The writer/director said: “My film doesn’t shake a finger at someone for being born in the ’90s with pink skin. It says that because you were born in the ’90s, you have some stuff that might live in your heart and the hearts of those around you.”
Yeah, we get it. Another condemnation of people born with “pink skin” by someone born with black skin. Saying it’s not about pink skin than trying to claim it’s something that might live in your heart, and the hearts of those around you is really, actually worse than making an anti-pink skinflic. It’s clear. It’s another condemnation of people born with pink skin.
This time it’s the director Nate Parker and the 17 year old rape charge of which he was acquitted in 2001.
“Also troubling here are allegations made by the female student in her civil suit against Penn State, that Parker and Celestin harassed her repeatedly after she filed a police report, in part by having a private investigator show her photo around campus. And, she claimed, by taunting her with sexual epithets and “shadowing her as she moved throughout the campus.” Twice in the months following her police report, the woman attempted suicide, according to her suit.
“The encounter and its long aftermath began on August 21, 1999, when the female college freshman — according to a report she filed nearly two months later — went to an apartment shared by Parker and Celestin after drinking heavily (atop a dose of Prozac), and, as all three of them ultimately acknowledged, had sex with both men.
The director claims and we accept he has changed from the man charged with sexual assault. Why can’t he connect the dots and accept that people born with pink skin are different that pink skinned people were in 1831?
Views: 1
