Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[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."

[GOPcapitalist]

Other than for Moe and Larry, I haven't seen you cite any sort of authoritative reference about your so-called Virginia Declaration of Independence.

Are you really as dumb as you're acting, capitan? There was nothing "so-called" about the thing! It's a matter of easily accessed public record and governed the State of Virginia for several decades!

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm

You don't find it the least bit odd that they didn't mention the word, "independence"?

Why would they need to? Declaring their connection to Britain "totally dissolved" accomplished that just the same. But since you are so intent upon pursuing the fraudulent and bizarre claim that they didn't declare their independence, why don't you take it up with the state government of Virginia?

"Although the sixth state house was built on the same site and, in general, according to the same H-shaped plan as the fifth, it seems to have been much less elaborate. Here, on June 29, 1776, Virginians declared their independence from Great Britain and wrote the state's first constitution, thereby creating an independent government four days before Congress voted for the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia." - http://legis.state.va.us/CapitolTours/CapitolTours-Jamestown.htm

You are wedded to your interpretation.

Considering that it is a correct and irrefutable interpretation, I will take that as a compliment. You, on the other hand, are wedded to a falsehood derived from your own idiocy, which you refuse to admit even if it means taking increasingly absurd positions of defense, and arrogantly so at that.

[capitan_refugio]

"I've cited thousands of original historical documents on these threads to support my case in discussions of this sort."

As I just posted to your comrade, LG, I wasn't talking about the original source material - which you procede to misinerpret. I am talking about recognized authorities in the field who agree with your interpretation.

"You're a filthy liar, capitan, yet a bad one. That's why you always get caught and that's also why you react with such unpleasantness every time you get caught.

You need a break as badly as LG. As usual, you are unable to carry on a civil discussion and, instead, resort to a pissing contest. You too, have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[GOPcapitalist]

"no government separate from" and "within the limits thereof" = "local government" = "not from Great Britain"

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you not the same hypocrite who just accused me of "interpreting" non-existant text into the written word of the Virginia constitution? Yet here you are, interpreting it into the text when, unlike the clause stating that Virginia's connection to Britain had been "totally dissolved," no such words appear there. The word "local" is not in that document and third degree separations whereby you extrapolate its presence through synonymous equations simply do not suffice to put it in!

You've lost, Black Knight, and now you're biting at kneecaps. It's pathetic, but also quite humorous to watch, you know.

[GOPcapitalist]

You are so full of it. He doesn't cite the Virginia Declaration; he interprets it.

...says the creature who just inserted the nonexistant term "local" into the Virginia Constitution by way of the following third degree rendering of synonymous interpretations:

"no government separate from" and "within the limits thereof" = "local government" = "not from Great Britain"

But I suppose you'll dispute that as well, even though the record shows you clearly posted it just like you clearly fabricated extraneous material into 4 court cases just like you clearly described a one-night campout at Fort Davis in 1862 as a "capture," implying a battle. You are without limbs to stand on or fight with by your own fault, capitan, but that sure doesn't stop you from trying to bleed on everybody else!

[capitan_refugio]

The Virginia Constitution explicitly stated that the new Commonwealth's ties to Great Britain were "totally dissolved..."

If it is so explicit, then you can show where it state that the "ties" are cut, and where "independence" is declared. And when you are done with that, then you can explain why the same Convention authorized its delegates in Congress to make a motion for a declaration of independence, when the purportedly had just done so.

I am not surprised that you believe your rhetoric to be true. You probably read it in some League of the South pamphlet.

"I realize that you suffer from the side effects of a severe anal retentive medical condition and I realize that blindness-by-choice happens to be one of those side effects, but you simply cannot deny what is in that document any longer. You've lost, Black Knight, and have no arms or legs left."

These sorts of fantasies are not healthy. And you are going to get warts on your hands.

[GOPcapitalist]

As I just posted to your comrade, LG, I wasn't talking about the original source material - which you procede to misinerpret. I am talking about recognized authorities in the field who agree with your interpretation.

Original source material is always superior to the ad verecundiam fallacy you rely so heavily upon. That's why you always end up limbless in these debates.

[capitan_refugio]

"Oh, and your choice for a source - Farber - is a Berkeleyite left wing kook and a downright shoddy historian as the erronious implications he makes in your quoted passages show."

I forgot to mention. Not only does GOPcrapulist not cite from authoritative sources, he labels every source that refutes him as "left wing," "marxist," or a otherwise nutty. He resorts to ad hominem attacks, like the one I've posted. I find GOPc's reference to "shoddy history" most amusing and ironic, as he knows nothing else - he's sort of a watie-in-training.

"Ex Parte Bollman in 1807 and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004"

In neither case was the issue of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus germane. His reference here is to dicta. Non-sequitur has explained it to him before, but GOPc is wedded to his fallacies.

[capitan_refugio]

And of course there is the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the war, which was signed between "His Britannic Majesty" and the "free sovereign and independent states" of "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia"

And of course that was seven years after establishing the United States of America. And of course thsat was two years after unanimously ratifying the "perpetual Union." And of course that treaty was negotiated by the representatives of the United States of America (rather than the individual states).

[capitan_refugio]

"Oatmeal in the differential housing. New VIN numbers tacked on everywhere. Stop-Leak in the radiator."

You seem to be well-versed in fraud. Your posts show it.

[GOPcapitalist]

If it is so explicit, then you can show where it state that the "ties" are cut

Yawn.

"By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."

and where "independence" is declared.

Yawn. See above.

And when you are done with that, then you can explain why the same Convention authorized its delegates in Congress to make a motion for a declaration of independence, when the purportedly had just done so.

Your timeline is wrong yet again. The direction to Virginia's delegates was issued a couple weeks before they dissolved their ties with Britain individually. Offering the motion they did makes strategic sense in getting the other colonies to pursue independence as well, thus creating a stronger opposition to the British who were sure to retaliate.

I am not surprised that you believe your rhetoric to be true.

Why shouldn't I? So does any sane person who can read the document and so does the state of Virginia itself. Perhaps you can take a trip down to Williamsburg some day and investigate the event further. Ask for one of the curators or historians they have in residence and when they tell you that you're wrong you can walk out in the street in front of the old capitol and publicly declare that everybody there is full of sh*t. When you are subsequently pelted with solid objects by all the people standing around and watching your spectacle of the absurd, don't say I didn't warn you in advance.

If you don't learn your lesson from that (and I am confident that you will not given your incorrigible attitude and the fact that you are a very slow learner) you can drive up to Richmond for a tour of the state capitol building. Repeat your charge there, find yourself corrected once again by the curators, and get into another angry shouting match where you tell them that they're all full of sh*t as well. I'll warn you right now that it's a long drop off the portico facing the James, though I suspect that its height will be the furthest thing from the minds of the good people of Virginia when they give you a hearty shove in that general direction.

[capitan_refugio]

"Declaring their connection to Britain "totally dissolved" accomplished that just the same."

That is not what they did. They declared any British sponsored government dissolved, and substituted their own.

Your interpretation has more holes that a slab of swiss cheese!

"Here, on June 29, 1776, Virginians declared their independence from Great Britain and wrote the state's first constitution, thereby creating an independent government four days before Congress voted for the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia."

Well, how special. You quote from a tour guide pamphlet.

[capitan_refugio]

Do you use K-Y when you fantasize like this? Save a little bit, so you can more easliy slide you head out of your ...

[capitan_refugio]

I try to keep the ideas simple for you, considering your educational background, and your obvious lack of cognitive skills.

[GOPcapitalist]

I forgot to mention. Not only does GOPcrapulist not cite from authoritative sources, he labels every source that refutes him as "left wing," "marxist," or a otherwise nutty.

Yawn. Do you deny that Daniel Farber is a left wing kook from Berkeley, capitan? I simply described him as he is. Perhaps the fact that so many of your chosen "expert sources" find similar terms associated with them is an indicator of a substantial problem with where you go to look for sources. Are you still citing slavery reparationists, ACLU/SPLC lawyers, and Clintonistas to support your view on 1860's constitutional issues by the way? Or was that just a phase you went through?

I find GOPc's reference to "shoddy history" most amusing and ironic, as he knows nothing else

Bold words from such a small man. Considering your own lengthy and documented record of perpetuating falsehoods on this forum to support your positions (note to fortheDeclaration - several of us caught your buddy el capitan on another thread comitting a blatant act of fraud not once but four successive times - he was attempting to pass off dissenting opinions, recorded arguments, and lower court rulings as if they were the majority ruling in major SCOTUS cases), you aren't exactly in much of a position to comment upon shoddy history or accuse another of practicing it.

In neither case was the issue of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus germane. His reference here is to dicta.

Wrong and wrong. It is the issue on which the case itself turns in Bollman - look it up if you doubt me and you will see John Marshall stating the rule on the suspension of habeas corpus immediately followed by the word "therefore" and a decision in the case to issue a writ. In Hamdi you will find the habeas corpus issue cited throughout the ruling and the primary dissent (it was one of the things that they both agreed upon) to show that the prisoner, Hamdi, was being improperly denied access to the courts even though Congress had not authorized a suspension of the writ.

El capitan, the great "constitutional scholar" whose history of interpreting supreme court cases includes fraudulently attempting to pass off extraneous material as the ruling, simply heard the word "dicta" - which he neither understands nor desires to understand - being used on FR one day by his equally incompetent buddy Non-Sequitur, googled the thing along side the word "Bollman," found a couple hits referring to wholly unrelated passages from elsewhere in the ruling, and decided right then and there that Marshall's opinion on habeas corpus must also be "dicta." It may be worth mentioning as further evidence of your compatriot's unusually poor and/or intellectually challenged character that for a time he was denying that Bollman - the landmark habeas corpus case of the founding era - had anything to do with habeas corpus at all.

[GOPcapitalist]

Do you use K-Y when you fantasize like this?

Hey guys - El capitan's talking about his bizarre Californy sexual techniques again. He seems to be off his meds this week or something...or perhaps he's simply excited over a pending Brigadeer visit to Wlat's stable.

[capitan_refugio]

"Original source material is always superior to the ad verecundiam fallacy you rely so heavily upon."

The problem is, you have demonstrated no understanding of the original source material. Which is why you are so obviously in error. Your arguments are unsupported and unsupportable. They amount to nothing more than your feeble attempts at legitimizing your fringist ideas. Your insistent repetition of your misinterpretations don't make them any less invalid.

[lentulusgracchus]

There is a lot in your post, and while I'm not versed in 18th-century banking and its evolution in antebellum America, I can address part of your post fairly profitably.

The fundamental problem of the Slaver society was its inability to accomodate the demands of modern life including capitalism.

Before I can address this remark intelligently, I'd need to know how you think an agrarian, monocrop, cash-crop society could develop capitalism that didn't involve cash-crop agriculture. By definition, it would have to -- subsistence agriculture is off the books, economically.

I'd also like to know what you mean by "modern life", and whether you are defining it in terms a little broader than the worldview from a corner office in a New York bank building.

You'll have to elucidate a little better what you mean by that comment. If you mean that the South "failed to develop heavy industry", then you have to look at accidents of geography that placed almost all the usable industrial-mineral deposits east of the Mississippi, and the preponderance of valuable anthracite deposits, in the North and Canada.

It's true that Birmingham, Alabama, has been an industrial center (and Chattanooga, to a lesser extent) for some hundred years, using Appalachian coal from Tennessee and the Alabama Hills. But the oil industry still lay in the future, notwithstanding that in 1863 Pennsylvania's crude-oil production had already risen to two million barrels per year, or about 5500 barrels of stock-tank oil per day (as we say in the oil patch, writing that as 5.5 MSTBOPD), or about the same as one typical Iranian or Saudi oil well that's been producing for a while.

Jefferson and the Republican's view of banking put them in the power to banks outside the South and insured that the region would never be able to develop the infrastructure which could lead to financial strength and independence. This attitude insured that the wealth of the region would flow out of it and there is a great deal of truth in the statement that the plantations were run for the benefit of British bankers initially then the NE bankers after independence.

That doesn't quite square with what I know of the fight between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle over this issue -- a fight Jackson won. True, the U.S. took a depression after the promulgation of the Specie Circular, but does that speak more to lack of Democratic Republican understanding of the banking business, or to the unsoundness of the banks' prolific issues of currency?

And assuming arguendo that the bankers were right about the best way to grow the banking business, is it necessarily entailed in their answer, that their best solution is simultaneously what is best for the American people and their freedom? This is Al Capp's General Bullmoose ditty again -- and Capp's implicit New Dealer's answer was, no. What is best for the People is best for the People, not what is best for New England bankers.

As for capital flows, it does not appear, from examination of the nation's cotton exports, that the Southern planters were going broke. If the New England and New York bankers cried about slavery and the lack of banking competition in the South, they cried all the way to their own banks, and so did the planters, belying your statement about capital flowing out of the South, which would be true only if you could show that the leading cotton-growing accounts in the South were all land- and slave-poor, and that their margins had been reduced to nothing by the clever market manipulations of trading interests tied to the banks. Has anyone demonstrated that this is true? On the contrary, the newest study of the question of slavery's "economic decline", which I posted a link to in another thread last year, shows that the Southern economy was growing rapidly and that planters were still investing vigorously on the eve of the Civil War. This is not the picture of e.g. a Central American extractive economy such as was described in the 18th century by Ulloa and Juan in their royal economic census and review of the Spanish Empire.

Moreover, your statement overlooks the fact that, wherever they banked, the planters' balances were still theirs and available to them to do as they pleased, and that there were still many banks in the South; and it dissembles the degree to which Northern businesses' returns were assisted by corporate-welfare legislation like the Morill Act and the 1848 Warehouse Act. The latter was a true benison to the New York economy and made New York the unquestioned commercial capital of the nation.

[GOPcapitalist]

That is not what they did. They declared any British sponsored government dissolved, and substituted their own.

And that is different from establishing oneself as an independent state exactly how?

Well, how special. You quote from a tour guide pamphlet.

Yeah. The facts you are sparring with are such common knowledge in the state of Virginia that they're standard material on the statehouse tour. Most people who want to quibble over historical details for the simple sake of arguing pick obscure stuff that they can formulate a reasonable position on, but here you are taking issue with stuff that every person in the state from 3rd grade on up knows as common knowledge. Funny, ain't it?

[GOPcapitalist]

The problem is, you have demonstrated no understanding of the original source material. Which is why you are so obviously in error. Your arguments are unsupported and unsupportable. They amount to nothing more than your feeble attempts at legitimizing your fringist ideas. Your insistent repetition of your misinterpretations don't make them any less invalid.

...says the Black Knight, "come back here and fight! It's only a flesh wound! I'll...I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

TOTALLY DISSOLVED. Read it and weep.

[capitan_refugio]

"Why shouldn't I? So does any sane person who can read the document and so does the state of Virginia itself. Perhaps you can take a trip down to Williamsburg some day and investigate the event further. Ask for one of the curators or historians they have in residence and when they tell you that you're wrong you can walk out in the street in front of the old capitol and publicly declare that everybody there is full of sh*t. When you are subsequently pelted with solid objects by all the people standing around and watching your spectacle of the absurd, don't say I didn't warn you in advance."

Typical southern bluster. It's what got you guys in trouble the first time. That, and actually believing the crap you spout!

Do you secessionists have an extra chromosome, by any chance?