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 ...
Now you're simply spouting garbage of no relevance to establishing historical truths and of no bearing upon the opinions and beliefs of the persons you claim to be addressing. If you wish to discuss history, I'm game. Until then, begone flea.
Except that you yourself are absolutely untrustworthy in argument, and you've admitted it yourself -- and if nc says you're a BS'er, that's good enough for me. I've seen the documentation he's brought in, and I've seen what you've tried to pass off as replies ("<yawn>", "hairball"), and as between the two of you, nolu chan is honest, and you are not.
You're just like Hamilton -- a confidence man, an operator, a forked tongue, and a worm in the apple. No wonder you admire him. Why don't you go live in France, where they still revere the memories of Richelieu and Talleyrand? They killed Tom Paine; that alone ought to recommend the place to you. That, and women with hairy armpits.
That's his game. It's not there. You didn't post it because it doesn't exist. He'll ignore it, then come back later and argue as if you never found the source or posted the material. He's selling used cars and messing with the lurkers -- using people, just like his paragon Hamilton.
Killing is never a "positive good" and at best can constitute an act of neutral necessity to avoid a clear bad. What LG was noting is the fact that an unintended consequence of Lincoln's assassination was to put an end to colonization schemes. Had he not been assassinated it is almost certain that colonization of some form would have taken place in his second term and quite possible that significant portions of the black population in this country would be living in Panama today or some other foreign location. Making that observations connotes absolultely no necessary value judgment for or against the assassination itself, nor could it possibly do so given that Booth was almost certainly unaware as to how his act would impact colonization policy either way. Not that any of that matters to filthy liars like yourself though, seeing as your purpose here is only to obstruct and slander others who disagree with you. Sidney Blumenthal indeed.
That's because a tiny minority of the convention delegates were Antifederalists.
The need for amendment became obvious later, even to some of the Federalists (Nationalists)......which means that it was the Federalists who blinked and split, not the Antifederalists, on the issue of a Bill of Rights.
At least you are true to form. "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Geez, next they will be telling me that Shirley Temple really didn't share an apple with Pres. Lincoln, or she WASN'T the "Little Cornell" (sp?)
I don't know if I can take it after all these years...
In all such terrority, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the terrorital government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States(Art.4,Sec.3)
Oh, if the South had only won the war, how much freeer we would be right now!
States rights!
The Southern leadership suckered the Southern people like the Soviet's did when they had the Russians fighting for 'Mother Russia'.
What the Slavers wanted was the freedom to enslave other men and continue to do it in whatever land they could conquer.
Come on you defenders of the 'noble' South.
Come defend the Southern Constitution, that great document that was made to correct the flaws of the U.S. Constitution.
How much freedom did you lose in your great and noble cause!
The right to own negro men and women!
Let us weep together over the destruction of this loss of liberty!
You know the funny thing about El Capitan? He'll spend an entire day around here posting lengthy passages and excerpts from bona fide marxists, communists, slavery reparationists, ACLU lawyers, SPLC race mongers, ten commandments-banners, berkeleyite hippies, post-modernist "metaphysical scholars," Clintonistas, flea-dropping leftists, and dyed-in-the-wool red diaper doper babies of every disreputable ilk, stench, and creed without spending so much as a moment contemplating their repulsive and vulgar left wing political beliefs and intentions.
You can even point out the insidious strain of leftism that inhabits the majority of his sources and he'll simply look away and accuse you of "ad hominem" even when the leftist's political agenda clearly inhabits (and is thus relevent to) the passage he uses.
But the minute somebody else mentions the name of a French Canadian attorney who wrote a book used by the "League of the South" he trots the group's name all over the place and launches into an hysteria against the cited author.
It shows very clearly where El Capitan's loyalties and political concerns fall.
That is an original source document is it not?
That was the Government that was going to be formed instead of the tyrannical American Gov't was it not?
I have seen how you discuss history with your double talk and evasion.
So we will discuss Southern goals and plans for the great noble experiment in freedom, the CSA!
The Ordinance passed constitutional muster several times before Taney saw fit to butcher it seventy years after the fact!
Is that what the dean told you when you got the boot for falsifying your term papers?
What do you know about intellectual honesty? You are nothing more than a cheap shot artist.
Well, might you tell me what great 'evil' the Federal gov't was responsible for?
Thus, the Confederate Constitution was just a lot of empty noise also, that could have been broke up at the whim of any one state when they did not get their way!
Well, since you are not in favor of any gov't at all, that would explain your lack of concern for the destruction of the United States.
Thank you for finally revealing what you stand for, anarchy.
First off, you are arbitrarily spouting inanities about it with no end, no point of contention, and no purpose to this debate. Second, the confederate constitution did NOT seek to replace the U.S. constitution but rather would have coexisted with it as it continued to govern a neighboring country.
That is an original source document is it not?
Indeed it is. The question remains though over why you began randomly quoting from it (and inserting rhetorical bombs along side your quotes in an apparent attempt to bait others into discussing it) in the middle of a discussion about different matters entirely. But who am I to ask you that? Perhaps you're also one of those types who breaks out into song and dance for no apparent purpose in the middle of street intersections.
Gopcrapulist is also an inveterate liar - but that can been seen from his posts on this thread. Getting a morality lecture from GOPcrap is sort of like bing warned about vd by a whore.
The deprivation of income earned by others (taxes) and the deprivation of the right to government by consent (coercive obedience to the union).
Thus, the Confederate Constitution was just a lot of empty noise also, that could have been broke up at the whim of any one state when they did not get their way!
If that one state decided to secede from it, pretty much, though it would presumably still apply in states that did not desire to secede from it. The entire notion is built upon a voluntary act of ascession to the government.
Well, since you are not in favor of any gov't at all,
I did not say I favor no government at all. I simply said that government itself is an institution that is inherently removed from the good, which is the classical definition of sinfulness. That some governments are more evil than others is certain, and thus the pragmatist will tolerate the existence of a lesser evil without embracing it as a positive good that it is not or worshipping at its false and idolatrous altar. Insofar as the United States meets this end when compared to, say, the alternative of mohammedan theocracy or soviet style communism, then I openly prefer the continuance of the United States by far. But that does not mean I worship the United States as some sort of secular and worldly deity.
One could debate the issue of the formation of the States vs the Union.
However, the fact is that the states did join the union either as states or colonies (and then becoming states in that relationship) and never were apart from that union.
Virgina never made a foreign pact with another nation.
Each state from 1774 on was seen in relationship to one another as a state.
Yes, they had a great deal of local control, due to the absence of a Federal gov't, but that did not mean they were ever separate nations or ever acted in that capacity.
Article 7 states that the States agreed unanimously as the Independent United States of America,
The Confederate States did not call themselves that, but listed each state individually, showing that they were signing as independent states.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the States United
Getting called an inveterate liar by El Capitan is sort of like getting called a drunken womanizer by a Kennedy. Sorry bud, but you forfeited your right to pass judgment upon the character of others long ago.
It seems that yet another projector has been stolen from the AV room.
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.