Oh, really?
Posted on 01/06/2015 9:41:34 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Before I came to dislike the movie “Selma,” I was deeply moved by it. Twice it brought me to tears. A crane shot of Martin Luther King Jr. leading thousands of demonstrators over the Edmund Pettus Bridge was one such moment, and so was the vicious attack on John Lewis — bravely, steadfastly walking into the beating he knew was coming. Today, Lewis is a member of Congress. Forever, he’ll be an American hero.
Too bad, though, that the movie had to go Hollywood on Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, as if from the grave, has bellowed his protest. In its need for some dramatic tension, “Selma” asserts that King had to persuade and pressure a recalcitrant Johnson to introduce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The movie also depicts Johnson authorizing FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to smear King and — as King himself suspected — try to drive him to suicide. It is a profoundly ugly moment.
But a bevy of historians say it never happened. It was Robert F. Kennedy, the former attorney general, who authorized the FBI’s bugging of King’s hotel rooms. Yet, for understandable reasons, Kennedy appears nowhere in the film. By 1965, he was no longer the AG and, anyway, he remains a liberal icon. But LBJ — Southern, obscene and, especially when compared to the lithe Kennedy, gross of speech and physique — was made the heavy. He should get a posthumous SAG card. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You know, I really don’t think slave owners gave a whole lot of thought to management theory, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
There was no need to. Human life is organic quite naturally. Does a professor of music theory teach birds to sing?
“threatening violence if one doesn’t get it”? Were the people in Selma threatening violence? Evidence please.
“That some people in the 1950s and 1960s had legitimate grievances is almost irrelevant. The end does not justify the means.” So I guess they just should have taken it?
You know, had you been around in about 1775, I’m sure you would have been a fine royalist, and turning up your nose at those uppity colonists.
Oh, really?
Once again:
You misunderstand. I refuse to play your stupid games. That is all.
Now ... since you have made no attempt to deny a causal link between the so-called “civil rights” agitation of the 1960s and present persistent parasite class exemplified by St. Trayvon of Skittles and Mikey “Pants-up-Don’t-Loot” Brown, I believe that this conversation is finished.
Good Day, sir.
And you’ve made no attempt to deny a casual link between releasing the slaves, and the present persistent parasite class.
Ahh, running away I see. And still refusing to answer a question (not a game, a question.) You debate like a liberal. As soon as you get flustered, you pick up your ball and go home.
That is an unqualified insult to p***ies.
Oh, and I wouldn’t deny there is a link. But that is NOT the fault of the people of Selma from 1965. They were just trying to get some basic rights. If one of your descendants commits a crime in 2065, is that your fault?
No, he wasn't. This has been a debunked claim for the past 7 years since that erroneous article came out. We also just covered this the last time this story was posted recently.
Posting a picture from 1973 to help your argument against Carter really doesn’t help that much.
You need to get out more. Seriously.
Too optimistic?
Your arguments are hysterical. They are like the typical liberal arguments in favor of gay marriage put forward because someone has a gay son or daughter; therefore, they emote, it must be a great thing for all of society so they can relieve their completely denied shame and liberal guilt.
That horrific photo is shown again and again. If such abuse were a common thing, there would be many similar photos. But there are not.
You probably don't know this; but some men beat their wives and children, also, regardless of color.
Another fact for you to consider is a quarter of the people lynched were whites, indians or Asians. And the total number of lynchings from the Civil War to the present day was barely more than the number of people who died in a single morning on 9/11; whereas the total numbers of babies aborted since Roe v. Wade exceeds 54 million, disproportionately black children killed by their mothers.
It's really time to stop slinging the guilt. Some people denied the vote fought for the right to vote. Most people denied the vote sat on their front porch and whittled. Same is true for women's sufferage. Some people fought; most people tended their knitting.
You can't change human nature by trying to shame people any more. Human beings resist change. Always have, always will.
As for this thread, people are fed up to here and beyond with the pure wasted opportunities today's underclass pees into the gutter, opportunities some of their forebearers fought for bravely. Many of us who lived in America when it wasn't like this are fed up with crime, violence, disorder, complaining and whining, lies, distortion and racism directed at persons with white skin, forgetting entirely the hundreds of thousands of whites who sacrificed their lives in the Civil War and all other U.S. wars to give freedom to blacks as well as whites.
So stop trying to wrest the moral high ground. Race hustling is a hot mess, and if you're looking to blame someone, blame the Democrats.
If it's King's picture, you wouldn't want to run the risk of having Johnson overshadow King.
It's a chestnut of biopics, isn't it? The guy who tells the hero that he or she wants to move too far too fast, and the hero doesn't listen and goes on to win.
It's already a cliche but many writers find it hard to structure a story without the awkward device of the heavy or the obstacle.
That narrative logic involves a distortion of history, though, and the racial angle incites passionate controversies.
It becomes an emotional White v. Black thing, whichever side of that divide you're on.
About the rest of it: the country wasn't always what it is now or what it was when you or I thought it was at its best.
People then had serious problems just as now and they were just as clever or as stupid, as good-willed or as malicious in dealing with them as we are now.
Geez, stow your outrage. Here are my only three points:
1) Slavery sucked. And comparing it to indentured servitude, or “having to pay high taxes” is a ridiculous argument. I can think of few things worse than being owned by another person with no hope of freedom. And I’m really sick of hearing “well, it really wasn’t THAT bad.”
2) The people marching in Selma in 1965 had legitimate grievances. They couldn’t vote. The state was ignoring federal laws in several areas. People could be murdered by the police or civilians with no investigation done whatsoever. (REALLY murdered, not this fake Trayvon, Michael Brown crap). So I really can’t find fault with someone who wanted to peacefully march across a bridge in support of some basic rights.
3) The Black community got everything they wanted from the civil rights era.... now they just want free money and the ability to terrorize their own neighborhoods without the cops bothering them. You CANNOT link what happened in Selma in 1965 to what is going on today. Those marches were legitimate (IMHO); the ones today are not.
If those are your only three points, why did you throw in the gratuitous obscentiy of the whipping photo? Was it from Selma? No.
Climb down from your high horse.
“If only teddy had that car.”
Fortunately he didn’t or he might have become President...
That picture is of an Amphicar. I saw one in action once, it entered the Potomac down by the Pentagon and drove/sailed over to DC.
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.
