History

Twelve Years a Slave is an adaptation of the 1853 memoir Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup, a New York State-born free African American man who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C., in 1841 and sold into slavery.  Facing cruelty at the hands of a malevolent slave owner, as well as unexpected kindnesses, Solomon struggles not only to stay alive, but to retain his dignity.

One of his owners, Epps, believes his right to abuse his slaves is biblically sanctioned. The slaves must pick at least 200 pounds of cotton every day, or be beaten.

The Bible contains several references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity.. The Bible stipulates the treatment of bondsmen, especially in the Old Testament. There are also references to slavery in the New Testament. Male Israelite slaves were to be offered release after seven years of service, with some conditions. Foreign slaves and their posterity became the perpetual property of the owner's family. The Bible was cited as justification for slavery by defenders.

Slavery in the New Testament:  In several Pauline epistles and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men.   The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery; it was used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists.  In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon; however, Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus, who he says he views as a son, not as a slave but as a beloved brother in Christ. Philemon is requested to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul.  I guess Epps forgot to read that part.

In the twelfth year of his unforgettable odyssey, Solomon's chance meeting with a Canadian abolitionist will forever alter his life.  He begins working on the construction of a gazebo with a Canadian laborer named Bass (Brad Pitt). Bass earns Epps' displeasure by expressing his opposition to slavery, by trying to explain to Epps that he could have a little compassion towards those working for him. Epps on the other hand doesn't see them as people, but as property - his property. 

You know the story of Nelson Mandela. 
Former President of South Africa
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician, and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.
Born: July 18, 1918, Mvezo, South Africa
Died: December 5, 2013, Houghton Estate 

     After 27 years in prison Nelson Mandela was freed in 1990 and negotiated the end of apartheid in South Africa bringing peace to a racially divided country and leading the fight for human rights around the world.
     The South African activist and former president Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) helped bring an end to apartheid and has been a global advocate for human rights. A member of the African National Congress party beginning in the 1940s, he was a leader of both peaceful protests and armed resistance against the white minority’s oppressive regime in a racially divided South Africa. His actions landed him in prison for nearly three decades and made him the face of the anti-apartheid movement both within his country and internationally. Released in 1990, he participated in the eradication of apartheid and in 1994 became the first black president of South Africa, forming a multi-ethnic government to oversee the country’s transition. after retiring from politics in 1999, he remained a devoted champion for peace and social justice in his own nation and around the world until his death in 2013 at the age of 95. 
1.            Invictus (2009) 
Synopsis.  The film tells the inspiring true story of how Nelson Mandela joined forces with the captain of South Africa's rugby team to help unite their country. Newly elected President Mandela knows his nation remains racially and economically divided in the wake of apartheid. Believing he can bring his people together through the universal language of sport, Mandela rallies South Africa's rugby team as they make their historic run to the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship match. 
2.           Mandela & De Klerk (1997 Full TV Movie) with Sidney Poitier & Michael Cane.

Synopsis:  On June 12, 1964, Nelson Mandela, along with a number of political detainees, was sentenced to life imprisonment in what remains the most sensational treason trial in the history of South Africa. The incarceration of Mandela and other political prisoners on Robben Island would become a symbol of the struggle to end apartheid and win freedom for the black majority in South Africa. On February 2, 1990, President F.W. De Klerk stood before Parliament and announced the legalization of the African National Congress and a host of other banned political organizations. At the same time, he announced that Nelson Mandela, having served 27 years in prison, would be released within 7 days. Yet the world, and indeed most South Africans, knew little about how this momentous occasion came to pass. Until now. Mandela & De Klerk was filmed in South Africa. Most of the locations are those where the actual events took place, and the dramatized sequences are augmented with newsreel footage to ensure the most accurate portrayal possible of recent historical events. 
3.            Nelson Mandela’s life story documentary.  You can watch it on the internet.  It is so good because he is filmed telling different part of his life, including his childhood.  There is also a narrator but I like it best when he tells the story himself. 
4.            Mandela.  The movie released right after his death.  We liked it the least of the three we have seen recently

Synopsis:  Nelson Mandela is a South African lawyer who joins the African National Congress in the 1940s when the law under the Apartheid system's brutal tyranny proves useless for his people. Forced to abandon peaceful protest for armed resistance after the Sharpeville Massacre, Mandela pays the price when he and his comrades are sentenced to life imprisonment for treason while his wife, Winnie, is abused by the authorities herself. Over the decades in chains, Mandela's spirit is unbowed as his struggle goes on in and beyond his captivity to become an international cause. However, as Winnie's determination hardens over the years into a violent ruthlessness, Nelson's own stature rises until he becomes the renowned leader of his movement. That status would be put to the test as his release nears and a way must be found to win a peaceful victory that will leave his country, and all its peoples, unstained.

We watched the new Mandela movie on Friday night; Saturday night we watched “Twelve Years a Slave,”--Academy Award Best Movie for 2013.  Both movies in one weekend were about more than I could bear: the whippings, the cruelty, the raw brutality; the demeaning, depreciating, dehumanizing.  “I’m glad I didn’t live when slavery was practiced,” my sister-in-law said, as we talked about it on Monday night.

I thought of the church services in Twelve Years a Slave, where they preached directly from the Bible.  “We are the Masters and you are to be obedient to us.”
     Today, we abhor them being robbed of their fundamental human and equal rights.
     The similarity suddenly struck me.  We use scripture to stress that homosexuality is evil, making it our sacred duty to marginalize, ostracize, and judge.  Will future generations look back on our history and say, “How could they be so cruel?  I’m glad I didn’t live then.”

****

Appendage

Gay marriage fight recalls ‘60s mixed-race debate

10th Circuit Court heard Utah’s same-sex marriage case on the anniversary of landmark 1967 hearing on mixed-race marriages.

By Brooke Adams

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Apr 13 2014 06:20 pm

As the judge listened to the attorney explain the state’s interest in barring the couple from marrying, he had a question: Are you saying there is scientific evidence that shows some children will be harmed by such marriages?

The question posed to R.D. McIlwaine III, assistant attorney general of Virginia, came from Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren on April 10, 1967.An amicus brief submitted by religious groups, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that support Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, echoes comments made in the past about anti-miscegenation laws: “Marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God as the right and best setting for bearing and raising children” and “traditional marriage is indispensable to social welfare and our republican form of government.”

The LDS Church reaffirmed its opposition to gay marriage at its General Conference about a week ago. Apostle Neil L. Andersen said changes in civil law cannot change the “moral law” of God.  “While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage,” he said, “the Lord has not.”

The case, of course, was Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial marriage.

On Thursday, 47 years to the day after Warren posed his question, 10th Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who is black, brought the Loving case squarely into the same-sex marriage debate as he asked the attorney representing Utah, how is a line drawn on gender any different from one that divided races when it comes to the right to marry?

"You have a man who wants to marry another man, the only thing that bars him from getting married is sex, gender," Holmes said. "So why is that any different than Loving when you are drawing a line that is based on a protected classification?"

Attorney Gene C. Schaerr has argued in court filings that a decision affirming U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 ruling that the state’s ban is unconstitutional would be a "judicial wrecking ball" rather than "the Loving of our age."

Schaerr told Holmes last week in Denver, that the difference was that the Loving decision didn’t "intrude into the state of Virginia’s definitional authority over marriage. The exclusion of mixed-race couples was a regulatory exclusion." And it left intact man-woman marriage, he said.

"The whole presumption in Loving was talking about man-woman marriage," he said, which is "fundamental to procreating and maintaining the human race."

But from its inception, the Loving case was framed not around gender but race, and in language and principles that parallel those used today in the same-sex marriage debate: procreation, what’s best for children, what’s natural and traditional and what’s in keeping with God’s will.

Richard Perry Loving, who was white, and Mildred Jeter, who was black, traveled to Washington, D.C. , in 1958 to marry because doing so was illegal in their home state of Virginia. They were later arrested at their home, jailed and subsequently pleaded guilty to violating the state’s "Racial Integrity Act of 1924."

An excerpt from the trial judge’s ruling is infamous for its plain expression of the public and state interest behind the act: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The judge sentenced the Lovings, parents to three children, to a year in jail but suspended the sentence provided they moved out of state. The couple relocated to Washington, D.C., but returned to Virginia occasionally under cover as the nine-year legal battle to have their marriage recognized played out.
"If we do win, we’ll be helping a lot of people," the soft-spoken Mildred Loving says in “The Loving Story,” a documentary about the case.

Virginia argued that its law was valid because it treated both whites and blacks equally under the law — much as Utah argues that its marriage prohibition applies equally to gays and lesbians.

Another key claim in the case revolved around the "scientific evidence" that then purported to show interracial marriage would lead to a "mongrel race" and harm offspring of both white and of mixed-race parents.

"The state has a natural and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages that lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not," McIlwaine told the Supreme Court, according to an audio excerpt of the hearing included in the documentary. "It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho/sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems."

Their children, he added, were frequently described as "victims" and "martyrs" of their parents’ marriages.

Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, the American Civil Liberties Union attorneys who represented the Lovings, emphasized how the laws deprived couples like the Lovings of dignity and affected the legitimacy of their children, property inheritance, survivorship rights, and other aspects of their lives.

Cohen told the court the state had failed to show how it or its people were harmed by the Lovings’ marriage, to which, he said, they had a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Two months later, when the court issued a unanimous decision in favor of the Lovings, there were 16 states that still barred interracial marriage. 
Fast-forward 41 years to 2004, when the Utah Legislature voted to place Amendment 3, the constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, on that fall’s general election ballot. 
Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, who sponsored the bill, said during floor debate that what was at stake was an "internal struggle between right and wrong" and urged his colleagues to not lower "standards or transforming fundamental principles upon which our society is based."

He said those principles stemmed from "self-evident truths" based on the "God of nature, nature’s laws," the Bible and "the morality of a people as reflected in its laws."

In Mason’s view, the conversation surrounding today’s same-sex marriage debate makes many assumptions raised in the past about interracial marriage, but he argues you can’t "just lift race discourse and scratch out ‘black’ and put in ‘gay’ " given the difference in discrimination and sanctions applied to the two groups.

Disagreement over how and whether Loving works as a framework for same-sex marriage plays out in dueling friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the Utah case at the 10th Circuit Court.

The Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic, which filed an amicus brief backing the three same-sex couples challenging Utah’s ban. The clinic said gay marriage opponents have "carbon copied" the same "flawed arguments that once were used to justify racial slavery and apartheid."

Then, as now, claims were made that expanding marital rights would upset the social order and lead to social chaos, the clinic said. Interracial relationships were described as unnatural and "contrary to God’s will." Such relationships were bluntly sexualized through use of coded language about sexual taboos — which the clinic said is repeated today in references to "adult-centric" lifestyles.

"Without acknowledging the racial provenance of these discredited arguments, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples as a threat to American society, American families, heterosexual marriage, and children," it said. "None of these statements is remotely true."

Appendage II

LBJ’s legacy for gay rights

By Jonathan Capehart

The Washington Post

First Published Apr 13 2014 01:01 am •

In his speech Thursday commemorating the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, President Barack Obama talked about the enduring power of one of President Lyndon Johnson’s signature accomplishments.

"Because of the civil rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody, not all at once, but they swung open. Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos and Asians and Native Americans and gay Americans and Americans with a disability."

 This isn’t the first time Obama has linked the push for civil rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans to the movement that made the 1964 law a reality. At his second inaugural, the president put under the same historic umbrella the Selma marches for African American equality and the Stonewall riots that ushered in the modern LGBT rights movement.

And in a February speech, Attorney General Eric Holder noted: "Just as our forebears came together to overcome tremendous adversity - and to forge the more just and more equal societies in which we now live - so, too, must the current generation rise to the causes that have become the struggles of our day; the defining civil rights challenges of our time. I believe one of these struggles is the fight for equality for our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender - or LGBT - citizens."

Meanwhile, federal judges across the country have ruled that state bans on marriage equality violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. On Thursday, a federal judge in Indiana ruled that the marriage of a lesbian couple wed in Massachusetts last year must be recognized by the Hoosier State immediately.

Knowing all this, it is easy to forget that not so long ago our federal government casually dismissed the concerns of LGBT Americans, if it acknowledged them at all. Consider this passage from a June 9, 1965, letter to Frank Kameny, a founding father of the LGBT civil rights movement, from Vice President Hubert Humphrey: "Neither the Federal Executive Orders on fair employment nor the Civil Rights Act which constitute the authority for this program of non-discrimination are relevant to the problems of homosexuals."

Time would change views on gay rights. Slowly, at first, and then with a speed in recent years that has amazed proponents and opponents of LGBT equality alike.

As Obama said Thursday, "The laws LBJ passed are now as fundamental to our conception of ourselves and our democracy as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are foundational, an essential piece of the American character. . . . Our rights, our freedoms - they are not given. They must be won. They must be nurtured through struggle and discipline and persistence and faith."

From Kameny’s persistence in the face of official rejection in 1965 to those same-sex couples pushing for marriage equality today, LGBT Americans are fighting to win. Marriage equality and the fairness that would flow from it nationwide are coming. It’s just a matter of when.