Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
....snip......
Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.
.......snip........
Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.
It's also a lie.
......snip.........
Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.
Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.
To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.
......snip.........
One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.
.....snip.........
Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
Uh, the French and Spanish had destroyed the native culture of Domingo replacing the population with the Blacks.
Keep your mind away from my a-hole.
Civilization is a product of the cities. The very concept is based upon the city. A society which loses its cities dies just as dead as the phantom South you attempt so pathologically to justify.
The conservative movement must find a way to gain political control of the cities. Your RAT party has controlled them almost the entire history of our nation, they are the epitome of democracy. They generally supported the Slaver Rebellion and opposed Lincoln during the days of the Insurrection. And were composed of the same economic classes you disdain today but they were your demigods brothers. Upper class urbanites were firmly Republican and supported the United States.
Why do you post to FR being opposed to the Union and Nation?
The Chief Justice thought enough of the passage to include it in his book. I'll accept his judgment over yours, any day.
The simple-minded are easily amused.
You keep trying to pretend that this is an entirely economic issue when it is far more. It involved the wrenching away of the control of the economy from the British to a condition which could allow the development of a real market something the British took pains for two hundred years to prevent.
How many names can you call someone attempting to cover your deceptions? Keynesian Kenyan Marxist Statist Yankee Lincoln worshipper blah, blah blah.
Economies develop from people having foresight of coming conditions thus concurrent is just phase two of the becoming.
Causality must be proven through a scientific procedure. Economics attempts this but in not entirely successful due to its need to assume away most of the problems.
My statement wrt the USSR is not refuted by the correct statement that the labor theory of value (not of Marx's invention in any case) was flawed that doesn't change the truth that Marxian theory was not designed for a backward economy. It was seized by Lenin as a weapon to achieve and rationalize power and it only worked as long as the rulers were willing to kill millions. That willingness, Thank God, disappeared.
Taussig makes no definite conclusion about the utility of the tariff just states that it might not have worked as intended. Who argues with that? And he hedges even that with plenty of "appears" "perhaps" and "hardlys" and your quote ignores his other ambivalent remarks.
Of course, it is a lie that I made any claim that cotton industry was not established before the Embargo, Tariff and War. It was very small with most coming from home industries not factories with machinery. And it is also a lie that Taussig claimed it was not helped when your own quote says it was "perhaps" helped or would have not been any worse off without it. But these policies have nothing to do with Hamilton anyway being produced and controlled by men with only a shred of his understanding.
It is simply false to claim that the beginnings of an industry means that the country had "industrialized" clearly the very beginnings of something is not the entire thing. Taussig clearly states that there was a great expansion in cotton mills in the quote I referenced.
And "...would hardly have been much retarded" does NOT mean "did not work."
The plainest English Taussig uses only says the tariff may not have helped much but he is extremely circumspect in that "conclusion."
And I suppose you can tell me of all those great civilizations which were not created by a great city. In fact, they are the places were the lower classes go to GET civilized.
Never mind, whatever it is it is totally irrevelent to anything.
Your constant harping on the suspension of the Writ is smoke and you know it.
Lincoln was never impeached by the Congress.
As for kicking the ..... you mean the way the Yankees did to the Confederates?
Yeah - he cited it as an example of the venomous editorials against Taney that ran in the northern press and made no comment upon the factual validity of the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim you now cite as "proof" that they were neighbors. To portray him as having accepted the New York Times' claim is dishonest. But you being a filthy liar, that is what we've all come to expect in your posts
All right time out. Low blow. Penalties are called for. Where is the administrator?
It is a horrible thing to live under a Quarterback Curse for all these years. And to have it used to demoralize a debate opponent well, I never!!!
And I said that it wasn't good enough.
Neither could be considered a recoginized nation for the first three years of existance.
And where did I ever say it was entirely economic?
It involved the wrenching away of the control of the economy from the British to a condition which could allow the development of a real market
My concern is not whether it "involved" that but rather whether the protectionist policies of the early 19th centuries accomplished much of anything to that purported end. The volume of evidence indicates that they did not and in some cases such as iron they even worsened the situation.
How many names can you call someone attempting to cover your deceptions?
It is no matter of name calling to describe you as a Keynesian if you espouse the ideas of Keynes (which you did), to suggest that your views have a Marxian element if they contain the ideas of Marx (which they did), or to call you a statist or interventionist if you espouse state intervention in the economy (which you do). As to my alleged "deceptions," I will simply note that you have demonstrated none and thus dismiss that slur as another of your gratuitous remarks.
Economies develop from people having foresight of coming conditions thus concurrent is just phase two of the becoming.
No. Economies develop because of property ownership over a scarce amount of goods. Foresight comes into play as an attribute of economic interaction, that is to say an educated prediction or a case of speculation or arbitrage. It remains, however, that the knowledge by which we identify the driving agent of the economy - innovation - is such that it emerges ex post, or at best concurrent to the act and not ex ante, where it is necessarily speculative.
Causality must be proven through a scientific procedure.
No. A certain form of physical causality may be _observed_ as it happens through scientific procedure. All causality is not physical though.
My statement wrt the USSR is not refuted by the correct statement that the labor theory of value
It is indeed insofar as you credited it as the reason for the Soviet Union's failure when in fact the reason was much more fundamental and similarly affects all other forms of marxism as well.
(not of Marx's invention in any case)
...but still the fundamental underlying notion on which his theory is constructed and by which his theory is also inherently flawed in all forms and all cases at all times. To assume a labor theory of value is to necessarily deny yourself a viable rationing device for scarce goods.
that doesn't change the truth that Marxian theory was not designed for a backward economy.
Designed or not, marxian theory will fail in any economy because of a fundamental flaw within marxian theory, not with that economy.
Taussig makes no definite conclusion about the utility of the tariff just states that it might not have worked as intended.
You simply are not being honest, fakeit. Taussig has a very plainly stated conclusion about the tariff that begins on page 38 and is designated under a title identifying it as the conclusion. It reads in part:
Although, therefore, the conditions existed under which it is most likely that protection to young indus tries may be advantageously applied—a young and undeveloped country in a stage of transition from a purely agricultural to a more diversified industrial condition; this transition, moreover, coinciding in time with great changes in the arts, which made the establishment of new industries peculiarly difficult — notwithstanding the presence of these conditions, little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century.
He could not have stated it more plainly - protection simply did not work.
And he hedges even that with plenty of "appears" "perhaps" and "hardlys"
Nonsense. He is writing in an academic style that naturally abstains from bold opinionated proclamations and declarative assertions. If he had written it in a style that made blustery opinionated statements not unlike the ones found in your posts around here his book would have been ridiculed in the academic community instead of becoming a classic.
Looks plain enough to me:"little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century."
You simply don't like that conclusion so you try to obfuscate it with quote mining and out of context qualifiers.
You have little problem with insulting others, but seem to take great offense when someone points out your shortcomings.
You might note that I am not pinging you, but you are pinging me.
I am simply replying.
Now, as for the rest of the hot air you are putting out, save it.
You are attempting to prove what is unprovable since it is wrong.
Lincoln was not a tyrant by any objective usage of the word.
Congress was not opposing him in his efforts to save the Union, including in the suspension of the Writ.
And by any objective usage of the word, Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the United States of America.
He chose loyalty to his state above that of his nation, and thus, was a traitor to it.
All the double talk in the word cannot change those facts.
South Carolina is under obligation to pay those tariffs.
Lincoln is under a constitiutional obligation to see that they are paid.
Those S.C. waters are U.S. waters!
And you're entitled to that opinion. Fortunately though you are not the leading authority on that issue - the United States government is and the United States government officially recognizes St. Eustasius as its first diplomatic exchange and has formally states so in multiple State Department documents and at least two presidential proclamations (FDR and Bush Sr.) in the last century.
Neither could be considered a recoginized nation for the first three years of existance.
Then I'll ask you again - when do you date the beginning of American nationhood to if not July 4, 1776?
And Farber admits that some of Lincolns actions may have been questionable by a strict reading of the Consitution.
But the demands of the times made the actions necessary.
Still beating a dead horse.
Jeff Davis never came under criticism for 'stretching 'his powers?
Offended at what? Your childish behavior? Please. You give yourself far too much credit.
You have little problem with insulting others
And I insulted you exactly how? By accurately describing your antics for what they are? Yet you're the one accusing me of thin skin...
You might note that I am not pinging you, but you are pinging me. I am simply replying.
Would that be a #3ping?
(NC - take note above. Sound familiar?)
You are attempting to prove what is unprovable since it is wrong. Lincoln was not a tyrant by any objective usage of the word.
I see you've picked up El Capitan's habit of affirming the consequent. In this case you construct an argument in which the association between Lincoln and tyranny is arbitrarily designated as "wrong," followed by an attempted proof of it on its very own consequent - your arbitrary assertion that Lincoln was not a tyrant! Funny how those things work out that way...
Congress was not opposing him in his efforts to save the Union, including in the suspension of the Writ.
Then why on earth did they kill his bill asking for a suspension?
Ofcourse it does, because it was!
That doesn't mean that the diplomatic recognition of St. Eustasis meant anything to the rest of the world, which is what getting recognized as a nation is all about.
We honor St. Eustasius for being the first to recognize us, but that had nothing to do with worldwide recognition.
Neither could be considered a recoginized nation for the first three years of existance. Then I'll ask you again - when do you date the beginning of American nationhood to if not July 4, 1776?
That is when we recognize our nationhood, but had we not survived (like the Confederacy didn't) there would be no date to celebrate.
When is the Confederacy date of independence anyway?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.