MovieChat Forums > Lovecraft Country (2020) Discussion > How realistic is the level of extreme, o...

How realistic is the level of extreme, overt racism in this show?


I'll start off believing that there was overt racism and segregation against black travelers, and it might have been difficult to obtain services in many rural communities. Plus, Sundown Towns were a real phenomenon.

That being said, did any kind of stop immediately result in being chased by armed civilians trying to kill you? I'd guess the most likely phenomenon would have been being just refused service and told to leave town by local police.

I'd also wager that other than stopping for gas, most Blacks wouldn't have even bothered trying to eat in small town diners or gain hotel rooms. They would pack picnic lunches and only stop in larger cities known to have black populations and some kind of safe harbor or hotels known to accept Blacks.

I also thought the trap set by the sheriff near the end of episode 1 was a bit unrealistic. What's he going to do, "I solved the two thefts by executing 3 African Americans in the woods after dark"? I'm not sure its a plausible outcome, even if your county's citizens are racist.

I feel like this show would be actually scarier if the white people were less obviously monsters, and their hostility and violence was much more implied than over-the-top overt. It would make things a lot more chilling and frightening, especially if they segued from "scary, intimidating white cop" to "Lovecraftian monster", making you wonder if there was some literal connection.

reply

It's realistic but of course depicted in it's extreme forms. It is tv after all.

reply

This is just another propaganda movie to demonize whites, the usual trend in woke Hollywood.

What was the real situation? They key word is 'segregation'. Blacks and white didn't live together and didn't interact with each other. In these propaganda movies, whites are portrayed as some monsters (a typical feature in propaganda movies) that spend their time thinking about how to be evil and racist. In the real world, whites used to mind their own businesses and didn't think about blacks because they just didn't interact with blacks.

Of course, if you were a black traveler, chances are white areas would be hostile. That was to be expected and wasn't anything out of ordinary. Most areas in the world have always been very hostile to people considered foreigners. White areas were hostile to blacks (and other foreigners)... and black areas were hostile to whites (and other foreigners). This second one is never portrayed in woke propaganda movies, guess why?.

You want to know what that hostility felt like? Get a backpack, travel to China or Mexico, move outside of touristic areas, and you'll know it first hand.

Or even better: have a walk in a deep black or Muslim neighborhood in a western country nowadays, this is gonna be much (MUCH) more dangerous than being a black and walking in a white area back then.

reply

I totally agree with this. Hollywood has it's agenda and propaganda to demonize whites and it's very clear, especially on Netflix, where it's owner is as leftist as possible. He even got removed from the board another person, just because he was supporting President Trump. What is going on right now is not only troubling, but ridiculous. Have anyone seen TV shows "Cursed" or "The Witcher" from Netflix? We got black elves and original characters (Triss, Yennifer) who were white both in book and game are non whites. And what about "Cursed"? I hope everyone heard about King Arthur and the wizard Merlin. It's an Irish folklore. Guess what? King Arthur is black there. Can you imagine? It's so ridiculous... It's a same if someone would make a movie about Mike Tyson and put white guy playing his role. It's not only ridiculous, but it's falsifying the material. In middle ages in Europe there WEREN'T blacks, especially on high positions in society. Hollywood is f*** up place with it's f*** up, stupid, anti-white propaganda. What's shocking that such clearly racist content like this "Lovecraft Country" is allowed in Hollywood. All whites are depicted evil, racist monsters, while blacks are depicted as victims and heroes. You don't need to be some professor with big brains to see this blatant racism here. Yet, it's allowed. I wonder if someone would make opposite TV show, while all blacks are evil and racist and whites are victims and heroes, would Hollywood allow such content? I highly doubt that. I'm pretty sure, next day all the cast would be forever banished from the Hollywood. So, how the hell is this "equality" or even fair? It's hypocrisy. The course US is taking is seriously troubling. I think soon, it will be dangerous to be white in US.

reply

Well, the sheriff could do it with complete impunity. It's not like anyone would have ever prosecuted him for that.


reply

I think the sheriff could get away with murder, literally, but I also don't see him going to the lengths he did with these 3 people to claim he solved unrelated theft or even necessarily to just torture or kill them. What's in it for him to go to those lengths other than satisfying some psychopathic instinct? It's way easier just to chase them off, and I'm mostly a believer in the idea that people are lazy and will choose the lowest effort option if they can get away with it.

I'd totally buy a scenario where he just shoots and kills them on his own for some ginned up excuse, as he has plausible deniability and no conflicting witnesses. Maybe even with one trusted deputy. But with several deputies present? How does he know one of them doesn't harbor ambitions of being sheriff and would use this against him?

"That Billy Bob, why he has the right attitude towards trouble makers, but friends, he is using your dislike of those troublemakers to fool you into thinking he's doing his job protecting your property. We all want undesirables run right out of town, but that's not gonna get your stuff back and it lets more nefarious characters get away with it. And eventually his rash behavior is gonna get some do gooders in town making trouble for everybody."

reply

I mean, it still happens to this day - like the Ahmaud Arbery case?..

So I am definitely not surprised. In fact, I would think the reality was a lot worse than how they portray it on TV shows.

One thing I thought while watching that episode though was, how the heck do you LAUGH after being chased by a car and shot at? I would have had severe PTSD.


reply

I mean, it still happens to this day - like the Ahmaud Arbery case?..

The Arbery case shows a more complicated landscape.

Nobody knows the key element: who started the attack. The video only shows they were struggling for the shotgun, but it doesn't show who attacked or escalated first. Perhaps the guy with the shotgun aimed at him, in which case Arbery trying to take his gun would be legit defense. Perhaps they only insulted each other and Arbery tried to take the gun, in which case Arbery would have been the attacker. Nobody knows what really happened.

Local police was biased against Arbery, that's true. But once federal agencies got into the case, it became a hunt for white dudes. And lynching white dudes was not a local thing. It was a national one.

reply

Um, Arbery was out jogging. The white guys were chasing him down with a truck.

reply

The pickup was stopped, and the black dude was running towards them. And someway that became "white guys chasing him down with a truck"

Ah, woke mysteries... 😂😂😂

reply

I'm guerssing your just trolling now. I doubt even you believe that scenerio.

reply

I think its pretty obvious Arbery was attacked as he was jogging and it wasnt hiss shot gun and he was attacked 3 to 1. I don't find it plausible that arbery just decided to attack 3 mn who happened to be armed at the time/

reply

The fact its realism is even being question somewhat speaks to the lack of widespread education that's been done concerning matters like this. Overt racism was (and quite frankly still is) very much an issue and if anything, may be the most realistic aspect of the show so far. To think an authority figure like the sheriff wouldn't set a trap like the one he did when cases like Emmett Till's exist...and that horrendous act was perpetrated by civilians. Nobody in town would have blinked twice if they heard the sheriff executed three Black people who were "prime suspects" in robbery. Carol Jenkins was murdered in a sundown town in 1968 when Jim Crow was supposed to be over. This isn't an attack on you or your beliefs, but the idea of "It wasn't really this bad, was it?" is almost heartbreaking.

reply

Tv shows often exagerrate reality,thats what OP is trying to say

reply

More than exaggerated, it's carefully cherry-picked. For example, blacks have about 50 times more criminality index than non-Hispanic whites, and however in modern media they're almost systematically portrayed as honest people unfairly accused. On the other hand, white countries of north-European descent are the less corrupt in the world, and however modern media always identifies corruption with whites.

The situations portrayed could happen, but in the real world it's much more likely to see blacks attacking a white that enters a black zone, than whites attacking a black that enters a white zone.

With its cherry-picking, the world, as it's portrayed by modern media, it seems populated by law-abiding and hard-working blacks, and violent, nasty and corrupt whites. In the real world the opposite is much closer to the truth.

reply

Was your name was supposed to be kukluxu? You just missed the L or thought it might be get flagged if you put it, right?

reply

I think you are right.

Black people are more likely to be arrested and convicted, even though crime rates are roughly the same. Black people are more often falsely convicted, historically, also. So there's that......

reply

Only that crime rates are not roughly the same. Not when 13% of the population commits 50% of the violent crime ...

reply

Did you learn reading comprehension in grade school at any point, because I literally just addressed that in the same comment you replied to.

reply

You didn't address shit. You expressed an opinion, unfounded for the realities of today. Bring data, not unfounded opinions. But you don't have any (and no, not anecdotal historical events but statistics).

Take a look at the shootings in chicago over a weekend, as an example (no, not convictions) and you will see black dominating the stats.

And btw, the FBI data is not based on convictions but on police reports and witnesses. So another (wrond) assumption on your side.

And even if we would look at convictions, it would require that ~80% of the convictions to be false to bring the % down to 13% from over 50%.

reply

Not an opinion. The stats are out there, you just have to be willing to educate yourself on them. False convictions for black males is much larger than any other race. Ridiculously so.

reply

No, it doesn't work like this.

The one that makes the claim has to support it. Otherwise is void.

Present the data and i promise i look into it (but i bet it's either bullshit either you have no data to present).

When in court the DA doesn't say to the judge "he did it, feel free to go out there and educate yourself."

reply

Have you ever looked at the innocence project? Or watched the 13th? The national registry of exonerations?

Black people make up 13% of the population and 47% of exonerations.

Just the fact that you already assume data on these facts are bullshit shows your bias. Why do you want black people to be criminals so badly? Sounds like an agenda......

reply

i don't, that's what's in the statistics and in reality. I assume it's bullshit because 1: it contradicts all the data available and 2 you don't want to present any hard data.

why do you want to deny the facts so bad? that sounds more like an agenda .

Here's some data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

While you don't want to present any.

"Black people make up 13% of the population and 47% of exonerations." yeah, and you know why? Because they represent over 40% of the incarcerations. And you know why? Because they actually commit over 40% of the crime.

reply

Of course there is crime among the black community, like any other community. However, those numbers are inflated because they do not include those falsely accused or convicted.

Poverty is a huge motivation for crime. Esp the kind of poverty that descendants of slaves are often still trapped in. That kind of poverty also makes getting decent legal representation difficult, which is one of the main reasons for so many false convictions. Its all a giant circle.

reply

And I'm saying, in this case, that aspect was hardly exaggerated.

reply

So, this is just another racial show, right? :-P

reply

The overt displays of anti black racism are realistic for that time but one thing that you touched on that is perhaps a bit unrealistic is that most black people would know to avoid casually trouncing about unfamiliar white areas & establishments during the open racial apartheid of Jim Crow. In the Jim Crow era most black people had to use racial travel guides to know which stops were safe & which towns & areas to avoid entirely when traveling .

reply

I guess what I had been getting at was that extreme racism at this level, involving car chases, civilian gunfire/attempted murder and a (near) summary execution by a law enforcement officer wasn't so relentlessly common that it was a high probability event for any given car trip. Obviously this kind of racism happened, but the odds of it happening are what matter.

The Tuskegee Institute kept track of lynchings and they only have 4-5 recorded for most of the 1950s. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive accounting of all possible racially motivated homicides of African Americans, but it would seem to lower the odds that just driving down a highway was a high-risk threat of just being chased off the road and murdered.

reply

Sigh,

A common (and skewed) complaint on these boards is one of "probability."

It's a silly complaint. We're not watching a show about everyday events, or "the usual." What would be the point? We're watching a story that has extreme, exciting, unusual, noteworthy. . .NOT (necessarily) commonplace events. Mundanity would be pointless.

The *correct* complaint would be if the story implied that something was commonplace, when it was Not. This story doesn't make that error. It simply describes what happens to *these* individuals.

That said, the level of ignorance on this thread is saddening. Protip: because Your set of experiences doesn't include something, does Not mean it doesn't exist. Get out of your bubble. . .talk to some folks. Old, young, in-between, north, south. . .there are a Lot of stories to be heard.

reply

The complaint is really "verisimilitude" or more correctly, the absence of it.

reply

That's a much more concise way to express my (admittedly) long-winded post.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To say this type of thing didn't happen, or that it was so unusual that verisimilitude suffers, seems incredibly naive (to be kind about it). But to each their own.

reply

It's a silly complaint. We're not watching a show about everyday events, or "the usual." What would be the point? We're watching a story that has extreme, exciting, unusual, noteworthy.

In 30s and 40s movies, blacks were often portrayed as completely retarded people, with a level of intelligence barely enough to tie their shoes and use a bathroom. Of course, we're not watching "the usual", what would be the point? So I guess it was OK. 🙂

In westerns, Indians were often portrayed as evil killer savages. Of course, we're not watching "the usual", what would be the point? So I guess it was OK. 🙂

In nazi movies, Jews were often portrayed as evil and miserable money lenders. Of course, we're not watching "the usual", what would be the point? So I guess it was OK. 🙂

reply

All good points. . .in a completely different discussion. We're talking about Lovecraft Country, NOT an entire genre/period. (Protip: think about your repeated use of the word "often.")

You also ignore the context of those shows/movies. Completely. Which renders your point (such as it is) completely moot.

reply

All good points. . .in a completely different discussion. We're talking about Lovecraft Country, NOT an entire genre/period.

I see. The only (small) problem is that I was NOT talking about genre/periods.

Indians being evil is something that happens in many westerns, but it's not something that defines the western as a genre. The same way whites being evil is something that happens in most modern series, but it's not something that defines modern movies as a genre.

Of course, you can argue that, for example, blacks being portrayed as completely retarded actually defines the period 30s/40s, but then we could equally argue that white being portrayed as evil or miserable defines the current period and that feature is not particular from LC. Whatever you argue, the same can be applied then and now, which makes it the same discussion.

You also ignore the context of those shows/movies. Completely. Which renders your point (such as it is) completely moot.

And which is that ignored context that renders the point "completely moot"?

It's not enough to say "you ignored the context!". You should explain which context was ignored and argue why was it relevant.

reply

I see. The only (small) problem is that I was NOT talking about genre/periods.

??? Your words: "In 30s and 40s movies. . ." "In westerns. . ." "In nazi movies. . ."
. . .how on earth are these Not genres? Periods?

The same way whites being evil is something that happens in most modern series,

Gonna stop you there. This has been bandied about quite a bit. . .including on this board. . .and it's patently false. "Most modern series"??? No. Just. . .no.

Of course, you can argue that, for example, blacks being portrayed as completely retarded actually defines the period 30s/40s, but then we could equally argue that white being portrayed as evil or miserable defines the current period

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. While blacks weren't often portrayed in shiningly positive lights, and the minstrel concept was pretty well defined, and the same opportunities didn't exist as did for white actors. . .I don't think you could make the case that they were most often portrayed as "completely retarded." That's simply an overreach.
Likewise, Whites as "evil or miserable" doesn't come close to defining the present day. It just doesn't. Take a look at the slate of major movies over the past year or so, and that's very, Very clear.

It's not enough to say "you ignored the context!". You should explain which context was ignored and argue why was it relevant.

Fair enough. Hopefully the above is enough of an anchor to the concept; the context proceeds from there. (Socio-political situation in the US, at the time when these movies/shows were being produced.)

reply

extreme racism at this level, involving car chases, civilian gunfire/attempted murder and a (near) summary execution by a law enforcement officer wasn't so relentlessly common


I don't know about car chases (although you might want to consider all the racists who have driven their cars into crowds of anti-racist protestors this year), but summary executions of black people by racist cops is relentlessly common today, never mind the 1950s. Every day or two another black man is murdered by a cop in the US. For half of this year there has been a countrywide protest movement against racist police violence in the US. And now a movement to abolish the police altogether is gaining traction. Because this happens all the time and people are sick to death of it. As for white civilians murdering black people, that happened all the time back then. And it still happens sometimes. Remember George Zimmerman? Who is still walking around free. And you're questioning whether stuff like this would have happened in the heyday of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan.

reply

Are you people for real?

The whole POINT of the trip was To Create A Travel Guide. That's what the family was Doing.

Did You miss that part of the show?

reply

Even so, you KNOW that as a black person you will have problems trying to use segregated facilities, so you would NOT try to do so. You would seek the facilities you know would be safe.

"Hey, i'm writing a travel guide and i see crocodiles in this river. I will try to swim around them and see if they will eat me so my guide is accurate."

reply

Sigh,

No idea your ethnicity, but you should be careful making sweeping generalizations about what Any race would "Know." Everybody's experience is different.
And you've missed the point (again). The POINT of putting together the guide is to find the places that are safe. Impossible to do w/o trying.

You've also misremembered: they WEREN'T trying to use "segregated facilities." They had every legal right to be there; it just happened to be an extremely racist town, that reacted w/extreme violence.

Bottom line: the whole point of making the travel guide was to visit places, and find out which ones Were safe.

reply

It's not about any race. It's about context.

IN that time period even if maybe something was legal it's well known that it was dangerous to go out of your way. I bet that those guys trying to kill them weren't too concerned with the legal aspect of murder ...

And "trying" when you know from start the outcome is stupid and asking for it to happen.

If I make a travel guide i don't need to step into a lion's den to make sure if it's safe or not. I KNOW that the lions are going to attack me and eat me and then note in my travel guide with my dying breath "note: do not approach lions too close".

But i guess common sense is not so common in America ...

reply

???

You seem to be determined to not understand what travel guides were. . .or to apply common sense to this situation.

No idea why, but the concept is fairly simple. You go to places, figure out which ones are safe, and note that in the guide.

Your comments about "knowing from the outcome," and "well known it was dangerous to go out of your way" are bafflingly illogical. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

reply

NO my man.

The concept is simple: yes, you go to places and figure out which ones are safe, but you don't go into an active volcano that flows with lava to see if it's safe or not. You already know it's not safe.

You are highly illogical. You KNOW if you stick your hand in fire there is big chance you will get burned. You DON'T NEED to test it.

Let me guess, you are one of those Americans for which under the label stating clearly "Poison" the companies needed to write "Do not swallow".

reply

You are a marvel of illogic. Please explain how you "already know" which ones are safe, without going there. Be concise, show your work, no cheating off anyone else's paper.

You seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of circular logic. It's simultaneously fascinating, hilarious and sad, somehow. An impressive trifecta.

Finally: re: my race/age/nationality. . .*Please* don't guess. You're almost Certain to be wrong. While you're clearly used to that by now, it's getting exhausting.

reply

Jim Crow era, racist America, segregation was legal even in public places like restaurants. black individuals in a racist white city/region/etc. Even if there are good individuals in a community almost no community is made up of only good individuals. And in that era the good individuals would not be interfering with the acts of bad individuals in this kind of situations.

I come back to that concept again and again because you fail to understand that in some cases you don't need to test something to know that it's a bad idea. And you never address it. You just repeat like a parrot "it's a travel guide".

As a more contextual example (a bit extreme): a black individual joining a KKK congregation in person IS a bad idea from start, it doesn't need to put to test - specially in the '50s.

You're not black, that's almost for sure.

reply

Sigh,

YOU fail to understand. What makes it worse is you fail to pay attention. They went to a BUNCH of places, to figure out which were safe. Why you assume they went places that weren't LEGAL FOR THEM TO BE AT continues to be baffling. Once more, for the slow class: That's NOT What They Were Doing. They were figuring out which places were SAFE.

Here's where you not paying attention comes in: just before they get chased, Atticus expresses reservations about eating at the diner. George SPECIFICALLY SAYS, "we have a right to be here." This is why the waiter made that call. . .he didn't know what to do.

Having said all that. . .of COURSE they were engaging in dangerous behavior, in the Jim Crow south. Restaurants usually required black people to take their food to go, and in the RARE instances when they were allowed to sit, they had to bring their own utensils, and sit separately. None of which changes the facts of this discussion. Your "contextual examples" have no bearing on this At All. You continue to insist they should've somehow Known Ahead Of Time that that diner, in that town, was dangerous. They had NO WAY OF KNOWING. ..which is why they were there. For the travel guide.

Again: if you don't understand these simple concepts, nobody can help you. You should just move on.

reply

"of COURSE they were engaging in dangerous behavior, in the Jim Crow south. "

thank you, you start to understand.

it's hilarious how you contradict yourself. you know what dangerous means? not safe.

your cognitive dissonance is typical. have good night, i'm done.

reply

You were "done" in the first place, when you started this discussion with:

"Even so, you KNOW that as a black person you will have problems trying to use segregated facilities, so you would NOT try to do so. You would seek the facilities you know would be safe."

Every reply since has been an attempt to get you to see that this is not true or logical. . .but this discussion has amply demonstrated your paucity of cognitive ability.

If your takeaway from my last post was some sort of "contradiction," that's wholly unsurprising. Glad you're giving up. . .you're exhausting.

reply

My man, by saying "of COURSE they were engaging in dangerous behavior, in the Jim Crow south. " (and with capitals) you just approved my point. You don't even realize it???

Get the fuck lost if you are THAT stupid. And stop talking about "logic" please.

reply

You're incredibly bad at this thinking thing. You should quit.

And no. . .I haven't "approved" your point. You're hilariously wrong. YOU don't realize it.

reply

[deleted]

Not realistic at all. I grew up in a mixed community and was a lifeguard at a pool in a black neighborhood. Not too much racial shit went down believe it or not.

reply

Ah. . .got it. You didn't see much racial s#!t go down, so it Must not have existed. *Anywhere.*

At *any* period in the nation's history. Including the one in this show.

Got it.

>plonk<

reply