Deacons for Defense

Rating:
Summary: It's amazing this politically incorrect movie was made.
Review: Disclaimer: I have been a firearms instructor for twenty years, including NRA basic courses, Texas Department of Public Safety concealed handgun course, and Texas Parks and Wildlife hunter education. I have a bias on the subject matter.

In my opinion it's amazing this politically incorrect movie got made. It deals with the role of Black-owned firearms during the U.S. civil rights movement in a way that is incompatible with contemporary Hollywood liberal thought. Showtime made it for TV, and I doubt seriously it would have been permitted on the larger screen. The story of the Deacons stands in stark contrast to the 2004 effort by the NAACP to sue the gun manufacturing industry.

I wouldn't rate Deacons for Defense high as far as fantastic acting or a gripping plot, but both are above average. Even without the history, it stands alone as an action movie.

On the other hand, I believe it is a historically accurate movie, based both on what I remember growing up during that era, and published research citing contemporary accounts of the Deacons. For instance search for "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration" by Cottrol and Diamond.

In short, as entertainment it's better than average; as fodder for discussion or education it's very provocative. Whichever side you're on, it's worth seeing. I viewed the VHS.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie!
Review: Excellent movie! I first heard about the Deacons of Defense decades ago from the book "Negroes with Guns." The story was later promulgated by the Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership (whatever happened to those guys?)

I can't believe there are those who are calling the movie full of unbelievable caricatures-- this is how things were! The Klan was not always the pathetic buffoons you see on Jerry Springer. A million Klansmen once marched in the 20 Century on DC as if it were just an Easter Parade. Politicians once proudly announced their Klan affiliation. Their numbers were large, their deeds hideous, their tendrils all throughout the government and so-called protectors. This is NOT ancient history; I remember white's only signs myself. They didn't all just disappear overnight.

These brave men armed themselves for their own protection as well as their children and the white men who worked with them to bring about the civil rights they deserved. Yes, that's right black men and children were flailed, hung, and beaten as well as denied civil rights. White men and women who helped them often faced similar consequences. Forrest Whittaker brings another good performance as his character breaks through the learned helplessness that comes from oppression.

The deeper story is the same as in such stories as the Warsaw Uprising and Escape from Sobibor. When a group is dehumanized on racial, class, or economic grounds, the "good" people in the majority will grind them as much as possible. That is, until the underclass finds the wherewithal for real strength by some means. Armed self-defense is one way.

They could have gone overboard; the movie showed that they had access to military weapons but they held themselves to a defense standard. This is the true American dream: that everyman should have the right and ability to defend themselves. If the idea that these black men were armed to defend themselves and their family offends you-then I say you better check your own heart. If my brother feels safe, then I am all the more safe. In the words of Barry Goldwater, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

A true American story is dramatized in this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie!
Review: Excellent movie! I first heard about the Deacons of Defense decades ago from the book "Negroes with Guns." The story was later promulgated by the Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership (whatever happened to those guys?)

I can't believe there are those who are calling the movie full of unbelievable caricatures-- this is how things were! The Klan was not always the pathetic buffoons you see on Jerry Springer. A million Klansmen once marched in the 20 Century on DC as if it were just an Easter Parade. Politicians once proudly announced their Klan affiliation. Their numbers were large, their deeds hideous, their tendrils all throughout the government and so-called protectors. This is NOT ancient history; I remember white's only signs myself. They didn't all just disappear overnight.

These brave men armed themselves for their own protection as well as their children and the white men who worked with them to bring about the civil rights they deserved. Yes, that's right black men and children were flailed, hung, and beaten as well as denied civil rights. White men and women who helped them often faced similar consequences. Forrest Whittaker brings another good performance as his character breaks through the learned helplessness that comes from oppression.

The deeper story is the same as in such stories as the Warsaw Uprising and Escape from Sobibor. When a group is dehumanized on racial, class, or economic grounds, the "good" people in the majority will grind them as much as possible. That is, until the underclass finds the wherewithal for real strength by some means. Armed self-defense is one way.

They could have gone overboard; the movie showed that they had access to military weapons but they held themselves to a defense standard. This is the true American dream: that everyman should have the right and ability to defend themselves. If the idea that these black men were armed to defend themselves and their family offends you-then I say you better check your own heart. If my brother feels safe, then I am all the more safe. In the words of Barry Goldwater, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

A true American story is dramatized in this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Almost impossible to be this bad
Review: Previous to viewing this, I was sure that the Matrix: Revolutions would be the worst movie I saw this year. How awful it is to be wrong about such a thing. If it is possible to make a movie that is more conceptually appealing to me, I would be surprised. How is it that so lovely a premise could turn out so bad? Read on...

The director and DP should be barred from making movies ever again. If the movie ran at real speed it would only be a few minutes long. Luckily there is gratuitous use of slow-motion throughout to make the film as long as other movies. The film constantly starts out in B&W and then color bleeds in. This serves no logical purpose and I would guess that it is a poor attempt to add art to a piece of poorly done agitprop. The black and white shots look like a camcorder was used. Often times the colors are mistinted when brought into effect. When one character is crying out for help, he is edited from finishing his sentence. These are very basic technical flaws.

The story is contrived and simplistic. It does not reflect well the positions of the violent nor nonviolent defenders of civil rights. And, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers felt it necessary to paint the KKK as even more evil that they already were. Why? Are there confused moviegoers (outside of the obvious extremists) who would be confused about who to root for? Every single type in this film is a caricature of a stereotype. The nonviolent activists are portrayed as ignorant fools out of touch with reality. The armed activists are portrayed as savage brutes incapable of reason. A great hero of the civil rights movement, Ossie Davis, portrays an Uncle Tom who becomes a savage brute. Any surviving Deacons should be horrified at the way they are portrayed. It's the same type of disrespect given to the Black Panthers. The political awakening of Forest Whitaker's character is just plain disgusting. His more than any other character is told as fanatical and unreasoning.

The people involved in the events mocked in this travesty had strong cases for their points (except for the segregationists). This film does nothing to bring light to those ideas even when they are applicable today. The acting is bad. The script is bad. The directing is bad. The editing is bad. The premise is beautiful so one out of five stars.

Rating:
Summary: Almost impossible to be this bad
Review: Previous to viewing this, I was sure that the Matrix: Revolutions would be the worst movie I saw this year. How awful it is to be wrong about such a thing. If it is possible to make a movie that is more conceptually appealing to me, I would be surprised. How is it that so lovely a premise could turn out so bad? Read on...

The director and DP should be barred from making movies ever again. If the movie ran at real speed it would only be a few minutes long. Luckily there is gratuitous use of slow-motion throughout to make the film as long as other movies. The film constantly starts out in B&W and then color bleeds in. This serves no logical purpose and I would guess that it is a poor attempt to add art to a piece of poorly done agitprop. The black and white shots look like a camcorder was used. Often times the colors are mistinted when brought into effect. When one character is crying out for help, he is edited from finishing his sentence. These are very basic technical flaws.

The story is contrived and simplistic. It does not reflect well the positions of the violent nor nonviolent defenders of civil rights. And, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers felt it necessary to paint the KKK as even more evil that they already were. Why? Are there confused moviegoers (outside of the obvious extremists) who would be confused about who to root for? Every single type in this film is a caricature of a stereotype. The nonviolent activists are portrayed as ignorant fools out of touch with reality. The armed activists are portrayed as savage brutes incapable of reason. A great hero of the civil rights movement, Ossie Davis, portrays an Uncle Tom who becomes a savage brute. Any surviving Deacons should be horrified at the way they are portrayed. It's the same type of disrespect given to the Black Panthers. The political awakening of Forest Whitaker's character is just plain disgusting. His more than any other character is told as fanatical and unreasoning.

The people involved in the events mocked in this travesty had strong cases for their points (except for the segregationists). This film does nothing to bring light to those ideas even when they are applicable today. The acting is bad. The script is bad. The directing is bad. The editing is bad. The premise is beautiful so one out of five stars.

Rating:
Summary: Principle Trumps Ideology: Read more about it
Review: The "Deacons for Defense" video alerts us to one chapter in the inexcusably ignored history of the armed civil rights movement. On the principled rationale and history of the *armed* civil rights movement (forever in the politically correct shadow of the history of non-violent resistance and protest), both enthusiasts and critics of "Deacons for Defense" should read the following:

Karl R. Popper, "Utopia and Violence" (in Popper's classic Conjectures and Refutations, Harper & Row, 1965): "[W]e must not allow the distinction between attack and defense to become blurred. We must insist upon this distinction, and support and develop social institutions ... whose function it is to discriminate between aggression and resistance to aggression [aka self-defense, the most historic, universal and fundamental of moral and legal rights]."

Robert F. Williams, Negroes With Guns (text-critical edition published by Wayne State University Press, 1998). See esp.: Chpt 1 "Self-Defense Prevents Bloodshed," Chpt 5 "Self-Defense Prevents a Progrom," Chpt 7 "Self-Defense: An American Tradition."

Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond, "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration" (Georgetown Law Journal, December 1991, and in Cottrol [editor] Gun Control & the Constitution, 1994).

Nicholas J. Johnson, "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individal Right to Arms Viewed Through the Ninth Amendment" (Rutgers Law Journal, Fall 1992).

Preston K. Covey, "Self-Defense - Legal Issues" and "Self-Defense - Reasons for Gun Use" (Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, Gregg Lee Carter [editor].)

Rating:
Summary: Principle Trumps Ideology: Read more about it
Review: The "Deacons for Defense" video alerts us to one chapter in the inexcusably ignored history of the armed civil rights movement. On the principled rationale and history of the *armed* civil rights movement (forever in the politically correct shadow of the history of non-violent resistance and protest), both enthusiasts and critics of "Deacons for Defense" should read the following:

Karl R. Popper, "Utopia and Violence" (in Popper's classic Conjectures and Refutations, Harper & Row, 1965): "[W]e must not allow the distinction between attack and defense to become blurred. We must insist upon this distinction, and support and develop social institutions ... whose function it is to discriminate between aggression and resistance to aggression [aka self-defense, the most historic, universal and fundamental of moral and legal rights]."

Robert F. Williams, Negroes With Guns (text-critical edition published by Wayne State University Press, 1998). See esp.: Chpt 1 "Self-Defense Prevents Bloodshed," Chpt 5 "Self-Defense Prevents a Progrom," Chpt 7 "Self-Defense: An American Tradition."

Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond, "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration" (Georgetown Law Journal, December 1991, and in Cottrol [editor] Gun Control & the Constitution, 1994).

Nicholas J. Johnson, "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individal Right to Arms Viewed Through the Ninth Amendment" (Rutgers Law Journal, Fall 1992).

Preston K. Covey, "Self-Defense - Legal Issues" and "Self-Defense - Reasons for Gun Use" (Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, Gregg Lee Carter [editor].)