Apple donates its proceeds from John Lewis documentary to museums

In tribute to the life and legacy of civil rights hero and US Congressman John Lewis, Apple will donate its portion of the proceeds from the documentary “John Lewis: Good Trouble” to the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, and the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.

“Representative John Lewis’s life and example compel each of us to continue the fight for racial equity and justice,” said Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, in a statement. “This film celebrates his undeniable legacy, and we felt it fitting to support two cultural institutions that continue his mission of educating people everywhere about the ongoing quest for equal rights.”

“The life and legacy of John Lewis, a National Civil Rights Museum Freedom Award recipient, is celebrated throughout the museum,” said Terri Lee Freeman, the National Civil Rights Museum’s president, in a statement. “This timely contribution will help expand our digital platforms, allowing us to reach many more students, parents, and educators globally, and to continue as a catalyst for positive social change, as Representative Lewis encouraged us all to be. We are grateful to Apple for this incredible gift honoring him.”

“Representative John Lewis was a central leader in helping create the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Because of his pivotal role in American history, he understood the impact a history museum like ours could have on the world,” said Spencer Crew, the National Museum of African American History and Culture’s interim director, in a statement. “For many years, he was the angel who kept the dream of the museum alive, and he made sure we got the presidential and congressional support needed to open in 2016. As a civil rights leader, he had a vision of what was possible for the nation. He had a similar vision for the museum, which helped make it a reality. Apple’s gift in his honor will help us continue to fulfill our mission.”

Customers in the U.S. and Canada can rent “John Lewis: Good Trouble” at on the Apple TV app, which is available on iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, iPod touch, Mac, select Samsung and LG smart TVs, and Amazon Fire TV and Roku devices.

Source: Apple Inc.

MacDailyNews Note: Here’s the official trailer for John Lewis: Good Trouble:


  1. Still waiting on Tim Cook and Apple to shine their bright light of social justice supporting the Muslim Uyghur undergoing racial and culture genocide this very moment. I like How Apple picks and chooses their moral solidarity based on how it directly effects their stock price; America‘s history very bad and very useful to for our ‘diversity and inclusive’ marketing campaign but Standing up for the Uyghur, Falun Gong, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Apple is silent; not good for Apple manufacturing profit margin.

  2. I haven’t seen Apple dedicate anything to our real heros, those that gave their lives to serve country in the military and LE.

    10 of thousands of them spent years in 100+ degree temperatures in miserable conditions.

    Want to talk about separating children from their families? Soldiers are separated from their children for years to defend this country.

    What did Lewis sacrifice?

    Let’s now watch the libturds downvote these inconvenient facts.

    1. Are you under the impression that John Lewis got a fractured skull from pounding his head against an Alabama Highway Patrolman’s baton at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma?

      The only inconvenient fact is that Rep. Lewis served our country in ways that make ingrates like you unfit to shine his shoes.

      1. I agree that John Lewis made sacrifices for what be believed and what was right. But the brutal crimes against humans happening this very moment should be moved to the front of the line. We can celebrate John Lewis and stand with Muslim Uyghur’s at the same time. But this is an Apple news site. Where is Apple’s accountable for the enabling of the worse crimes against humanity in the last 20 years balanced against how they criticizing the sins of this country. United States isn’t perfect, Its truly a work in progress. But in context, who in this country would trade social freedom and status with the Uyghur’s. The crimes against them are next level. Organ harvesting and forced sterilization is darth vader crap! .

      2. Txuser, I see how compassionate you are towards those that fight to end racism. So my question is how can you be so stupid to support a known and proven racist for President?

      3. Lewis was a loud-mouthed, corrupt hack. The legacy of the civil rights movement has been a horrific disaster, most black kids have no dads, 10-year-olds are carjacking people in Chicago, half of all murders are committed by blacks (mostly against other blacks). What did Lewis do about this? Nothing! Besides flap his gums about the one man who has done anything good for America at the national level in decades, President Donald J. Trump.

      4. Perhaps that bang on the head is what happened to Lewis. Maybe Jessie Jackson as well. At some point they changed. It is possible to go from being a hero to being leach.

        As Booker T. Washington put it,

        “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of these troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising the wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

        It has never been more true.

        The article above mentions the National Museum of African American History and Culture which is a bastion of anti-white, anti-capitalist, absurd racism. They go so far as to define “being white” as things including

        – The individual is the priamry unit
        – Self Reliance
        – Independence & autonomy highly valued + rewarded
        – Individuals assumed to be in control of their outcome.

        – Father, mother, 2 children
        – Children should have their own rooms, be independent

        – Objective, rational, reasoning

        – Hard work is the key to success
        – Work before play
        – If you don’t meet your goals, you are responsible.

        – Plan for future
        – Delayed Gratification
        – Progress is always best
        – Tomorrow will be better

        – Follow rigid time schedules
        – Time viewed as a commodity

        – Based on English Common Law
        – Protect property and entitlements
        – Intent counts

        These are considered attributes of “being white” and hence “acting white” and not “being black.” It is considered “White Supremacy” and/or “White Nationalism.” Seriously

        I only wish I could instill these values deeply into black culture. We have a tendency to shun our better angels and cater to our lowest common denominator. This is the crap that Lewis and his ilk have been pushing as of late.

        I find the later incarnation of John Lewis to be offensive. In his later years he was a racial opportunist who made a living maintaining anger, discontent, and hate in black culture. He wanted us focused on the past and not the future, because that’s where he gained money and power.

        Pushing this insanity is disgusting.

  3. He did incur a cracked skull, from a LEO’s baton, while seeking for fair racial treatment…when things were clearly skewed. Receiving such an injury by a willful “friendly” would leave one thinking your own country is enemy territory. That’s quite a sacrifice, imo.

    I’m not a liberal, nor did I vote down, but it’s quite hard to put anyone up against what a soldier does and find equivalency. But, Lewis has long held firm his focus of racial equity and has done it in a way that kept him free of the pandering and monotone message with monetary gain…associated with some with the racial liberator title.

  4. Lewis was not a good person and no public company should be giving money in honor of him or anyone else. STAY OUT OF POLITICS TIMMY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP.

  5. David A. Clarke Jr.

    My mom taught me not to speak ill of the dead. Forgive me mom but name ONE significant thing he accomplished in the last 45 years in Congress. He rested on his laurels.

  6. Term limits are like the Electoral College, a device to prevent the candidate who is preferred by a majority of the voters from being elected. It means that all the experience and expertise is possessed solely by lobbyists and bureaucrats, but not by people who have been elected to exercise that power.

        1. Has anybody else noticed the increasingly prevalent theme of a high number of posts on this site? To wit: Expertise is a form of elitism, so anybody who claims expertise is a fool at best and probably a fraud. There is no such thing as an expert because the Declaration of Independence says that all men are equal. Any man Jack’s opinion on any subject is worth the same as the opinion of somebody who has a recent doctorate in that subject. So,

          Litigating complex civil and criminal matters actually is (not just should be) so simple that lawyers are unnecessary.

          Creating models integrating hundreds of thousands of data points to make predictions about climate actually is (not just should be) so simple that climate scientists and meteorologists are unnecessary.

          The behavior of a virus that nobody has ever seen before, and the evaluation of various ways to deal with it, actually is (not just should be) so simple that public health experts and epidemiologists are unnecessary.

          And here, writing legislation that produces equitable results without unforeseen consequences actually is (not just should be) so simple that experienced legislators are unnecessary.

          Hope you never need brain surgery.

    1. Politicians must be changed regularly for the same reasons diapers should be changed, regardless of the stupidity of the voters.

      Pelosi et al are perfect examples.

      The electoral college was created to insure that the stupidity of the masses in cities does not overrule the majority of the country. It’s a brilliant concept created by brilliant people, far smarter than today’s politicians

      Proof is the last election where the vast majority of the counties voted red.

      All Americans understand these concepts. Only libturds don’t. Libturd lawyers are the worst example.

      1. When the Electoral College was created, the Electors (like US Senators) were named by the 13 state legislatures. Allowing the people a vote to express their presidential preference was entirely optional. The notion was that the legislatures would select the wisest and most experienced men in their state as Electors. Those men would use their independent judgment to cast ballots for the wisest and most experienced man in the country, who would become President. The person who received the second highest number of ballots would be Vice-President. That system presumed what the Framers hoped, that there would be no political parties to affect the best judgment of the legislatures and Electors. That system fell apart as soon as our third presidential election, when the Federalist candidates for President and Vice-President received exactly the same number of votes. The Constitution was amended, but it still assumed that the legislatures would pick Electors of distinction who would employ their discretion to elect the best possible President.

        As of a couple of weeks ago, that system is as dead as the dodo. The United States Supreme Court has determined that the states may prohibit Presidential Electors from exercising any independent discretion. They may be required, on pain of criminal penalties, to vote exactly in line with the state’s popular vote, no matter what. So, the primary rationale for the Electoral College is dead. It is now just an awkward way of implementing a state-by-state popular vote–something that the Framers did not intend.

        That leaves the argument you make, that rural counties with low populations should have the same representation in the Electoral College as urban counties with high populations. That was the practice with regard to state legislatures until 1964, when the Supreme Court imposed a “one person, one vote” requirement on every city, county, state, and federal election in the country with the single exception of presidential elections. If equal representation was required in those cases, why should presidential elections be different?

        Unless you think that representation should be apportioned by land area, rather than the total number of residents, the “majority of the country” is where the majority of the residents live. Los Angeles County, California, has a land area of 4000 square miles and 10 million residents. Culberson County, Texas, has almost the same area, but has 2231 residents. Are you suggesting that the vote of one person in Culberson County should have exactly the same weight in choosing a President of the United States as 4482 votes in Los Angeles County? As it is, the vote of one person in Wyoming is worth the same as 4 votes in California.

  7. Are you suggesting that voters from just a handful of cities control the election entirely?

    Or perhaps we should go back to when only land owners were allowed to vote?

    1. Undocumented people generally do pay taxes – payroll, sales, and more importantly, SS. However, they are not recipients of SS, so they are net payers into the system, not users, George. But these facts go against your narrative, so keep lying for your own comfort.

    2. Who (in this discussion, at least) said anything about allowing aliens, whether documented or otherwise, to vote? That appears restricted by the Constitution to citizens.

      Resident aliens do, however, count for purposes of congressional (and therefore presidential electors) apportionment under Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires “counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” That’s the latest Constitutional mandate that Our President is trying to repeal by executive order.

      Likewise, who in this discussion suggested allowing only land owners a vote? The question I raised is why a presidential vote in Wyoming counts four times as much as a vote in California. I know why the Electoral College was originally created, but that has very little to do with why it continues to frustrate popular majorities today. The Constitution is silent on your assertion that rural residents should have more power per capita than urban residents. I suspect that only somebody who benefits from the current system would make that argument, which was rejected for all non-presidential federal, state, and local elections more than 56 years ago.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.