Richard Pacheco

Is it just me? Perhaps it is. So this "film" basically says that white supremacy was born of the church, that colonization was a white only phenomena, the United States (and Europe-kind of) is really a bad actor on the whole history of human rights. Ok, but what about these other genocides: Cambodian, Rwandan, Bangladesh, Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War, Darfur, East Timor, Isaaq, the Kurds, and the list goes on. Most of these are modern day genocides were not committed at hands of white western Europeans or Americans. Also, what about history's other most notorious enslavers and conquerors: Nebuchadnezzar, Genghis Khan,Cyrus The Great, Attila the Hun, Xerxes, Pharaoh, mao tse tung, Tamerlane, or Montezuma. What about communism and its seizing of power through out the world? I noticed these other genocides, enslavers, and rival political system didn't make the cut for the film. Bummer. The only issue I have with the film is that it is an expression of bias (which by way is natural in all of us). So to claim this as a history piece is really mis-leading. Rather, it is story of white European expansionism at the expense of peoples deemed inferior via murder for the gain of monetary and political wealth, excluding the all other races and nations, not of European origin, who have committed the same types of crimes against humanity. I personally believe that our marketing of US History is very mis-leading. Many peoples suffered to build the wealth and power of this nation. To deny that is a lie and to pretend that racism isn't an issue is just as mind-blowing. On the other hand, creating a new racism (hidden in the form of an expose) is just as bad as pretending that the old racism never existed.