Spielberg’s Amistad: The Black Viewer’s Guide

When one takes to heart the Dick Gregory adage—that Hollywood has never spent a penny to entertain us—one can more accurately view Steven Spielberg’s 1997 film Amistad. Bro. Gregory, of course, meant that every flickering image has a purpose and function to maintain the balance of power for white people, and the movie Amistad is a textbook example of this well-established principle. The following is a guide for the conscious viewing of this pernicious production. Motown’s Norman Whitfield provides the rule of thumb: “People, believe half of what you see, Oh, and none of what you hear.”

The Amistad was a Spanish slaver which was forcibly taken over by its former cargo, 53 African Black people. The Connecticut coast guard apprehended the “mutineers” and imprisoned them on the charge of murder. The movie purports to describe the legal battle that ensued all the way to the Supreme Court—spreading lies with every scene.

1) When the Amistad crew is subdued and the ship taken over by the Africans, the first filmed act is a primitive battle between two African rivals who scream at one another angrily vying for power. They do not appear to have the ability to strategize and communicate among themselves about their opportunity to refocus on the common need to escape. This theme of tribalism and savagery is one that is constantly reinforced throughout the film. In a scene where the white attorney first visits the captives in their dungeon, the Africans have staked-out “territory,” presumably along tribal lines. The subtle message is that these Africans deserve to be slaves. This concept is central to the movie’s true purpose.

The “Americanized” Blacks (who are never explicitly identified as slaves) are starkly different in carriage and comportment than the “savage” Africans. The “Americans” are refined and even genteel, festooned in the British style with powdered wigs and ruffles. Though of the servant class, Spielberg presents them as well-treated, content and pointedly “civilized.” They are in training, one is led to assume, to be like the character played by Morgan Freeman—a “free” negro of means. This image-juxtapositioning by Spielberg is central to a pro-slavery argument advanced by whites in the mid-1800’s. Are not Africans better off in slavery in America than as spear-chuckers in the jungle? Spielberg’s answer is: “Clearly and Obviously.”

2) The Amistad Africans themselves are almost immediately turned into props by Spielberg’s script. Once these Africans are deposited into the dungeon, the rest of the Black Holocaust is played out in courtrooms and parlors among white people. They alone have the power to determine the fate of the Africans without consulting with the Africans themselves. This makes white viewers comfortable. Firmly in chains, the life and death matters of Spielberg’s Africans can now be litigated solely by white people. Ultimately, Spielberg’s goal is to fortify and exonerate a system and a people that profited from the despicable trade in Black humanity. Spielberg’s aim is to present a new Dreamworks form of “Black history” that never questions or compromises America’s image of having been “founded on freedom, justice and equality.” Slavery, in their vision, is an easily manageable merely a bump in the road.

3) True to the “good Nazi” theme of Spielberg’s Jewish Holocaust movie Schindler’s List, the Amistad is offered up with a group of historically bizarre creations of the Hollywood propagandists—a good white man and a 19th century “free” Black aristocrat. Contrary to Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of the cantankerous former president John Quincy Adams, who represented the Amistad rebels in the Supreme Court, he was no friend of the Black man. His home state of Massachusetts was making so much money on slavery that Adams absolutely favored it. The cotton mills of Lawrence and Lowell and the banks of downtown Boston all would have collapsed without slavery and the money it generated. He has other racist credentials:

When Adams was a diplomat after the Revolutionary and the 1812 Wars, he went to the British on behalf of slaveholders to attempt to get their slaves back.
He believed that Congress had no right to abolish slavery where it existed.
He believed that the ultimate solution for the Black Man would be widespread interbreeding, which he said “would be the extirpation (extermination) of the African race upon the continent, by the gradual bleaching process of intermixture, where the white portion is already so predominant…”
He believed that another possible solution would be a race war.
Adams also believed that the American Indian was “an inferior race…and perhaps not worth preserving.”

The fact is that there is no evidence that Adams ever even met the Amistad victims though the film portrays them as becoming friends. But Spielberg is probably unaware that his white hero was a Jew-hater as well. According to Jewish author Nathaniel Weil, Adams “often spoke of Jews in such a way as to suggest a strong anti-Semitic prejudice.”

4) Spielberg uses Morgan Freeman to perpetuate another destructive myth. The “fictional composite” Freeman plays is a “free” Black aristocrat in New England, but the idea that the North was “free” and that the Northern Black population enjoyed equal relations is a bombastic falsehood. “Free” Blacks did not exist in the North or South in the 19th century and their rights and roles were severely restricted. This unfortunate segment of Black society was often in worse condition than slaves whose white masters had an economic interest in their survival.

There was a good reason why Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad stayed underground in New York and New England, moving instead to British Canada where slavery was legally barred. In every state abolitionists were viciously denounced, tarred and feathered, and generally terrorized for their opposition to slavery. They were, in fact, an insignificant minority among whites until guilt-ridden historians gave them a prominence they could never have dreamed of in their lifetimes. Spielberg’s movie shows Morgan Freeman in a top hat, riding around in a carriage casually dining with his white friends. In fact, the ridiculous script has all of the “American” Blacks calmly intermingling with white people. One might read Lorman Ratner’s Powder Keg, for an enlightening account of the violently racist northern attitude against Blacks at the time of the Amistad affair.

5) Amistad Film Note: Spielberg boldly filmed much of the movie in Newport, Rhode Island, the very center of the Jewish-run slave trade. Aaron Lopez and Jacob Rivera were among the Jewish leaders of the trade and dominated Newport’s business community. One Jewish historian wrote of the Newport Jews: “[They] traded extensively in Negroes.” The pious Newport Jews prayed at a synagogue that was built by Black slaves “of some skill,” and all the Newport Jews owned domestic slaves. Lopez, who the Jewish organization Anti-Defamation League calls “beloved and respected,” had 27. Rum, of course, was central to the wicked trade in Black flesh and Newport was its center of production. At one point, all 22 stills were owned by the Newport Jews.

6) In one scene a British Navy officer who wants to see an end to the trans-Atlantic slave trade testifies on behalf of the Africans. In the end of the movie, he is seen bombing the slave fortress in Africa—presumably ending the African slave trade. There are two falsehoods being proffered here:

a) The British wanted to end the slave trade, but not for the noble purpose implied by Spielberg. They wanted to stop the export of slave labor, because Black bodies were required in Africa to colonize and exploit Africa for the British! They also wanted to cripple their “New World” business competitors all of whom were dependent on slave labor. Twenty years later Britain was the biggest foreign supporter of the Southern Confederacy.
b) Long after the Amistad Africans were returned to Africa the slave trade continued in America. The profits of slave dealing were shocking. The slave ship Espoir made a profit of $436,200 on one trip. Kidnapper C.A.L. Lamar wrote in 1860 (twenty years after the Amistad affair), “The trade cannot be checked while such great percentages are made in the business. The outlay of $35,000 often brings $500,000….No wonder Boston, New York and Philadelphia have so much interest in the business.” Steel-hulled steamers were introduced into the trade, inflating profits even more, for these vessels were able to carry many more slaves than the sailing ships.

7) Ultimately, Spielberg’s feel good finale depicts Amistad Africans winning their “freedom” at the Supreme Court. But he conceals the fact that one of the Africans was deemed the property of one of the Spanish slave dealers and NOT FREED, or that the U.S. Congress attempted to give the Spaniards $70,000 to pay for their losses while the Africans were forced to sing and dance in the streets of New England for years to raise money to pay for their trip back to Africa. Such details are inconsistent with Spielberg’s Happy Slave Holocaust fantasy.

8) The John Williams musical score is designed to steer viewers through the range of emotions that Spielberg cannot elicit with his visual images. It is especially overbearing during a pitifully trite Christian conversion scene where a once proud African is willing to accept a white Jesus and a new religion from a series of drawings in a Bible! Here, Spielberg again intends to show how simple-minded the Africans are and how beneficial slavery is to them. It is patently offensive and plainly malicious. As for the musical score, it is overbearingly European. One might have logically thought that such a subject would have required the incorporation of some African cultural music, but in this Williams is simply unqualified. Even in the Amistadmusic Spielberg aims to obliterate the Africaness of the Africans and exalt whiteness as superior.

Steven Spielberg, who once said that he “could never forgive” entertainer Michael Jackson for introducing his Jewish children to “anti-Semitic” epithets, has no such reservations about introducing our Black children to all manner of racist falsehoods about their own history. Spielberg’s open assault on Black history is inexcusable. He’s wagered heavily that Black people are as ignorant as he’s made his Black characters.

ALSO: SEE “Amistad? What about the Slaveship Creole?”

Responses to The Amistad Movie:

December 10, 1997

I attended a pre-screening of Steven Spielberg’s Amistad and the only thing I can say is that you were entirely too kind in your assessment of this movie. In 153 minutes Spielberg does more to compromise the integrity of African historical self-determination than Dr. Karenga’s collaboration with the U.S. Postal Service to produce a Kwanzaa stamp.

Mrs. Debbie Allen, a co-producer in this project, has indicated that she desired to have Mr. Spielberg direct this movie because of the excellent job he had done with “Schindler’s List” (A movie I have yet to see, even for free.) Mrs. Allen has grossly failed to understand the relationship of culture to this whole affair and that Mr. Spielberg has a cultural connection to the content of “Schindlers List” that he does not, nor could he ever, bring to a production about the Maafa [Black Holocaust].

The not so subliminal suggestions to the liberating effect of the Judeao/Christian religion were downright disgusting and overall insulting. To have one of the most ardent symbols of African resistance totally emasculated by merely looking at pictures in a Bible and concluding that “these people have suffered more than us” only supports my contention that no european [sic] has the disposition or spiritual sensitivities to tell the story of our Maafa. This admirable brother was literally reduced to a passive punk according to the directorial authority and story interpretations of Mr. Spielberg. But, maybe that was the intent for our cultural antagonist never fail to exploit an opportunity in their war against African people. Spielberg is however, consistent in maintaining that African people owe a debt to the benevolence of conscious White people. It would be interesting to know which among the Supreme Court Judges dissented in their decision to grant the African rebels their freedom.

Unfortunately, our people thirst so for African imagery in the media and our knowledge of our history is so shallow that we continue to be vulnerable to others interpretation of our Maafa. The movie “Amistad” is not worthy of the support of African people. We should not continue to make rich those who insult us. Wait for the video or better yet wait for it to appear on cable or broadcast venues.

Abdul-M. Aquil (Kwesi Ohene)

President, ASCAC Midwest Region

Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations

Peace:

Today I received a copy of your commentary on the film “Amistad” via Phil Smith and Abdul Aquil. I live in Hawaii and the film is not here yet on the island where I live. Thank-you for explaining the subtleties of the film “Amistad”. FINALLY, I’m hearing something that makes sense. There is NO way that I could have EVER believed that Steven Spielberg would do justice to the telling of Amistad. His only value is his money and his proficiency at producing films in Hollywood. I am ashamed that Debbie Allen would pursue him for such *favors*, just to get a story told.

-Name Withheld

Saw a preview of amistad on monday nite (dec. 8). i think the best thing we can do is use the line that “none of the africans ever appeared in court” — since the movie is essentially a courtroom drama designed to perpetuate the image of america as the bastion of democracy. while the beginning of the movie is “powerful” in depicting the horrors of the middle passage and the psychological self-alienation inherent in “how africans became negroes”, overall the movie is not exciting. it could have been written by john grishman, whose courtroom dramas have a similar focus.

historically there is a lot that is disturbing to me about the movie, but that’s all a result of the political bias of the movie. the music was sappy at best and nowhere near evoking our story. it was technically well done but there was nothing arresting other than the middle passage scenes. i did not hear much discussion afterwards among people, nor did people linger to talk. there was very little applause at the end, and that little was not sustained.

I propose a different focus. why don’t we try to organize a major film festival /conference that would feature films that have been done about slavery. cuba has a bunch of excellent films, and brazil has also produced a number of them. there are about five or so that came out of italy, and of course africa has produced its share. we could not only screen the films but also have commentary and criticism. we could then focus our concerns around issues we wanted to raise instead of spending so much time debating about films like amistad. plus we could make this a major event with far reaching implications. i am sure that haile gerima at howard would be interested in helping to sponsor such an event. let’s be proactive and not just reactive. let’s advance our own point of view/political line and not spend so much time focusing on talking about what others have done. that’s my suggestion. what say you?

Name Withheld

I just want to say thanks you for the information, I have known about some things but your site really opened my eyes even more plus the protocols of Zion…. I wanted all to know about your site so i posted it to all who had anything on the crazy movie. If i count more aprox 80 e-mail were sent out telling people about your site. I just pray nothing happens to the site if you know what i mean.

Also while I was in Brooklyn this summer the drug bust of rabbis laundering drug money through the synagogue did not hit the newspapers until 6 weeks later, you and I know why. Media control and the largest newspaper in the US NY Times never even had a mention in the sunday that it happened. Keep in touch also just for your info I am Hebrew another secret Zionist want to hide.

The only you can educate yourself is read, let someone else tell your story then you are doomed.

Remember this or read this for those who don’t know: “If you want to hide something from black people put it in a book”. I know I will receive negative mail but one thing I would like you to know I am Hebrew. Thought you would like this

Read with an open mind

name withheld

Denzel Washington on “Amistad” and “Beloved”

Date: 12/10/97

From Knight-Ridder Newspapers

PICKY, PICKY

Denzel Washington is comfortable enough about his star status that he can say no to some of the biggest names in Hollywood. The actor tells USA Weekend that he wasn’t exactly enthused when Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey approached him for roles in their respective movies.

He chatted with Spielberg about a part in his slave epic, but I just didn’t see myself in Amistad, he says. “I ain’t putting no chains around my neck.” In the true story, a ship of slaves revolt, kill some of their captors and are arrested and tried in a U.S. court. “I’m like, Yeah, that’s what happened then, but how about me cutting everybody’s head off and end the movie there?” he said.

Denzel also turned up his nose at Winfrey’s film about the Toni Morrison book Beloved. “The guy was walking around with his hat in his hand, bowing and scraping…. (He) sleeps with Oprah and two minutes later he’s sleeping with her daughter, who’s a ghost. That ain’t me. I said, ‘Get Danny (Glover) to do it. Danny’ll do it.’ I’m not knocking him, but it wasn’t my part.”

Washington says. Next up, he’ll play a cop in the serial killer flic Fallen.