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 ...
I have no idea to whom you are referring and care less.
As usual you didn't comprehend what was said. Read it again and again and again until you can reproduce what was said rather than just make up things.
When you aren't uncomprehending you just lie.
Clearly the forces which make the Blue states Blue are the RATS the same party which led the RAT Rebellion in 1861. Those are your allies not mine. I voted Republican unlike you.
Where did you ever get the idea that YOU and the DSs are conservatives anyway since conservatives do not have an insane hatred of Abraham Lincoln? Insanity does not make you a conservative nor does living in a state which supports the party which destroyed your heroes, the Slavers.
Words do mean things but that doesn't matter to you.
No, shortage is nothing of the sort. No more than being warm is synonymous with burning to death.
...says the creature who thinks protection is not protection despite being protection, but only sometimes. Meanwhile, confined to his world of dyads, he cannot explain why "shortage" is the operative noun used to DEFINE "famine" in virtually every dictionary.
You didn't go straight to anything you merely found something you believe supports your view and post it over and over. Is that the only quotation you have access to? And you do exactly what you accuse me of doing- remove it from the context of his argument.
Not at all he discusses three industries in your beloved tidbit and explains what happened by describing how the embargo changed the impact of the tariffs removing much of their protective aspect.
Nor can any failure be placed upon Hamilton since there were no Hamiltonians with any power over the tariffs in the 19th century.
I pointed out that Taussig maintained the embargo had done much of the work of Infant Industry Protection which the tariffs were designed to do. There was no comparision sine that is apples to oranges. The embargo had an entirely different intent from the tariff and the positive unintended consequences are a fact of life providing the background to the economic development after 1808.
He explains what he believed might have explained why he couldn't PROVE that they didn't work in some cases. This is entirely different than proving that they didn't work at all.
Why don't you look up the word "shortage" and show me "famine" in the definition?
You actually believe these sophistic attempts work on anyone above 14?
If you were to consult a real dictionary you would find the following definition
FAMINE- an acute and general scarcity of food; dearth; a general want of provisions.
2- starvation, great hunger
No mention of a mere shortage.
Yawn. Here's the passage I posted. Note the title of the chapter.
Chapter VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS.The three most important branches of industry to which protection has been applied, have now been examined. It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties. The manufacture of woollens received little direct assistance before it reached that stage at which it could maintain itself without help, if it were for the advantage of the country that it should be maintained. In the iron manufacture twenty years of heavy protection did not materially alter the proportion of home and foreign supply, and brought about no change in methods of production...The same general conditions affected the manufactures of glass, earthenware, paper, cotton-bagging, sail-duck, cordage, and other articles to which protection was applied during this time with more or less vigor. We may assume that the same general effect, or absence of effect, followed in these as in the other cases...
...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 century."
Is that the only quotation you have access to?
Nope, but it is the most important one since it is the one that Taussig himself identifies as the CONCLUSION to his study - i.e. the place where he states his findings and results. That cannot be said about any of the quotes you have mined or removed from context to make it appear as if he supports your view when the exact opposite is true.
And you do exactly what you accuse me of doing- remove it from the context of his argument.
Incorrect. You may find the full context above and plainly see that I did not change it.
Not at all he discusses three industries in your beloved tidbit and explains what happened by describing how the embargo changed the impact of the tariffs removing much of their protective aspect.
You're fibbing again. He only mentions the embargo once in my passage, describing it as "anomolous" and stating that his conclusions are "looking aside from" its conditions.
Nor can any failure be placed upon Hamilton since there were no Hamiltonians with any power over the tariffs in the 19th century.
After Hamilton they were called the Henry Clay faction and then the Whigs, fakeit.
So Princeton and American Heritage are not real dictionaries? That's odd. You better communicate that to all the bookstores that carry them and libraries that link to their sites.
Since a famine is a particular type of shortage involving food, a primary definition naming it for "famine" would be inappropriate unlike the reciprocal, where "shortage" is both the object and noun of the definition of "famine." Not that you would comprehend these finer distinctions seeing as you appear to have a mental deficiency that limits your comprehension to simplistic dyads.
Have you verified that? To date, all I have seen posted here is the excerpt from the Rehnquist book and/or the speech it was based on..
Post #?
You'll find that "Merriman" ws the ancestral spelling. Several papers mis-spelled the name.
ok, that's just gross.
Suspension Clause. Lincoln has suspended habeas corpus and Cadwalader was correct to decline Taney's invalid writ.
Yes I have, capitan. It appeared on page 5 amidst the day's editorials. It followed another editorial denouncing supporters of the confederacy.
NC also provided you a full transcript of it in #2235, so you cannot honestly claim that you've only seen the excerpt.
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CONSERVATISM"
Affirmation of the consequent. It has never been demonstrated that Lincoln acted constitutionally when he suspended the writ and citing the fact that he suspended the writ itself is not a basis for denying a judgment on its constitutionality.
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.