The vast majority of people obtain most of their historical understanding through media which today often takes the form of films and TV. This gives these mediums an incredible potential to do both good and bad. There is power in seeing ourselves in those who came before us if they were seemingly good and mighty. There is also a shame when we perceive our ancestors as powerless, pathetic, and consistently humiliated. This is one of the key problems with only showing Black history related to transatlantic slavery; especially when said films show no acts of active resistance.
With that said, problematic and/or shameful history is still history. To quote the late and great John Henrik Clarke: “History is not everything, but it is a starting point. History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day. It is a compass they use to find themselves on the map of human geography. It tells them where they are, but more importantly, what they must be” (Potter, [2005], ©1998).
“History is not everything, but it is a starting point. History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day. It is a compass they use to find themselves on the map of human geography. It tells them where they are, but more importantly, what they must be”
John Henrik Clarke
Perhaps, no popular film of the last few years demonstrates these points as well as Gina Prince-Bythewood’s The Woman King. My intention is not to suggest we should not talk about and/or make films about some of the darker parts of our history, rather, it needs to be carefully handled with nuance and forethought.
The 2022 movie The Woman King, produced by Sony Pictures Entertainment is set in the kingdom of Dahomey (modern-day Benin) at the beginning of the reign of King Gezo of Dahomey, sometime around the early 1820s. It is about an all-female King’s guard – whose general Nanisca is played by Viola Davis – and later an elite fighting unit known under a variety of names such as Meno and Agojie, in their fight against the Oyo Empire with whom Dahomey had a tributary relationship since the 1730s. The majority of the movie’s characters are fictional except Gezo.
Dahomey was a powerful West Afrikan kingdom between its founding around 1600 and its conquest by the French in the 1890s. Dahomey was in many ways unique when compared to its neighbors and the rest of the world. The center of Dahomey Kingdom was the Palace, both for residents of the King, and the central government institution. At one point it included as many as 8,000 residents across the kingdom. The vast majority were women, although there were some eunuchs as well. Everyone associated with the Palace was termed Ahosi, which roughly translates to the King’s dependence or wives of the King. Most important and unique was that they were all involved in the administration of the kingdom. “The women of the Palace were a cross-section of Dahomey society; they included slaves and war captives, freeborn commoners, and women from well-to-do households” (Bay, 1998, p. 8). Women did not just rule the kingdom they made it run.
“Women did not just rule the kingdom they made it run”
The movie, however, presents several historical abstractions to support the heroic Dahomey/Agojie notion. The most significant of these is how the movie misrepresents and even outright lies about the kingdom’s relationship with the transatlantic slave trade and slavery in general. The Dahomey are presented as noble abolitionists at best and unwilling participants at worst. The movie’s opening and closing battle scenes involve the Agojie freeing slaves taken by Oyo and the people of Mahi (whom were far more often the victims of Dahomey slave raids).
In reality, however, the kingdom was built on the back of the transatlantic slave trade, and “Though the possibility that an Afri[k]an monarch tried to put an end to the slave trade is obviously attractive in the 20th century, historians who have closely considered the evidence from Dahomey suggest, as did the eighteenth-century slave traders, that Dahomey’s motive was a desire to trade directly with Europe and that the kingdom was willing to provide the product most desired by European traders, human beings” (Bay, 1998, p. 57). At times, the sale of captives to Europeans made up over two-thirds of the state’s income, private individuals benefited massively as well, and a large percentage of them were members of the Palace, in other words, most of the characters we see in the movie.
Perhaps the most impactful abstraction of the film was its presentation of King Gezo (John Boyega), who is portrayed as an open-minded monarch, who by the end of the film is virtually a Pan-Afrikanist with the intent of destroying the slave trade. In reality, Gezo, in line with most monarchs in history was a despotic ruler with seemingly no strong principles or a moral compass. His ascension to the throne was achieved in large part due to his alliance with his friend Francisco Félix de Sousa, a slave trader from the Afro-Brazilian community located on the coast, given his later commitment to the slave trade there could hardly be a more symbolic start to his reign.
In fairness to the movie, its portrayal of Gezo is in line with the popular imagination of him. Having transported more slaves across the Atlantic than any other nation, the British now presented themselves as moral champions. From the 1840s to the 1870s the British consistently encourage Dahomey to end its slave trading and to stop its human sacrifices. In 1851 the British even blockaded Dahomey’s main port to this end.
Gezo (Boyega) ever cunning and creative offered up one excuse or half-truth followed by another. In 1852 he even agreed to a treaty that committed him to ending the slave trade. However, he later made it clear that his interpretation of the treaty only forbade trading out of one major port, Whydah. Even then he later went back on this. It’s a testament to his powers of deception, that the myth that Gezo attempted to end the trade or in any way had negative feelings about it persists today, as The Woman King clearly demonstrates. Portraying Gezo and his followers as heroic moral crusaders against the slave trade is not only untrue but is frankly offensive to all those who fought and died fighting the evils that Dahomey and its Kings committed, Gezo included, to build their Kingdom of Ove.
“[Dahomey’s] system of governance was brilliant and relatively meritocratic, women were the lifeblood of the state filling both major ministerial roles and the most elite army formations”
Dahomey was unique and impressive in many ways. Its system of governance was brilliant and relatively meritocratic, women were the lifeblood of the state filling both major ministerial roles and the most elite army formations, and it was opportunistic and quick to absorb useful ideas from its neighbors. But Dahomey was also, to quote Edna G. Bay, “born as a byproduct of the Atlantic slave trade… Dahomey was built by conquest – village by village, household by household, individuals by individuals. Its founders were intruders on the plateau, outsiders with ambitions that they carried out through military means” (Bay, Wives of the Leopard: Gender, Politics, and Culture in the Kingdom of Dahomey, 1998, 312). It is a reminder that history is far more complex than merely the color of someone’s skin. And if we are to ever understand our history, we must become comfortable with the duality of human beings, appreciating the good, but never, ever ignoring or disregarding the bad.
One of Marcus Garvey’s greatest strengths was his ability to utilize cultural means such as his newspapers, magazines, theatre plays, and festival/carnival events to instill pride and spread his message. The potential of these tactics still exists today, and one could argue that the potential is even greater due to the internet and social media. I believe that films and shows without a doubt possess the tools and abilities to portray these complexities, whilst still empowering and spreading radical messages. Sadly, though, The Woman King is not one of these.
Great view Asher, informative and just the right amount of criticism!