Hollywood Getting it Wrong and Their Agenda
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
I am no LBJ fan. I think his policies destroyed the black family unit but when you have solid facts why lie?
I guess it makes a better story to have a white man against what King was doing.
All the people who see this movie will come away thinking LBJ tried to stop King.
Sure won't do much for the racial divide going on that is getting worse by the day.
edit to add this from oprah
"“Films with a historical bent have, I think, an obligation to allow people to see the essence of the truth,” explained Winfrey, who both stars and produces the film."
Truth and O don't seem to be friends. Who does she think she is? BO?
I guess it makes a better story to have a white man against what King was doing.
All the people who see this movie will come away thinking LBJ tried to stop King.
Sure won't do much for the racial divide going on that is getting worse by the day.
edit to add this from oprah
"“Films with a historical bent have, I think, an obligation to allow people to see the essence of the truth,” explained Winfrey, who both stars and produces the film."
Truth and O don't seem to be friends. Who does she think she is? BO?
re destruction of black family: hispanic and white stats have nose dived and the stats for all groups were doing so before the great society bills were passed. Blaming the gs is an urban legend.
As for hollywood misrepresenting history, when have they ever got it right? How about never? How about not even close.
The real travesty to me is that the man behind Hoover spying on King was Bobby Kennedy, not LBJ, It was at his behest when his now sainted brother was president. And of course, Bobby Kennedy, the attack dog of Joe McCarthy and then his brother, is now a Saint as well. Pardon me while I puke.
As for lionization of MLK, lots of blacks did not like him, for a variety of reasons, while he was alive. He became a hero for the ages when he was murdered
As for hollywood misrepresenting history, when have they ever got it right? How about never? How about not even close.
The real travesty to me is that the man behind Hoover spying on King was Bobby Kennedy, not LBJ, It was at his behest when his now sainted brother was president. And of course, Bobby Kennedy, the attack dog of Joe McCarthy and then his brother, is now a Saint as well. Pardon me while I puke.
As for lionization of MLK, lots of blacks did not like him, for a variety of reasons, while he was alive. He became a hero for the ages when he was murdered
huis
what source do you have that suggests the black family unit was already in decline before LBJ and Congress passed all the GS bills?
US Census stats show that less than 25% of black babies were born to single mothers in 1960
and now 72% are born to single mothers.
65% of black children were being reared in a 2 parent monogamous unit in 1965. Today that % is down to 34.
This is a thread on the Selma era and MLK versus LBJ. I am pointing out LBJ etc did blacks no favor .
what source do you have that suggests the black family unit was already in decline before LBJ and Congress passed all the GS bills?
US Census stats show that less than 25% of black babies were born to single mothers in 1960
and now 72% are born to single mothers.
65% of black children were being reared in a 2 parent monogamous unit in 1965. Today that % is down to 34.
This is a thread on the Selma era and MLK versus LBJ. I am pointing out LBJ etc did blacks no favor .
LBJ had plenty of personal failings. But he used his considerable political skill and strength of personality to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed and that was tremendously important to Blacks ... gave them a right to public accomodations, restauants, restrooms across the south. If you don't think that important 6721, then we'll just have to disagree.
Croc.
Amazing
I went back and read my post and I saw NOTHING in there about the civil rights act which was for voting, right?
If you can somehow read into the stat on increase in black single mothers and the decline of the black family unit that I suggested I was not in favor of civil rights for all then yes we will disagree.
Amazing
I went back and read my post and I saw NOTHING in there about the civil rights act which was for voting, right?
If you can somehow read into the stat on increase in black single mothers and the decline of the black family unit that I suggested I was not in favor of civil rights for all then yes we will disagree.
Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965, no?
As for the decline of the black family, Moynihan wrote a famous essay on it in 1965 pointing out the emerging problem and tracing it to strains in black life that were attributable to slavery and Jim Crow laws. 1965. It was already in progress when the GS was passed and was one of the problems the GS was intended to address.
It never got funded as intended because of the war our Ivy League geniuses got us into and was converted into a hammock instead of a safety net and ladder up.
As for the decline of the black family, Moynihan wrote a famous essay on it in 1965 pointing out the emerging problem and tracing it to strains in black life that were attributable to slavery and Jim Crow laws. 1965. It was already in progress when the GS was passed and was one of the problems the GS was intended to address.
It never got funded as intended because of the war our Ivy League geniuses got us into and was converted into a hammock instead of a safety net and ladder up.
hius
of course and thanks for the correction.
Still nothing I wrote or ever will write would suggest in any way I was or am against civil rights for all
Croc apparently read what he wanted to read in order to " disagree" with me.
My issue with LBJ's GS lege is IMO it did not do blacks any favor. It is hard for me to see how Croc got from that that I thought separate water fountains etc should continue.
of course and thanks for the correction.
Still nothing I wrote or ever will write would suggest in any way I was or am against civil rights for all
Croc apparently read what he wanted to read in order to " disagree" with me.
My issue with LBJ's GS lege is IMO it did not do blacks any favor. It is hard for me to see how Croc got from that that I thought separate water fountains etc should continue.
Probably a misunderstanding. You said LBJ did blacks no favors -- no doubt referring no long term benefit to his "War on Poverty," which I misunderstood you to mean no favors at all, ever.
Sorry for being nitpicky.
No doubt disincenting people to work and take personal responsibility for themselves and their children is doing them no favors, whether heirs or on the government dole.
Sorry for being nitpicky.
No doubt disincenting people to work and take personal responsibility for themselves and their children is doing them no favors, whether heirs or on the government dole.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I just don't get why with all the gallery of villains in the Civil Rights Movement to chose from, why LBJ was chosen as the symbol of obstruction.
I'm not one to throw people under the bus for being a "man of his time." Washington and Jefferson owned slaves (imho Jefferson was particularly despicable), but we give them credit and monuments for their achievements. But I do give extra credit to men who were ahead of their time, Alexander Hamilton probably my favorite example. While Jefferson is lauded as a champion of conservative philosophy, he was in every sense an elitist slave holder who inherited his fortune and hid in the governor's mansion during the war of Independence. His most noteworthy actions of his Presidency was the Louisiana Purchase and the deploying the Navy against the Barbary States...both huge success and huge Hamiltonian-like expansionary actions of federal power.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a self-made and self-educated gentleman born in poverty in the West Indies. He served with honor and distinction in the Revolutionary War as both a field officer and the aide de camp to Washington. While people think he was a borderline royalist, he was, in fact, a man that believed in a true meritocracy, the virtues of earned honor, and the dignity of all human beings. He gets credit for being a man ahead of his time.
I would also give LBJ credit for his role in the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Marshall's nomination to the SCOUTS. Those aren't acts of a Southern man of his time or a racist. Now he doesn't get credit for the Civil Rights movement, or the sacrifices of leaders like MLK, but he doesn't deserve the Hollywood treatment who love stereotyping Texas (see last night's Madam Secretary episode).
As a right leaning thinker, I also don't hold historical figures against current political sentiments. Going back to FDR, the New Deal was imo a positive and FDR was a solid leader. On a purely quantitatively economic perspective, one can argue its real impact versus the demand generated by the War, but it certainly didn't hurt and morally it put a desperate country back to work. Likewise the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were absolutely the right things at the right time.
Does that mean the approach to race related issues should still be the same as it was in the 1860s? The 1960s? Hell f#$%'n no.
I'm not one to throw people under the bus for being a "man of his time." Washington and Jefferson owned slaves (imho Jefferson was particularly despicable), but we give them credit and monuments for their achievements. But I do give extra credit to men who were ahead of their time, Alexander Hamilton probably my favorite example. While Jefferson is lauded as a champion of conservative philosophy, he was in every sense an elitist slave holder who inherited his fortune and hid in the governor's mansion during the war of Independence. His most noteworthy actions of his Presidency was the Louisiana Purchase and the deploying the Navy against the Barbary States...both huge success and huge Hamiltonian-like expansionary actions of federal power.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a self-made and self-educated gentleman born in poverty in the West Indies. He served with honor and distinction in the Revolutionary War as both a field officer and the aide de camp to Washington. While people think he was a borderline royalist, he was, in fact, a man that believed in a true meritocracy, the virtues of earned honor, and the dignity of all human beings. He gets credit for being a man ahead of his time.
I would also give LBJ credit for his role in the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Marshall's nomination to the SCOUTS. Those aren't acts of a Southern man of his time or a racist. Now he doesn't get credit for the Civil Rights movement, or the sacrifices of leaders like MLK, but he doesn't deserve the Hollywood treatment who love stereotyping Texas (see last night's Madam Secretary episode).
As a right leaning thinker, I also don't hold historical figures against current political sentiments. Going back to FDR, the New Deal was imo a positive and FDR was a solid leader. On a purely quantitatively economic perspective, one can argue its real impact versus the demand generated by the War, but it certainly didn't hurt and morally it put a desperate country back to work. Likewise the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were absolutely the right things at the right time.
Does that mean the approach to race related issues should still be the same as it was in the 1860s? The 1960s? Hell f#$%'n no.
There's an excellent article on this subject at Slate.com, written by Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg, Professors of History at Louisiana State University and coauthors of Madison and Jefferson
Hollywood's History Problem
In reply to:
Hollywood's History Problem
In reply to:
that may be my favorite all time on this board. I especially liked the snubbing of Doris Goodwin. I can't tell you precisely how many times I have pointed out to people that she is not reliable, is a plagiarist and that Lincoln's cabinet was a disaster second only to his horrid choices of commanding generals.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Lee Daniels with a pretty good smackdown of the #OscarsSoWhite crowd
Going so far as to suggest artists in the industry should “go out and do the work” rather than complain about the lack of representation at the Academy Awards. Whoa.
“Go out and do the work. Oscars so white! So what?”
“Do your work. Let your legacy speak and stop complaining, man. Are we really in this for the awards?
“If I had thought that way—that the world was against me—I wouldn’t be here now.
“These whiny people that think we’re owed something are incomprehensible and reprehensible to me. I don’t expect acknowledgment or acceptance from white America. I’m going to be me......”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/a...mpire.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Going so far as to suggest artists in the industry should “go out and do the work” rather than complain about the lack of representation at the Academy Awards. Whoa.
“Go out and do the work. Oscars so white! So what?”
“Do your work. Let your legacy speak and stop complaining, man. Are we really in this for the awards?
“If I had thought that way—that the world was against me—I wouldn’t be here now.
“These whiny people that think we’re owed something are incomprehensible and reprehensible to me. I don’t expect acknowledgment or acceptance from white America. I’m going to be me......”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/a...mpire.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Go out and write a screenplay, or basically, "do the work" was my response last year with the whole Oscars so white garbage. Look at Daniels, Shonda Rhimes, Spike Lee, to name a few who have "done the work" and been richly rewarded. When Ben Affleck and Matt Damon couldn't find any work, they sat down and wrote, "Good Will Hunting" so they could star in it. (If I recall, that worked out fairly well for them)
If you want something to happen, go out and make it happen.
It was also ironic that in the year prior, there were 2 black men in the Best Actor category.
I have a strong suspicion we will see a large increase of nominations for black films and the people behind/starring in them this year, whether it is truly deserved or not.
As for me, if I were a black actor and was nominated solely to make Oscars Not so White, I would be insulted.
If you want something to happen, go out and make it happen.
It was also ironic that in the year prior, there were 2 black men in the Best Actor category.
I have a strong suspicion we will see a large increase of nominations for black films and the people behind/starring in them this year, whether it is truly deserved or not.
As for me, if I were a black actor and was nominated solely to make Oscars Not so White, I would be insulted.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 1
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
