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 ...
What, no squack?
I suppose you normally do talk while chewing.
They just sit around the graves and sang Kumbayah together.
Given the way those Californy people do things there's probably an element of truth to that.
You jumped in the middle of a conversation about the word tyrant and tried to run it off into another El Capitan irrelevency.
Don't lecture me about comprehension when it was your ignorance that led us down this road.
But I can't duplicate that neat whistle that you do after you go 'Awk'.
Really? Could have fooled me.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
What's you point?
The Times articles is eminently credible. In fact, anything "discredited" by you is worth its weight in gold, as far as I'm concerned. You are the one bellyaching. I'm quite satisfied with the judgment of the Chief Justice. "The Times claimed that Taney and Merryman were neighbors, yet Taney lived in Washington and Merryman lived in the rural Baltimore County town of Cockeysville some 20 miles away from the city."
I can see why you claim to be a social scientist instead of a real one. There is no accounting for rational thought from such a narrow mind..
What period of time does your graphic purport to represent?
Time and space are large concepts. You are not capable of having anything but narrow thoguhts. Does the Times state when they were neighbors? No. It only indicates they had been neighbors. And that you have not even come close to disproving - or will you ever.
Did that come from a sixth grade history book?
did you note the caption "Early Colonial"?
Now there's a fine appeal to authority.
Talking to yourself again? Sorry, you are as narrow-minded as your comrade, GOPc.
Tell us about your book, "Prof." coward.
He was a wealthy landowner from an old and prominent family. He occupied several positions of civic importance, befitting his position in society.
P.S. I noted in another post that the City Baltimore was not part of Baltimore County after 1851.
"Where is the clause allowing ANY part [of the Constitution] to be suspended or tossed aside in times of war?"
Now back to your reading comprehension problem. Did Farber write anything about suspending the Consitution itself? No. He used the term "ordindary rules." What do you think the "Laws of War" and the Commander-in-Chief's "war powers" are all about?
Who got credit for the byline, Jason Blair or Dan Rather?
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.