MovieChat Forums > The Butler (2013) Discussion > Ridiculous Why on earth did the father s...

Ridiculous Why on earth did the father stand by while his wife was raped

posted 10 years ago by dillon_surf72
31 replies | jump to latest

This is the 20's, they were not slaves they were sharecroppers, they could have simply walked away and found new work. Why didn't the father say, "Get your hands off my wife, we're leaving!" I'm pretty sure that it was illegal to blatantly kill your black worker in the 20's, even in the South. Am I wrong? I know that lynchings occurred, but to kill him in front of MANY witnesses?

Considering that they were free to go, it seems like the white trash stereo-typical overlord would never have done that in the first place, or he'd have no workers left to tend his cotton. It just wouldn't be profitable for him. His workers would move to a plantation that did not include rape as one of their activities. Why would he do that?

"Imma rape her in front of ya'all, even though you're here of your own free will and can leave at any time. Don't worry, you may be next..."

Seriously? I'm sure that rape happened, but you'd think that he'd be discreet about it, otherwise he'd have no workers left to tend his fields. Who's going to stay there knowing that they can be assaulted at any time, ESPECIALLY a family? The opening scene just struck me as being utterly ridiculous, fabricated by the director to create artificial outrage.

As a male, even if I was a slave, I'd die before I'd let him take my wife into a shed. I'm pretty sure that's how most normal males would react. It's better to die than to stand idly by while some white-trash idiot violates your wife, in front of your son and ALL of your co-workers. How could he look anyone in the eye ever again?

All of those people stand there while they hear her scream? Ridiculous...

[–] tonezak5 10 years ago

Most sharecroppers could not leave the plantation. They were entrapped into a cycle of debt and were not allowed to leave until that debt was paid. Most land owners played tricks with financial figures to make sure when the crops came in, the sharecroppers share wasn't enough to even cover what they owned and that means another season trapped to the land.

[–] edmountainman 10 years ago

It was illegal to lynch people but it went on and on. Check out the numbers on lynching the South during the 1900s. And then come back in and tell us it was illegal.

Who is going to stay?

People with no power, no sense of ever having any, people with little money and even less chance of getting more once they did leave. You don't think news of their leaving would surface in surrounding counties, limiting their chances of being hired.

You criticize the husband for not standing up, and then when he did he was shot point blank. So I guess your point is about timing? He should have died sooner.

Seriously the lack of your knowledge about this time period is so overt I am thinking your post is more along the lines of trolling.

Read some.

[–] dillon_surf72 10 years ago

"You criticize the husband for not standing up, and then when he did he was shot point blank. So I guess your point is about timing? He should have died sooner."

I'm pretty sure that most males would prefer to act BEFORE the rape, as opposed to after it. But it's a moot point, as apparently that scene never actually occurred. I guess the director just wanted to make the audience angry.

As I said before, it was not realistic and struck me as being ridiculous. Performing that type of barbarity in front of EVERYONE on your plantation would just not be profitable and makes no sense. I'm sure that there were rapist plantation owners, but I doubt it was that blatant. At least make it realistic.

[–] edmountainman 10 years ago

I think our differences on this aspect is that I am referring to real life and not necessarily how it was or is portrayed in film. It seems, to me at least, you are focusing on what went on in the film, not giving credence that such things would or could take place in real life.

History both in written, recorded and experienced perspective explicitly relates that these types of activities occurred regularly in the Deep South post Civil War up to the 1960s.

If you want realistic, open yourself to the historical record. Look at photographs of faces, of crimes, of poverty that explicitly and realistically took place and which counter your apparent perception about what was blatant and what was not, about what was "profitable."

There was no need for the director to make people "angry". He portrayed what happened in real life in countless other situations for a hundred years. You limit it to the film, to the real story. That's your prerogative, but IMO it is limited to a great degree.

Lets put it this way, to limit your understanding of what historically occurred as recorded by many, many people to a film or any number of films is transparently a denial of reality.

[–] dillon_surf72 10 years ago

"I think our differences on this aspect is that I am referring to real life and not necessarily how it was or is portrayed in film. It seems, to me at least, you are focusing on what went on in the film "

Of course I'm talking about the film, this is after all a forum for discussing the film. I was criticizing the film as not being realistic...

Lets put it this way, to limit your understanding of what historically occurred as recorded by many, many people to a film or any number of films is transparently a denial of reality.

I've never read a historical account of a white plantation owner raping a sharecropper's wife in front of his entire plantation. Historically, it doesn't seem realistic as not only would it not be profitable for the plantation owner, it could be potentially dangerous. Common sense would dictate that most plantation owners wouldn't do that, survival instincts and all.

Again, I know rape happened, just probably not in front of the ENTIRE plantation including the woman's husband and son. That would be a great way to be ripped apart by multiple angry men/women. If you have any references from reputable sources that prove otherwise, I would be happy to read them.

[–] ObieReturns 10 years ago

It has happened that way in the past to women of color, both as slaves and as disenfranchised free people. White men would freely rape young black girls when the mood hit them. It's true and it has been documented more than once. Victims were bullied into not reporting their rapes to the police; to do so could put the victim and her family's lives and livelihood at risk. Many black men could do little as they watched their wives, sisters and daughters be forced to submit to white Southern men's sexual desires. Anyone who thinks that the scenario in The Butler could never have happened needs to rethink their opinion. And more than once they were raped in front of witnesses. Doesn't surprise me at all - as a matter of fact, the scene was probably too tame.

One of the main reasons my maternal grandparents moved north was because the white man my family worked for was trying to put pressure on her to become his mistress. This was in 1934. My grandparents never lied to me about anything. So

[–] dillon_surf72 10 years ago

Victims were bullied into not reporting their rapes to the police; to do so could put the victim and her family's lives and livelihood at risk. Many black men could do little as they watched their wives, sisters and daughters be forced to submit to white Southern men's sexual desires. Anyone who thinks that the scenario in The Butler could never have happened needs to rethink their opinion. And more than once they were raped in front of witnesses.

I think that one thing that we can probably agree upon, is that hopefully there is a very special place in hell for rapists no matter the race. I can't imagine how awful it must have been for African Americans to live during that time period in the South.

[–] mtmv 10 years ago

"Again, I know rape happened, just probably not in front of the ENTIRE plantation including the woman's husband and son. That would be a great way to be ripped apart by multiple angry men/women. If you have any references from reputable sources that prove otherwise, I would be happy to read them."

The entire scene was true to life. The point of raping her in front of everyone was to show them he could do as he pleased. When her husband dared to talk back to him he was shot dead - again to teach them their place.

Your fantasy that Southern blacks had the option of reporting thīngs to the police, or ripping apart the perpetrators, is laughable and naïve.

The "po-lice" were members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Sherriff was usually the head of the local KKK. Any black who dared to put their hands on a white man would be lynched, and the night riders of the KKK would burn down the black settlements and kill as many men, women and children as they could. Learning by terror not to step out of line, you could say.

In the sixties the Federal government forced Southern jurisdictions to prosecute white murderers of blacks, but they would just put on a show trial during which there would be laughter and guffawing as evidence was presented, then the all-white jury would find them not guilty.

Your lack of knowledge of those times is disturbing. Your implication that blacks had the option to, but just didn't, fight back enough is offensive.

Maggie

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

And you have been watching too many movies like this one, and believe that actually every, single town was corrupt in the southern United States? And also that the KKK was an organization based solely to put black people in nooses, or burn crosses, like in those same movies I am speaking of.

Not every town had an 'evil' Sheriff that wouldn't care if someone, even a black man, was murdered. That is a generalization that only someone living in a fantasy world could believe.
Also, although rampant in the early to mid 1920's, The KKK was largely dissolved before and after this time. The KKK was also not originally focused on white supremacy, as is depicted in TV, movies, and other media. The KKK was more focused on "Americanization", which included mostly violence against the Catholic Church, Republicans, Carpetbaggers, and other non-Confederate organizations. The violence against black people was just a what some of the independent groups might have been involved in, but many of these KKK organizations would just as likely have hung a white 'yankee' Civil War profiteer as i would a black man.

[–] pioneergrrrl 10 years ago

Back then, black women were considered property---and under Jim Crow segregation laws (the same ones which segegated schools, water fountains etc). it would have been impossible for a black woman to get an all white jury to believe she had been sexually assaulted by a white man.

Black women were believed to be naturally sexually deviant. So raping them was not a 'crime' under the legal codes of the day---they were 'asking for it' just by being in front of White men.

The movie has many flaws, but the scene shows the dangers which they worked under and the trauma which this inflicted upon families and communities.

The father did not 'want' to stand by. But because he had no civil rights under the law back then (why he was shot) he could have not gone to court.

[–] russok044 10 years ago

Um.... You guys know this is a true story right? That shooting actually happened.

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

Actually it didn't. Although the movie claims to be based on a true story, it does not resemble the story of the real butler in anything else than his working as a butler in some hotels then in the white house.

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

are you really that ignorant of history?

Rachel

[–] seakicreativeservice-934-96321 9 years ago

I'm sure that there were rapist plantation owners, but I doubt it was that blatant. At least make it realistic.

I am a 10 generation creole from Louisiana-my skin and hair texture are pure examples of how white men liked to rape female sharecroppers for fun, amusement, when ever a white man needed free sex and did not feel for paying for it. In our family, there is a story my great-grand mother told my grandfather when he was older,able to understand. Imagine having 6 mulatto children, all in a one room shack, seeing their mama raped by their white daddy.

Over and over again...then 9 months later-another child was born.

No......this was REAL, many of have the family oral history as well as survivors to prove it. These men were ANIMALS and they did what animals do....they ravaged, killed,and maimed.

Many times they did not care whom saw...especially if it was a black face.

Sorry the scene insulted your gentle sensibilities. Try telling that to my late great nana. I'm sure she would laugh in your face, then offer you a slice of coffee cake, while setting you straight.

[–] theycallmebrandon 9 years ago

Creole? Hah, your people were probably slave owners then. The free blacks of New Orleans alone owned an estimated 28% of all slaves in the state. They strongly supported the South in the civil war, too.

So, you're probably the descendants of traitors.

[–] AngelCake56FJS 10 years ago

It's based on a true story so no, the shooting never took place but such an event was not unheard of. Some of you need to take a course in Black American history. Look up Emmett Till, Rosewood massacre, 4 Little Girls,and George Wallace. You're thinking with a 21st century mind set.

[–] SataiDelen 10 years ago

And this is the problem with most of the American youth of today. They cannot relate to ANYTHING that went on in the past. Schools are NOT teaching much of anything anymore. So, it is not surprising to me that the OP (assuming he is young) doesn't "get it."

[–] vpking77-276-694061 10 years ago

The whole scene was totally believable. It was the South during the 20's. The black man had no rights. Every black on that farm could tell the sheriff that the man was shot in cold blood and they would believe the white man. As far the rape it would be the same thing. They were still murdering blacks in the fifties and early sixties in the South for no reason so in the 20's it was probably happening every day.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

I agree, the movie started in 1926. It made sense in a movie like '12 Years A Slave', but as soon as I saw the white guyy start to take the wife into the barn, I about turned of the movie. Plus, it was a weird way to start a movie. It didn't establish any of the characters, esp the white people of the farm and also was this something that happened often, because for a white dude to just one day walk out of his house and say to himself: 'You know what, I think I am going to rape be one of these here colored workers today'. But by the reaction shots of the other workers and of the husband, it made it seem like that was the first time, which brings me back to what I had said. Why this day. They would have been better off if there were a few minutes of the white guy flirting with the workers over several years or something, even if only brief scenes to establish a pattern.
It was just very strange.
Also another thing was were oprah decided the day that the president got shot to clean out her sons room?? that made no sense at all.

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

I think their reaction was due to it NOT being the first time

It's difficult to accept that these terrible things happened.

Rachel

[–] kisses5050 10 years ago

You must be very young. ANd it is awesome that it is beyond your comprehension that the ties of slavery and the generations of thought were so ingrained to think no other way.. I grew up in the midst of integration..,, and one of the girls who came into my class had a great grand father who actually had been a slave.. think about that.. the 20's were nothing along the trail of enlightenment... Hell in 1980 we had to cancel our homecoming because we had elected a black homecoming king and a white queen!

[–] Angie_MJ 10 years ago

My grandmother was born in 1939 (still with us). When she was three days old her parents were driving in the town center of Greenville, Mississippi when her father accidentally rear ended a white woman's car. He got out of the car and ran. He left the state never to be seen again because he feared being lynched. There were no repercussions for killing blacks and southern white racists were beyond cruel.

On my grandfather's side, they lived in Arkansas, I forget the name of the town they lives outside of. We visited it in 2010, there's nothing left. But they were share croppers and he was born in the 1920s. When he was a child his oldest brothers body was dropped off at the house. Police said he was speeding and went into a ditch and drowned. The locals who pulled him out told the family him and his friend were in the back seat of the car with their hands tied behind their backs. The family will never know, nor could ever expected, justice. There is no investigation or even truth. People sadly concluded 'white folks got'em' and they lived with it. You are fortunate to not know such fear and helplessness. You see one mans story depicted and there are millions who lived through these times. They steeled themselves and got through it. You should show some respect with your attitude of bravado and what you would have done in the face of such a difficult and little valued life.

[–] AngelCake56FJS 10 years ago

This really disturbs me by how some people fail to comprehend the mind set and history during that time period. I remember when I was 12 years old my friend's younger brother was watching that awful Will Smith movie,"Wild Wild West" In passing I decided to put my two cents in and inform him besides all of the obvious historical inaccuracies of the movie there's no way a Black man would be in such a position as Will Smith's character. He responded, "Well this is after slavery."

After the civil war things did not change over night. Before the north pulled out of the reconstruction, Blacks were taking part in government but right after the Jim Crow laws popped up everything went to hell. Google Emette Till.

It's a shame there has to a month to make people aware of Black American history. It's simply American history.