Caribbean Project: Review: Amazing Grace (2006)

Great Britain

Now playing … the story of William Wilberforce and British abolitionism. This is the whole two hour movie. I will write a review this evening or tomorrow.

About Hunter Wallace 9326 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

40 Comments

  1. I don’t think anything could have prevented the demise of British colonialism after WWII. In the aftermath of two massive wars he country was bankrupt and the colonies were no longer paying propositions but rather were a drain on the depleted Treasury.

  2. You cannot truly blame the Wilforces of that era, for their fallcious belief that Negroes are Human. Negroes are marvelous micmics of Human Speech, far better than parrots. Wilberforce et al, would have had very little experience of Negroes IN a White ecosystem, although he dealt with them in their world.

    There is no exuse these days, however.

  3. “The wine was uncorked. First Boston, now Paris next London…” Clarkson in tbe filum.

    Much of it goes back to Boston. The tea party, Adams, Revere all that stuff.
    Getting rid of the trade may have been key in preventing a French style revolution too.
    The Revolution never quite reached London.

  4. The only black he would have met was Equiano who was by all accounts urbane and sophisticated. Wilberforce never met Dewshawn.

  5. One of the things the Americans should have done IMHO was give a frontier southern state to Tarlton to settle and govern. Not vilify him for eternity. He was a Dragon. He would have worked miracles.

  6. Rudel,

    As Hitler pointed out, a series of incredible blunders prevented Britain – namely, this tendency to moralize geopolitics – from realizing its true interest in seeking a modus vivendi with Germany which could have easily been procured.

  7. Here’s the “Olaudah Equiano” that I have read so much about. Also, this movie explains where that song “Amazing Grace” comes from. The gentlemen laugh at Wilberforce’s sanctimonious performance of the song.

  8. Have you not watched this before? Been out for bloody years.

    Romola Garai isn’t half bad btw.

    Returning to the filum’s historical basis. Was Pitt the Younger really stoking this abolition movement? He must have had a cunning plan up his sleeve.

  9. I liked the look of horror in his face when Wilberforce invoked “the people”.

    ThE PEOPLE! *choke*

    Tarlton had first hand understanding of that fighting Continentals and militia. Hines deserved an award for this character.

  10. Should Chamberlain be placed in the same category as Churchill?
    Chamberlain was clearheaded about the consequences of war with Germany. He understood it would destroy everything. So he did what he had to do with the Sudetenland.

  11. Should Chamberlain be placed in the same category as Churchill?
    Chamberlain was clearheaded about the consequences of war with Germany. He understood it would destroy everything. So he did what he had to do with the Sudetenland.

  12. Tarleton was a first class cunt. Like many nobles of his day, he forget how his bread got buttered and was really quite lucky he didn’t end up like the nobles in France.

  13. I think it’s important to draw a distinction between morals and moralizing. A righteous man is moral. A sanctimonious man is a moralizer.

    When the leaders or Lords of a nation embrace personal material gain over the well-being of their subjects, they provide the moralizers with a firm toe-hold from which to embark upon their destructive personal pursuits of power and social approval.

    The negro slaves were to do the jobs the peasant rabble wouldn’t do. Today, Tarleton would be arguing for more h1Bs and laxer immigration standards. After all, those peasant software engineers demand altogether too much in the way of compensation.

  14. I don’t think Chamberlsin was a hypocrite. He could have made an alliance with Stalin for example. He never did so. He was a bit too principled and was a man of his word.

  15. Your buddy over at SBPDL is talking about Adam Smith in glowing terms. You too need to have a proper debate. Conservatism needs to hash out the differences.

  16. …a bit off topic but amusing I think.

    The Wikipedia article you cited above, Hunter, notes that Clapham Anglicans were largely responsible for the Anti-Slavery Society, the Abolition Society, the Proclamation Society, the Sunday School Society, the Bettering Society, the Small Debt Society, etc. — and “Victorian morality” in general. Like I said before: Christian heresy or apostasy, covering personal guilt of doubt, pride and worldliness with the smokescreen of organised meddling moral reformism. We can observe this phenomenon directly today, happening in local church and community settings, misbelieving they’re doing good but making things worse for everyone. Isn’t this the origin and nature of the “Black Cloud”?

  17. “covering personal guilt of doubt, pride and worldliness with the smokescreen of organised meddling moral reformism. We can observe this phenomenon directly today, happening in local church and community settings, misbelieving they’re doing good but making things worse for everyone. ”

    The difference between a righteous man and a sanctimonious man. The righteous man puts his house in order. The sanctimonious man attempts to put everyone else in order, while his own soul is hollow and his own home in shambles.

  18. If a man’ s moral code is founded on the happiness of the most, then leading a righteous life brings him nothing. It is much easier (and more “moral” in his world) to simply wander about saving this from that, righting this wrong and that, leveling playing fields and attempting to make equal that which is not, then it is to accept a morality that judges his soul’s guilt instead of one that judges how he make’s others feel about theirs. In this world a “Reverend” can plagiarizer, screw whores, beat women, engage in homosexual relations, drugs and all other sorts of debauchery, yet still be lauded as a national hero and a “moral man”. He was a degenerate, but he crusaded and professed the guilt of others, so all is forgiven. White-washed tombs indeed.

  19. @Hunter

    “As Hitler pointed out, a series of incredible blunders prevented Britain – namely, this tendency to moralize geopolitics – from realizing its true interest in seeking a modus vivendi with Germany which could have easily been procured.”

    @John

    “Should Chamberlain be placed in the same category as Churchill?
    Chamberlain was clearheaded about the consequences of war with Germany. He understood it would destroy everything. So he did what he had to do with the Sudetenland.”

    Yes, Chamberlain should never have acquiesced in the guaranty of Poland’s existing borders. Hitler simply wanted a rail corridors through the recently seized German lands to East Prussia or the vice versa, Polish ceding of seized German territory and then a guarantee of Polish rail and transportation corridors to its Baltic Ports. The Germans were trying to negotiate in good faith on these issues right up until the final decision to invade due to Polish intransigence.

    Hitler never made unreasonable demands before invading Poland. Not in Alsace, not in the Ruhr, not in general re-militarization, not in Austria (the Austrians overwhelmingly supported re-unification with the fatherland), not in Seizing the Sudetenland, not in war debt relief, and most assuredly not in demanding the Polish generals be reasonable about restoring German rights to their own lands.

    The Germans never demanded anything other than the restoration of their country after having to live under the terrible territory seizures and crushing debt burden placed upon them by the unfair Treaty of Versailles which wrongly put on their shoulders 100% of the guilt for starting WWI.

    This truth has been pointed out many times since the publication of A.J.P. Taylor’s book The Origins of the Second World War in 1960 right up to Buchanan’s book in the present day. In fact, current conventional wisdom correctly assesses that the Treaty was grossly unfair. Churchill was indeed a warmonger, and Chamberlain’s support of the Poles a blunder.

    Unfortunately all we get out of this wisdom from the current regime of BRA and its many tentacles in the media and academia is incessant “diversity” propaganda and charges of universal White “privilege” and racism.

  20. It wasn’t in good faith from what I can gather. I’ve seen evidence that Chamberlain would have given the Germans back Namibia and other parts of Empire. Chsmberlain certainly appears to have encouraged the Anshluss.

    However what tipped things over the edge is that Hitler gave personal assurances that the demands were finished with after Sudetenland was handed over. He broke promises. Once a leader breaks a private promise like that, a word of honour spoken in private…him, his people
    and his pet tortoise Franz can expect to get fckd up.

  21. It wasn’t in good faith from what I can gather. I’ve seen evidence that Chamberlain would have given the Germans back Namibia and other parts of Empire. Chsmberlain certainly appears to have encouraged the Anshluss.

    However what tipped things over the edge is that Hitler gave personal assurances that the demands were finished with after Sudetenland was handed over. He broke promises. Once a leader breaks a private promise like that, a word of honour spoken in private…him, his people
    and his pet tortoise Franz can expect to get fckd up.

  22. “his people and his pet tortoise Franz can expect to get fckd up.”

    And yet it was Britain that suffered terribly after the war, whose industry went into decline, who lost their Empire, and who were eventually passed by Germany as an industrial power.

    The Germans didn’t want Namibia fer chrissakes! They wanted their own native lands back.

  23. Britain had long since lost industrial pre-eminence. America already had the number one slot. That bird had flown. India was also promised independence during the 1910s. So that puzzle piece of Empire was going to be missing.

    Here’s Cjamberlain’s flaw. Too much a man of his word. I don’t actually think Hitler could be trusted as a colleague nor keep a deal he made. He appears to have been overly sympathetic to German unification.

  24. Last word on ww2 from me on here. I know Wallace don’t like it.

    Our view of ww2 is coloured by a contingent factor that no one at the time predicted. France collapsed. No military observers at the time expected it. The Germans did not expect it. The campaigns were contingencies.

    The decline or rise of the contestants was entirely dependent on that campaign, which was by no means a foregone conclusion. The first thing about a real war like that is that you can’t predict the outcome of the campaigns.

  25. From the film

    Watch out for people who speak to god. They are often communicating with their guilty conscience.

    Watch out for people who want change. They mean to erase you.

    Watch out for do gooders. They mean well, but they will probably
    end up giving a nig a glock to cap your ass.

  26. Oh yes. One more thing

    Oludah Equiano. Watch out for blacks who speak well and claim royal blood. They will sell books and run scams on on. See Audacity of Hope and Nigerian email scams.

Comments are closed.