Posted on 03/24/2007 1:10:58 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu
![]()
It's 30 years since the TV drama Roots first screened. The show had a profound impact on black people in the US and UK, recalls Kwame Kwei-Armah, right, who spoke to others about their memories of the programme. Thirty years ago I was an 11-year-old growing up in West London. One evening I sat down with my family to watch a new television programme called Roots. It was a moment that changed my life. By the end of the series I had told my mother that I would one day trace my heritage back to Africa and reclaim an ancestral name. Before I watched the programme I was called Ian Roberts but now my name is Kwame Kwei-Armah. Roots was a novel based on the writer Alex Haley's family history. It started in Africa with a young man called Kunte Kinte being captured by slavers. It followed him as he was transported to America and sold into slavery. It then focused on his descendants all the way down to Alex Haley.
Many doubted that Roots would do well on television. David Wolper, the producer, had problems selling it to a network. "Roots did not sound like a good idea - at the beginning, here's a story where the blacks are the heroes and the whites are the villains, in a country that's 90% white and 10% black." To soften the "blow", a new, sympathetic white character was added to the story - conscience-stricken boat captain Thomas Davies. But when it was broadcast in January 1977 Roots was a phenomenon. It was watched by over 100 million people. It became the most watched programme ever. It is still in the top three only surpassed by the last episode of Mash and the "who shot JR?" episode of Dallas. Though some question the authenticity of Alex Haley's account, the story he told of enslavement, transportation and brutality happened to millions of Africans.
Harrowing experience For writer and television presenter Alvin Hall, then a student in North Carolina, watching the story on TV for the first time was a memorable experience, not least because it felt like white audiences were for the first time sharing in the experience of watching black faces on TV. But Hall also found the experience of watching harrowing.
"I think all of us knew these things intellectually but to see it was hard to watch, in some scenes I had to turn my face away from the television." In America, Roots may have dramatised slavery for the first time. But everyone already knew that slavery was a part of America's history. For many West Indians living in Britain, though, Roots was revelatory. Dr Robert Beckford is now a theologian and academic but in 1977 he was a teenager growing up in the Midlands. "I was completely shocked the first time I watched Roots. It was compulsive viewing in my house it became more important than going to church," he says.
Roots was a huge success in the UK too, with 19 million people watching. The subject matter may have been difficult but it was a brilliant, epic story that drew you into the characters' lives. Source of pride Many people learnt all they knew about slavery from watching Roots but it only showed the American involvement. Many Britons had no idea that the British transported far more slaves across the Atlantic than the Americans ever did.
Yet, for young black Britons growing up in the UK, Roots was a source of tremendous pride. Lenny Henry remembers how the show's effect spilled over from living room to playground. "I remember going to school on the Monday and people somehow didn't mess with you that day because all the black kids had this look in their eyes that said you better back off," recalls Henry. That was perhaps the exception, not the rule. In most schools, the show proved to be a source for teasing - the name Kunta Kinte sounding not like a proud warrior, but a rude joke. What made Roots so difficult for many people with Caribbean heritage was that it confronted them with the fact that their families originally came from Africa. Growing up in West London, Africa was something you saw in Tarzan movies where savages were beaten up by our white hero. We felt no kinship with Africa.
Going in work you looked at people completely different, you'd begin to have a mistrust of white people and that took a long time to go
But Roots clearly changed the way British West Indians thought about themselves. Doreen Lawrence, of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, had been brought up knowing nothing about slavery or Africa. "Until Roots came out I would never have seen myself as a descendant of a slave, that was never part of my background that I learnt growing up in the Caribbean." For my generation Roots was a seminal moment that in many cases changed our lives. Robert Beckford believes the young today need their own Roots, "The current generation that are caught up in education failure, gun crime, gang violence, and lacking identity. They need a Roots experience."
Looking back, for me, the most important thing about Roots was not just that it pointed me in the direction of my heritage but that it showed me the power of a story to change perceptions and lives. And that is probably why I am a writer today. Kwame Kwei-Armah presents Roots on Radio 4 on Saturday 24 March at 1030 BST.
Add your comments on this story, using the form below. That program did not show only the black people in western countries their background but people living in Africa at that time became so emotional. The tenage groups these days undermind people from Africa forgetting their ancestors came from the same place and they in realty should be proud of their motherland. They should follow the culture and respect of Africa.
I am a Nigerian by birth and have refused to adopt another citizenship,I studied history about slave trade in Nigeria but Root made me understand what Africans suffered in slavery.In as much as I resperct all blacks,I have reservations of non African Blacks because of their lack of knowledge on Africa. The much I can say is that Africans want African decendents home even if for a short visit, you select one African State as home and make it a home and claim it. Africans are lovely helpful people, once you have their colour heaven is yours.
I remember watching Roots and making a sort of family tree through the generations so as not to confuse or forget anything. I wish it would be screened again. Another generation needs to know about this powerful history.
I watched Roots in Denmark in 1979. I was the only person at my school with black blood - my father is nigerian and my mum danish. I grew up in small village and Roots was really an eye-opener for me. I was only 9 years old but Roots instilled enormous pride in me- I knew that my dads family originated from american slaves. Kunta Kinte gave me pride and hope because it showed me that black people can survive a lot of oppression. And somehow it became really " cool " to be black in my small danish village. So I can only say that Roots has been very very important for black people all over the world and I think that Blacks should be proud because they are descended from enslaved africans that gave a lot of rich culture to the american countries jazz, bossa nova, carnival and blues. And at the moment it seems like the " Black diaspora and blacks generally" have started to see the richness in theír african roots!
Do we all not have injustice issues deep back in our history. Each race or country In all parts of the world have been invaded or corrupted by another at some point in the past. Man never changes in its greed, We have to try to go forward and not keep looking back,Any Country could if we went back far enough. No place on earth has not committed some evil or another on its neighbour.Whether the next village, tribe or country .
I am Jewish and I remember Roots having a huge impact on me and everyone I knew who saw it. It's brilliance was that you understood all the characters, black and white, and you could understand why they had the attitudes they had - however despicable. The scene where Alex Hayley's father, a uniformed WWII veteran, is refused a room in a motel because of his colour, will stay with me forever - it reduced my parents to tears because they had the same experience as new immigrants to this country. It just showed how long change can take.
It constantly sickens me that it takes a popular media event to raise awareness about HISTORY? Surely this is and was public knowledge already? I took nothing from this program but awe at it's bravery and it's production, and to this day find it hard to believe that it was such a revelation. Maybe someone should make a miniseries of the gross violence and mass genocide happening in Africa right now? We all turn a blind eye to that (but for a few charitable institutions) maybe a media event will shock and inspire us. It has got to the point where unless it happens in full colour, widescreen, Dolby DTS it's not real. I weep for the future of a planet where education and 'common knowledge' is nothing until immortalised in celluloid. Sometimes I am ashamed to be human.
I remember the harrowing effect of this programme, I had felt similar shock, horror and sadness when I read Uncle Tom's Cabin. I am a white Briton so I cannot really understand the way that descendants of Africans must feel. It is vital that all people learn their own and world history so that freedom and equality are treasured. At some point, most Nations and peoples have been abused, enslaved or conquered by others. What I also believe is that rather than people asking for meaningless apologies, efforts should be directed to stamping out modern-day oppression and slavery, of which there is a great deal.
|
Oh, wait a minute now! I mean, fun is fun but...I mean...good grief, the next thing you'll be telling us is that Spacely's Sprockets aren't the best sprockets money can buy.
How are you being attacked. As many freepers who are against any apologies over slavery have pointed out: they weren't there when slavery was legal in this country, and thus they shouldn't apologize (and they even believe the government shouldn't apologize) for slavery and its effects.
"Roots" attacks slavery and its effects--unless you were complicit in either of those things, it shouldn't be attacking you.
Every single American has played a part in the development on this nation, and every single American (and every single human creature) has ancestors who have done both good and bad things. Proudly emphasizing only those ancestors who have good things to their name while acting as though those ancestors who have bad things (to their name) didn't exist is not the way to go.
The same for the country. This country has done great things: it is one of the oldest modern republics; in two centuries it went from independence to superpower status; its population has grown immensely due to a high birth rate and immigration;* it has generally kept the peace in the Western hemisphere while other continents were frequently ravaged by wars; it freely allows immigrants to naturalize into citizens; it has a policy of jus soli for citizenship; it remains a beacon of freedom (in many fields) for the rest of the world today; etc. etc.
This country has also done bad things: it has had a history of slavery; even those states in which slavery was banned allowed slavery to exist in fellow states; Amerindian tribes were removed from their lands although the government had treaties recognizing tribal ownership of typed lands; there were Jim Crow laws and miscegenation laws up until relatively recent history; etc. etc.
You can't (shouldn't) just take the good and not the bad with history. You have to (should) take both.
*Although some freepers believe it isn't so, immigration has been one of the drivers of population growth in the United States since before the country even existed (pre-1776).
Somehow, I don't think the sins of a television miniseries can be compared in any way with the sins of slavery.
Whatever faults in the miniseries, slavery was a sin--period. Any attempt to claim this TV show, because it didn't perform the absolutely impossible by blaming only those individuals responsible, is somehow guilty of smearing anyone is, frankly, ridiculous and embarassing.
Had he been a Brazilian, Haitian, Saudi, Scotsman, etc. and traced his slave ancestry from some other country, would his movie be produced? Probably.
In Brazil, people would probably watch a movie about a Brazilian slave and his descendants.
In Haiti, people would probably watch a movie about Haitian slave and his descendants.
In Saudi Arabia, people would probably watch a movie about a Saudi slave and his descendants.
In Scotland, people would probably watch a movie about a Scottish slave and his descendants (especially if the slave-owner happened to be English).
Some things are make-the-USA-look-as-though-it-is-the-cruelest-nation-on-Earth sort of things. This isn't one of them.
The same thing can also be said about watching and believing in everything involving the mainstream media all over the world.
Slaves remained slaves throughout their lives unless they were given their freedom by their masters. Furthermore, their children were also slaves. And those children's children were slaves, and so on.
Indentured servitude is on some levels comparable with slavery--and on other levels, definitely not.
"You can't (shouldn't) just take the good and not the bad with history. You have to (should) take both."
I don't know who you are of course, but you repeat that line a lot in your postings, it makes you sound like a 20 year old that is just now getting into history.
Forty or Forty five years ago, I would be helping your argument, but those days are long gone.
You need to start considering the idea that you have been sold a biased, inaccurate, version of American history.
The American people were not vicious, violent, hateful, scum until the sixties happened.
The American people were always a notch above, always socially ahead, always caring and fair, that is why I am proud of America when it comes to slavery.
I think the greatness of our nation's early people, is best represented by it's short involvement with the institution of international slavery.
It also allowed LeVar Burton to go from being a slave to chief engineer of the Enterprise. Only in America!
Not the part recognizing "Roots" as being propagandistic, and no recognition that complete and utter is what is being contested there (from comment 5).
Just the part when taken by itself with its emphases removed it appears to state that "Roots" is an accurate historical documentary.
Sorry, I missed how your post was relevant to me.
>>Would Haley's story had [sic!] been published, and the subsequent movie been made, if he had traced his ancestor from Africa to say Brazil? Haiti? Saudi?
Would Haley's story had [sic!] been published, and the subsequent movie been made, if he had been a white man and had traced his ancestor from say Scotland who had been sold as an "indentured servant" by the British government to the American colonies in the 17th century?<<
Would Haley's story have been published if he had been an Inuit... Lithuanian... Croatian... etc.?
My point: What's your point? Whom or what are you criticizing?
So what if his story wouldn't have been published had it not concerned American Negroes tracing their lineage back to Africa? Obviously, the story sold, the series was a hit, whereas the tale of a W.A.S.P. returning to the home village of his distant ancestors in Luxembourg probably would have BOMBED.
I'm not surprised.
"A lot of freepers have a fantasy history which only contains things which make the United States (or other relevant topic) look good, while noticeably absent is history showing the country in not such a good light."
You ignored my post, I said that 40 or 45 years ago I would have been supporting you, but I continued my study of American history and those childish, union taught lessons of anti American bigotry became balanced with historical truth and context.
And will try to be more polite this time.
Agree that there is a lot of anti-Americanism circulating around both the nation and the world, today.
However (however), on this topic ("Roots" and slavery), slavery is very much a part of American history, as much as the American Revolution or settling the West.
While "Roots" could have tended toward propagandistic, it did show an actual thing which happened in American history, even if it embellished that history a bit.
The point which personally trying to make is that that history should not be shied away from, it should not be ignored, it should not be "swept under the rug" or "covered up," and it should not be considered as though it didn't exist (which is what personally suspect some of the "move on" proponents actually propose).
That bad part of this country's history should be accepted. Not used as a figurative cudgel to beat down pro-Americanism or as a tool to further anti-Americanism. Just accepted as a dark spot on the nation's history, the same way the American Revolution is viewed as a bright moment in the country's past.
To recognize that does not threaten reputations about the United States (Americans and the world are aware that the United States had slaves), nor does it help increase anti-Americanism.
As the last comment in the article (the BBC comments) states, the subjugation of a people is not something new, and has happened to many ethnicities. Not acknowledging or fully accepting the United States' slavery is far more ruinous to opinion about the country than was "Roots."
"That bad part of this country's history should be accepted. Not used as a figurative cudgel to beat down pro-Americanism or as a tool to further anti-Americanism. Just accepted as a dark spot on the nation's history, the same way the American Revolution is viewed as a bright moment in the country's past. "
You miss the point, we have been beaten down by this racial propaganda.
As a conservative you must wonder what set the United States on it's path of destruction, it was when we changed simple history into an indictment of everything American.
You wonder why we are swamped by immigrants of a different race, of a different religion, of a different culture, language, etc, etc.
America has always dealt with it's faults, but in the 50s and 60s the left used that to move us into a national feeling of guilt, and shame, and self revulsion (at least by the leftist elites).
The left used this falsely brutal version of our history to drive legislation like the 1965 immigration bill and feminism, and black power politics, and they removed Christianity under the umbrella of being "the white power structures religion".
Many of us on this forum watched this happen, many of us supported the shift, and then we saw the horror as the radical left used our nations goodness to destroy it.
You seem to have recently discovered warts that we all know about and are tired of focusing on, this is the 21st century, 50 or 60 years of wallowing in self destructive guilt is enough, for one thing "we" aren't even "we" anymore, so you can leave the old roots stuff behind.
""That bad part of this country's history should be accepted.""
You must be kidding, we have wallowed in it for two generations, we need to move on to the stars, and more advanced thinking.
Are you trying to get us to end our fight to end slavery, by reminding us that we participated in a relatively small way, a long, long, time ago, in the commerce of the African economy of human slavery, which is more a part of African culture than any other group? Within only 20 years our revolutionary new country had already stopped the importing of slaves.
Right now you should be helping America to get the Africans to follow in our footsteps, and end slavery among their race.
Join Christians in their fight to make African culture more like the pre 1960 American culture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.