gave her those numbers; instead, Bradford estimated that it was the number. Other friends who were close to Tubman contradicted those numbers. Tubman also instructed another 70 or so freedom seekers who found their way to freedom on their own”

http://www.harriettubmanbiography.com/harriet-tubman-myths-and-facts.html

Is it possible Tubman freed far more than what is documented even if only through instruction? Absolutely, but we have no proof she said she freed a thousand and could have freed a thousand more.

“My impression is that this is a late 20th-century quote from a fictionalized account of Tubman’s life. “Whoever wishes to use the dubious quote as a political zinger ought to cite a reliable source.”  – Milton Sernett, Harriet Tubman: Myth, Memory, and History

A few more things not addressed in the movie:

  • Tubman’s time as a Union spy (touched on a little at the end of the film), nurse, and cook.
  • Her 1869 marriage to Nelson Davis—a soldier, some 20 years her junior—and the couple’s 1874 adoption of a baby girl named Gertie
  • Her work as a suffragist,
  • Neurosurgery undertaken to address her decades-old brain injury.
  • Her financial hardship later in life.
  • The opening of the Harriet Tubman Home for the Elderly in 1908.

Now, the movie wasn’t a total fail for me. There are some things I liked that are worth mentioning.

I loved the show of Harriet’s spirituality, which I do not equate to anything Christian. Her reliance on her faith, praying, and praising during difficult times. I loved the show of her hands raised and open, historically how we (Israelites/Blacks/AFAM) prayed. Harriet’s spiritual intuition was a beautiful show of faith and her belief that the Almighty was central in guiding her in her journey.

Should you see the film? That is up to you. I will caution that if you plan to bring your children, print this post out (or another fact sheet you’ve vetted), and use it as a reference so they can properly discern the facts in the movie from the fiction.


Check out more Black History Fun Facts here.

Talking Movies: The Hate You Give

Great breakdown. I have some of the same thoughts. Love the book, not too crazy about the movie. It was just okay in my view as well.

jhohadli's avatarjhohadli

I mostly talk books and writing on this site, but if you’ve followed the site, you know that I’m just a lover of the arts, period, and have opinions on things (not just art). I’ve talked movies here before – Rozanne Roxanne and Annihilation, Room and other movies, Suffragette, Queen of Katwe, Bazodee, Creed, Birdman and Foxcatcher, Spotlight, and others. So, let’s talk, The Hate U Give – for my review of the book, click this link; now on to my review of the film.

hate220px-The_Hate_U_Give_poster

The Hate U Give continues the grand tradition of the book – however imperfect – being better than the movie. Yes, there are exceptions but the generalization exists for a reason. It’s inevitable perhaps that something of the nuance of a story stands to be lost in the translation from page to film.

In the Hate…

View original post 865 more words

4 Lessons I Learned from the Movie American Gangster

CEVWBh1UkAIumVq

American Gangster is based on the true story of real-life drug kingpin Frank Lucas, who, by the 1960s, constructed an international drug ring that spanned from New York to Southeast Asia. The film features Denzel Washington as Lucas and a New York City cop (Russell Crowe) who busted a big-time heroin ring.

I have a love-hate relationship with this movie. I love the many lessons the movie provides but dislike how the message can be perceived. The movie can easily cause young people to admire drug dealing. Frank takes care of his family, runs the show, and even works with the cop to lessen his sentence at the end.

However, if we can get past the drug part, there are many good and bad lessons throughout the film. A young person with the proper guidance can also easily see how this life only leads to one of three places: Death, jail, or that old drunk on the corner at fifty telling the teenagers how you used to run the block as you beg them for some change. There is no in-between. Drug dealers don’t get pensions.

Lesson #1: Influence Can Be Good and Bad

“I want what you got Uncle Frank. I wanna be you.”

In the film, Frank’s nephew, Stevie Lucas, is an excellent baseball player who has played since childhood. Now, at the prominent financial level to do so, Frank schedules a meeting for his nephew Stevie (T.I.) with the Dodgers. This is an amazing opportunity for Stevie to fulfill his dream of playing baseball, but he does not show up for the meeting. Even worse, he doesn’t want to play baseball anymore. Now that he is a part of his Uncle’s multimillion-dollar drug enterprise, he desires to be a drug kingpin just like Frank.

In an age where people can choose to become social media influencers, it often gets underscored that being influential is not only about persuading people to do the right things. Being an influencer can also mean influencing people to do wrong morally or in a way that dramatically changes their lives for the worse. Influence is also not only verbal. You don’t have to say a word to influence someone to do something; your actions alone are enough.

“You know Frank, quitting while you are ahead is not the same as quitting.”

Another example of using influence negatively is Frank moving his entire family to New York to participate in his drug enterprise.

Social influence occurs when someone’s emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by others.

Frank played a significant role in his brothers lives. You can tell (at least in the movie) that they looked up to him and already admired him. Frank did not have to travel to North Carolina and recruit them into his drug empire. He already had their love. However, Frank used his influence to charm his country family to come to the city and become part of his drug business, directly or indirectly. Frank is responsible for his part in taking advantage of his brother’s innocence. Even his mother in the film said: “If you were a preacher, they would have all been preachers.” They would have followed their big brother anywhere. We all have people who watch and look up to us, even if we don’t know it. Frank could have used his money to invest in legitimate companies for his brothers, leaving them out of his shenanigans and out of jail.

Lesson #2: Say Less and Follow Your Own Advice

“The loudest one in the room, is the weakest one in the room.”

Nicky Barnes, one of the biggest heroin dealers, was known by the New York Times as “Mister Untouchable” because the cops couldn’t touch him. He was also known for his arrogant demeanor and flashy dress. When Frank’s brother Huey adopts the same colorful look, Frank gives his brother some critical advice: “The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.”

The quote is self-explanatory and goes hand in hand with other quotes like, “The more you talk, the less you know.” It speaks to how, when people talk a lot, it is usually nothing but talk.

However, another lesson the movie shows from the quote is how we should follow our advice. Later in the film, when his wife buys him expensive fur, Frank wears it to the Ali/Fraizer fight, causing him to stick out like a sore thumb among his peers, many of them fellow drug kingpins and some cops.

The same “clown suit” he warned his brother not to wear he was now symbolically wearing with that loud fur coat. It is the same coat that made the police take notice and pay attention to him. From this one mistake, they learned of Frank’s every move.

Lesson #3: Be the CEO of Your Life / The Business Mind

“Nobody owns me though. That’s ’cause I own my own company and my company sells a product that’s better than the competition, at a price that’s lower than the competition.”

We have already established that selling drugs only leads to a future of death and despair, so this point doesn’t justify Lucas’s actions. However, despite the kind of business he ran, people with a business mind can still learn from the movie. You can learn a lesson from anything if you pay enough attention to it.

One of Frank’s many experiences had to do with launching a new product that was cheap but still held quality. In the 1970s, heroin was often diluted with sugars, chalk, flour, or powdered milk to stretch it so addicts understood that the drug would have a lower potency. Frank stepped outside of this established heroin supply chain by cutting out the middleman and not diluting the heroine.

To create his one-of-a-kind product, Frank went directly to the source, a heroin producer in Saigon, Vietnam. In the movie, Frank didn’t dilute his heroin, which made it more potent. He also sold the undiluted, more powerful drug at a lower price.

The lesson is not that you should run your own drug empire. The lesson is that when building a business, you sometimes have to step outside your comfort zone and take risks to reach new levels. It also speaks to the power of authenticity. You don’t have to dilute your self-worth to be accepted. Give people the raw, unadulterated you; it will be more powerful than any filter you could have come up with.

Lesson #4: Not Everything Is As It Seems

Lucas_Brothers

Finally, I learned not to believe everything I see. Upon researching the film, I learned that much of the movie is made up to achieve the dramatic effect that movies do. Denzel is an even more exaggerated version of what the real Frank Lucas was like.

In real life, Frank Lucas was also not Bumpy Johnson’s driver for fifteen years, and he was not with Bumpy when he died. The real Frank also diluted his heroin, though not as much as other dealers. Frank also collected numerous mink and chinchillas aside from the one his wife bought him and was just as flashy as Nicky Barnes. This is partly why undercover cops could catch him with the fur on because he wore them. Denzel Washington’s version in the movie is also much wiser and more strategic than Frank, who is rumored to have been illiterate.

The persona of the cop, Richie Roberts, was also exaggerated in the movie. Roberts did not have a child and was not in a custody battle with his ex-wife. He also had a much smaller role in capturing Frank Lucas.

As I’ve said since starting this post, selling drugs is never something to aspire to, and the lessons I learned in the movie should not be perceived as implying that I advocate selling drugs. This last lesson proves that what young people see on TV is not always true. People are looking up to a Frank Lucas who did not exist in the same way he is portrayed on film.

The movie’s role is to entertain, even if that means embellishing a character’s role. If you are a young person reading this, don’t believe everything you see. Even salt looks like sugar, and spoiled milk is still white.