This is getting a little off track, but I asked Kate to provide some detail about her claims about Spartacus killing of innocent people, which she alluded to above. I didn't skeptically demand evidence that any figure in classical history ever did cruel things.

Henry V only appears in TV and film in the form of Shakespeare's c. 1600 play, so it's not surprising that the post Agincourt massacre is omitted from the story of his life. Anyway, is there anyone alive today who thinks of Henry V as a great hero? Pretending that Boudicca was the sort of person who would have frowned…

Again, the original comparison was made between historical figures (Spartacus, William Wallace) that have served as the heroes of successful films. It is important to note that Nate Parker has called Turner a personal hero and doesn't seemed to be very weighed down by the horrible things done during the uprising.…

There were no documentary crews following Spartacus around in 71 B.C., but you have provided no evidence at all to support that your claims of large scale rape and murder. Are you just talking out of your ass here, or are you referring to something specific from a book you read?

Of the 57 white people killed in the uprising, 46 were women and children.

Turner and his little band are the only slaves in the history of the United States to have murdered children in an uprising. It was not a choice that was guaranteed to be made, repeatedly.

Turner's people hacked a baby to death in its crib with axes. For the benefit of the people who are stumbling on this conversation for the first time and don't know much about the uprising, why don't you clarify how I'm being misleading?

Because they're presenting a child murderer as a hero

If you were a screenwriter creating a film about Spartacus or WW, it would be easy for you to omit scenes where these heroes encourage the murder of children, because there is no direct evidence that something like this happened. To omit this scene from a Nat Turner biopic is the worst kind of dishonesty.

It's important not to stray from the original comparison, which was made about historical figures that Hollywood has valorized ala Braveheart and Spartacus.

Don't worry, judging from the early reviews you won't have to worry about that when you watch this in theaters, because they excised it completely. I guess it somehow detracted from the essential message or core truth of the film. You can forget it ever happened and cheer with everyone else every time Nat sticks it to…

To get back to Kate's question about why Spartacus, William Wallace, and Nat Turner are treated differently:

Actually, it only happened this one time. Killing babies wasn't a predictable reaction to slavery, it was a conscious choice the hero of this film and his companions chose to make.

Wouldn't the victors be MORE likely to write about the child murder and massacres?

What specific episode in the life of Spartacus are you referring to here?

Can you quote the passage in Plutarch where Spartacus' buddies murder an infant in their crib?

Just answer me this CineCraft, what do you see as positive about toddler murder?

Kate has a simple question: why are white people like William Wallace and Spartacus who take up arms against their oppressors heroes, but black people who do the same are sadistic mobs? It's a tricky one. It could be be because whites view blacks as somehow inherently violent or animalistic. It could be that they…