Spielberg's Lincoln: In Three Paragraphs

[msj]

Following this trail in the most successful nation on earth without any films stating same:

It is said

that before South Africa enacted native administration laws it sent officials to Canada to study the reserve system provided for in Canada’s own Indian Act.

Yes, it is "said."

What I am asking for is substantiated fact demonstrating that South Africa "modeled" apartheid on Canada's system.

I don't want opinion, I don't want to know what has been "said," I want facts from real historians with real sources demonstrating officials from South Africa studied Canada and then put those lessons learned into practice in South Africa.

For now we have two people who continue to point to other people who are providing unsubstantiated opinions that are based on conflating two similar systems.

[Moonlight Graham]

Baaaack on topic: I saw Lincoln last opening weekend.

It was quite different than I expected. This film was not Hollywood-ized as I thought it would be, lacking the usual splash of a Spielberg flick. No civil war scenes minus for a very brief scene at the beginning, little or no scenes of whitey abusing his slaves, little or no beautiful vista/landscape shots to enjoy,a lack of fancy camera cuts/shots, no Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address, and it doesn't even show Lincoln getting shot.

It was actually a very dry, political docudrama, for good or bad. Think closer to HBO's "John Adams" than Micheal Bay's "Pearl Habour", but even dryer. This was not a sweeping Lincoln biopic of his life and death & great achievements, it rather focused very specifically on the behind-the-scenes political arm-wrestling to get the 13th Amendment passed, with much of the movie detailing how Lincoln and his cabinet went about convincing members of the House of Reps to side with passing the amendment. If you don't like politics you'll likely find this a bit of a boring film. The middle 3rd of the film is particularily dry, and I counted about 8 people in our half-filled theater who walked out on the movie, + one guy behind me who fell asleep snoring, + my guest who fell asleep beside me, and I almost dozed off for a few minutes . I suspect American viewers would be more likely to stay for the whole movie out of respect for the subject matter.

Overall, it was a very good film. Good acting and dialogue. I feared Daniel Day Lewis would be over-dramatic in the role (as he often can be) but he played a very subdued, humble, and likeable Lincoln. He did a great job, will be Oscar nominated.

VERDICT: Well worth watching, but go in expecting an educatonal experience rather than a evening of entertainment. There's no reason to see this kind of film on the big-screen unless you like staring at close-ups of old peoples' faces so I'd recommend waiting to watch it on home video.

[wyly]

Baaaack on topic: I saw Lincoln last opening weekend.

It was quite different than I expected. This film was not Hollywood-ized as I thought it would be, lacking the usual splash of a Spielberg flick. No civil war scenes minus for a very brief scene at the beginning, little or no scenes of whitey abusing his slaves, little or no beautiful vista/landscape shots to enjoy,a lack of fancy camera cuts/shots, no Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address, and it doesn't even show Lincoln getting shot.

It was actually a very dry, political docudrama, for good or bad. Think closer to HBO's "John Adams" than Micheal Bay's "Pearl Habour", but even dryer. This was not a sweeping Lincoln biopic of his life and death & great achievements, it rather focused very specifically on the behind-the-scenes political arm-wrestling to get the 13th Amendment passed, with much of the movie detailing how Lincoln and his cabinet went about convincing members of the House of Reps to side with passing the amendment. If you don't like politics you'll likely find this a bit of a boring film. The middle 3rd of the film is particularily dry, and I counted about 8 people in our half-filled theater who walked out on the movie, + one guy behind me who fell asleep snoring, + my guest who fell asleep beside me, and I almost dozed off for a few minutes . I suspect American viewers would be more likely to stay for the whole movie out of respect for the subject matter.

Overall, it was a very good film. Good acting and dialogue. I feared Daniel Day Lewis would be over-dramatic in the role (as he often can be) but he played a very subdued, humble, and likeable Lincoln. He did a great job, will be Oscar nominated.

VERDICT: Well worth watching, but go in expecting an educatonal experience rather than a evening of entertainment. There's no reason to see this kind of film on the big-screen unless you like staring at close-ups of old peoples' faces so I'd recommend waiting to watch it on home video.

awesome review...I think I'll pass on this one doesn't like it's worth the price of popcorn...though I do think DD Lewis is a great actor it sounds like a snoozer, I fall asleep very quickly now a days...

[Moonlight Graham]

awesome review...I think I'll pass on this one doesn't like it's worth the price of popcorn...though I do think DD Lewis is a great actor it sounds like a snoozer, I fall asleep very quickly now a days...

Well, maybe I was a bit harsh. It was a very interesting film depicting a significant time in US history, a very good film, but yes dry and not a popcorn movie.

[wyly]

Well, maybe I was a bit harsh. It was a very interesting film depicting a significant time in US history, a very good film, but yes dry and not a popcorn movie.

not harsh at all no hype just a fair decription of what type of movie it is, I've no doubt as to the quality but it's not one that I want to pay to see I'll wait until comes out on cable, if I fall asleep I prefer to do it on my couch...

[wyly]

abraham lincoln zombie killer such a bad bad movie, wyly jr wanted to watch it on netflix, we manged to last a half hour, soooooo bad...

[Guest American Woman]

Translation: " I disagree with your position so I will label you a troll." Ignore the consistent history of British colonialism in Africa, Americas, Asia, and Australia - New Zealand for indigenous peoples because Canada is special.

And of course those visits South African officials made to the native reserves in Canada were just a friendly gesture on their part.

[msj]

And of course those visits South African officials made to the native reserves in Canada were just a friendly gesture on their part.

Once again - when were the visits?

How many visits were there?

Who did the visiting?

What did they learn from visiting those reserves?

Did that person/people go back to South Africa and implement any policy based on those visits?

If so, what were those policies? Here's a link for you to pick and choose.

I suggest you put it on a target and use a sub-machine gun to do the picking since that seems to be your argument style - randomly spray first and don't bother to ask questions later.

[The_Squid]

And of course those visits South African officials made to the native reserves in Canada were just a friendly gesture on their part.

What visits? You haven't established that any of this actually happened!

You can do better than this....

Edited November 22, 2012 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

What visits? You haven't established that any of this actually happened!

You can do better than this....

Yes, I have established that they actually happened.

Edited November 23, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

Yes, I have established that they actually happened.

Nope. Nothing but the assertions of a single activist. You have provided no credible sources.

Edited November 23, 2012 by The_Squid

[msj]

Well I can establish that American evangelists are responsible for Uganda's anti-gay law that is going into effect soon. A law that encourages parents/teachers to turn in their gay children/pupils. The crime of being gay could lead to a death penalty.

See, because the Westboro Baptist Church creates a website called "godhatesfags.com" (no, I'm not linking to it) and this link from an activist states:

Holding American politicians and evangelical missionaries who pushed for this bill fully accountable

This must mean that Uganda modeled their legislation on Republicans and evangelists from the US!

Sure, I know this is off topic, but the timeline is clear and I have a firm source to prove all this!

Of course this is not trolling.

No, it's sarcasm and an analogy.

Edited November 23, 2012 by msj

[sharkman]

I guess I'll have to break up this spat to announce that I, Sharkman, also went to see Lincoln. I was quite taken by Lewis. What an actor. I also loved the dialogue and the colourful way many characters were written. Quite a good movie.

I also got curious for some reason and pulled out Cold Mountain. Some great acting in this one as well but I still hate the over the top torture/murder of the one family and needless sex scene. Good movie in spite of these. Lincoln by comparison was more composed. It was the same war and times, but they didn't shove it in your face.

Edited November 23, 2012 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

Nope. Nothing but the assertions of a single activist. You have provided no credible sources.

I suppose "credible" is in the eye of the beholder - or what one wants to believe (or not believe, such as the case may be).

I've provided links from several sources, yet you keep claiming that it's"nothing but the assertions of a single activist."

Here are a couple more references for you to dismiss:

A commission from South Africa visited Canada in 1902, to examine the Indian pass system instituted in Treaty areas 4, 6, and 7 in the Canadian west. The commission saw the Canadian pass system as a means of social control that could be applied to their own non-white majority population back in South Africa.

http://balfour.rbe.s...ianPass_Pg1.pdf

It is also relevant to note that in 1902 a commission from South Africa visited Western Canada to study the pass system as a method of social control.

http://books.google.... system&f=false

Your rebuttal seems to be nothing more than the idea that unless the government admits it and/or it's being taught in history books, it didn't happen.

Edited November 23, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

http://balfour.rbe.s...ianPass_Pg1.pdf

One page and no sources cited.

It is also relevant to note that in 1902 a commission from South Africa visited Western Canada to study the pass system

Interesting. Now we are talking!

So they came to study a system where natives weren't allowed off reserve without a pass. I wonder how long this system was in place? From my reading of your source, by 1893 it seems that, although still in force, it was a useless exercise.

The Indian Act did all sorts of terrible things... they tried to ban potlatches in BC... they banned native dancing... and let's not forget the terrible residential schools. Canada certainly doesn't have a proud history with respect to the indigenous people here... nor does the USA, Australia, Japan, etc, etc.

Edit: Nothing has explicitly stated that the apartheid in SA was modeled after any system in Canada. This, it seems, is an exaggeration or, at best, speculation.

Edited November 23, 2012 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

The author makes an interesting note:

...the similarities between apartheid and the segregation of Canadian Indians should not be overstated.

...a weak reflection of what transpired in South Africa.

...it evolved as a form of local administrative tyranny, applied selectively, but never enjoying the coercive power and public legitimization conferred by official state sanction.

Not quite apartheid. As awful and racist as it was, it is an exaggeration to call it apartheid. No different than when people compare things to Nazis. It demeans what actually happened, in this case in South Africa, while not truly explaining what happened here. It's lazy and dishonest.

[msj]

I suppose "credible" is in the eye of the beholder - or what one wants to believe (or not believe, such as the case may be).

Your rebuttal seems to be nothing more than the idea that unless the government admits it and/or it's being taught in history books, it didn't happen.

These links are better.

Lets back up a moment - I don't think Squid nor I are saying that there is no influence.

I admit that there is influence and I think that is obvious.

The problem I have is with your use of the word "model." This implies use as a template. It implies direct cause and effect.

I don't think any of the links you have provided demonstrate this.

I also think that you conveniently ignore the caveats within your own links and, in particular, the second link (see page 214).

Once again - if Canada was the model for South Africa it should be easy to do a legislative comparison that would show clear evolutionary links.

I have done this to a limited extent (but I'm no lawyer and have not practiced history since university days - those are my caveats) and have not seen enough to indicate a "model."

That's my point: we can find all kind of links, influences, and connections.

To go further and claim an active based model is quite a bit more than that and I believe that people are overstating the influence due to conflating the two systems which are inherently similar due to the colonial historical links.

[August1991]

Whadda thread....

My worst fear about this film seems to be realized: that it is an extended lecture against slavery. I'm not planning to own slaves anytime soon, so I won't be seeing this.

You are mistaken, MH. Your link is not wrong but this is a very political movie and as a political zombie, you'll enjoy it.

Are you serious? You think Canada is more civilized, multicultural, united - and minorities are more distinct and respected in Canada than in the U.S. and most European countries?

Yes, I do.

As you say you would do as Norway and Sweden - because they are so multicultural?

Norway seceded from Sweden through a referendum, without war.

Furthermore, how is your history more successful than ours?

Unlike you Americans, we Canadians never had a civil war in which millions died.

I just don't understand what is meant by "successful history." We cannot be speaking of economics...obviously. So that's out. Cultural influence? Let's be serious. Alterations of the historical, international geopolitical landscape?

I'm not being self-effacing. Canada is an historical success. But I don't get how the US is less so...what? Nor do I understand the purpose of the comparison in and of itself; nor do I get how it relates to the very post within which it appears.

The whole thing is a mystery to me.

August? Can you expand on the theme?

After the Conquest in 1760, WASPs voted for a French-speaking, Roman Catholic federal PM in 1896.

Canada is proof that different people, of different religions, speaking different languages, can live together peacefully. In Canada, people of one language or religion often vote for a political leader of a different language or religion.

In Canada, many right-handed people will vote for someone who is left-handed. We've been doing this since 1896.

Edited November 24, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Don't forget that South Africa modeled their system of apartheid after the Canadian Indian reserve system.

I think that white South Africans, and German Nazis in Poland, modeled their systems after Europeans in North America, or South America, or Africa. From the 15th century on, Europeans went abroad.

AW, what's your point?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada is proof that different people, of different religions, speaking different languages, can live together peacefully. In Canada, people of one language or religion often vote for a political leader of a different language or religion.

Sure, once the native people are subjugated and marginalized.....no problem. Discrimination against "visible minorities" and other ethnic demographics was just the price of admission to this New World paradise where everyone lives "peacefully" for good order above all else.

Edited November 24, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Whadda thread....

Whadda opening post.....

Yes, I do.

Proof that everyone is entitled to their opinion, in spite of the evidence out there to the contrary.

Norway seceded from Sweden through a referendum, without war.

Your point being.... ? Not to mention Norway has half the population of NYC and Sweden's population is less than the greater NYC area. How is any comparison relevant in your mind?

Unlike you Americans, we Canadians never had a civil war in which millions died.

So what? You think that erases everything you have done? You Canadians have done plenty that we Americans have not. Furthermore, the British Empire, which you were still a part of during said Civil War, was responsible for many deaths, or do you conveniently dismiss that? http://www.telegraph...Luxembourg.html

Reality is, Canada has been in wars where millions have died as well - and Canada did very little to take in the Jews during WWII. Sometimes what you don't do is as telling as what you do; and for a long time Canada had a 'lily white immigration' policy.

But yes, we did have a civil war, and managed to survive it - whole and united - which is proof of our success as a nation; and I daresay the descendants of our former slaves are better off than your First Nations people in this day.

I'd love to see any other nation of our diversity and population survive whole, intact, and there for each other the way we have been throughout our history. Furthermore, as I pointed out, until recent history, Canada was for the most part white. Let's give it some time to see how you deal with this "new" multiculturalism, because I already see problems arising, I also see old problems not resolved, as your First Nations people have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

After the Conquest in 1760, WASPs voted for a French-speaking, Roman Catholic federal PM in 1896.

Canada is proof that different people, of different religions, speaking different languages, can live together peacefully. In Canada, people of one language or religion often vote for a political leader of a different language or religion.

In Canada, many right-handed people will vote for someone who is left-handed. We've been doing this since 1896.

You can't even have a Catholic head of state. But yeah, the U.S. isn't proof that over 300+ million different people, of different religions, speaking different languages, can live together peacefully - and of course people of one religion never vote for a political leader of a different religion. As for your "different language" scenario, let me know when you vote for someone with a language that isn't your official language. And speaking of which - I'd say Quebec is a prime example of the difficulty of all Canadians living together in peace and harmony.

Edited November 24, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I think that white South Africans, and German Nazis in Poland, modeled their systems after Europeans in North America, or South America, or Africa. From the 15th century on, Europeans went abroad.

AW, what's your point?

My point, since some here draw conclusions (some based on "polls/studies/etc.) that Canada's history is "more successful," is that the U.S. ranks higher than Canada in the "Human Development Report" - in part because of the living conditions of your First Nations people. So I have to wonder - how does that make Canada's history more successful? Seems to me you want to trot out our struggles, while ignoring yours.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://64.26.129.156...eneral/RFNC.pdf

Edited November 24, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

My point, since some here draw conclusions (some based on "polls/studies/etc.) that Canada's history is "more successful," is that the U.S. ranks higher than Canada in the "Human Development Report" - in part because of the living conditions of your First Nations people. So I have to wonder - how does that make Canada's history more successful? Seems to me you want to trot out our struggles, while ignoring yours.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://64.26.129.156...eneral/RFNC.pdf

Canada is 6th and the US 4th. Hardly something to be bragging about. Especially considering Canada over the last decade has closed the gap on the US in education and the overall HDI score, while creating more distance from the US on the health indicator.

There's also a number of problems with this system for ranking countries. To give one example, when you look at the Programme for International Student Assessment, which is an international study of education done by the OECD, Canada ranks far ahead of the US in education. PISA's report is the one that is used in academic communities to evaluate how countries are doing when it comes to education, so I wouldn't put much stock in the UN's numbers, at least for the education portion. Canada has better healthcare than the US regardless of whose assessment you look at (the UN or OECD). UN's report says that income is higher in the US, but just recently there were reports of that Canadian household income was greater than in the US because they took a nosedive after the 2008 crash.

What was it you were saying now...

Proof that everyone is entitled to their opinion, in spite of the evidence out there to the contrary.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is 6th and the US 4th. Hardly something to be bragging about.

Since when is pointing out a fact "bragging?"

[msj]

Canada is 6th and the US 4th.

The US is 6th with an HDI value of 0.910. Canada is 4th at 0.908.

Given the nature of the metrics used this difference is not material and to use what appears to be a standard competition ranking system makes the differences appear bigger than they really are.

In this case, a difference of 0.002 means a drop from 4th place to 6th which is silly.