Confederate Monuments
- Thread starter Julio3000
- Start date
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Not really sure of your point here? Are you saying the South needs to stop using Civil War folks and symbols in place of something better or are you saying we need to start using northern folks or symbols. I seem to remember you using one of the more overrated generals of well ever the other day, US Grant. Should we name stuff after him? I don't actually disagree about the need to move on, it's just that when most yankees tell me that it makes me (someone who is generally in favor of just moving on) want to get a stars and bars tattoo. You know, just sayin'
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I saw a guy with a Confederate flag Junior taped to his window driving through Cambridge yesterday...
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Would that be the Stonewall Jackson version or the Billy Idol version?
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
All things being equal I'm for getting rid of confederate monuments in public places. Never been a huge fan of this confederate pride that some folks show. With that in mind it's pretty obvious that the regressive left is insatiable. And you see this with them going after Christopher Columbus. It's book burning type of stuff and it's highly concerning to see some folks who I would consider to be intellectuals be a bit meh on this behavior.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I saw several in Saint John, NB—including one large decal prominently on a banana-yellow motorcycle—when I was traveling through Canada seven or so summers ago. Ignorance travels, too.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Cristoforo Colombo was an idiot, though.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
yeah, he failed at his mission
and we still to this day call Native Americans "Indians" cause he thought he was in India
this still cracks me up and somewhat relatable:
[video=youtube;UTduy7Qkvk8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8[/video]
and we still to this day call Native Americans "Indians" cause he thought he was in India
this still cracks me up and somewhat relatable:
[video=youtube;UTduy7Qkvk8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8[/video]
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/401159-gone-with-wind-slavery-protests/
Refusing to show such a historically significant film is an example of trying to rewrite America’s history: it should be shown and talked about and not called insensitive, says writer and political activist Jeffrey Mark Klein.
After targeting monuments commemorating the lives of Confederate leaders, the split in US society is now moving to the world of the big screen.
[...]
Canceling the showing after 34 consecutive years of being featured at The Orpheum fired up social media. Some tweets were accompanied with the hashtag #HattieMcDaniel after the actress, who played the house maid Mammy. For her role in the film, McDaniel became the first African American to win an Academy Award.
The film's producer, Daniel O. Selznick, reportedly collaborated closely with the black community to avoid any accusations of racism.
[...]
“It is funny that they say it is insensitive only because we are talking about two different time periods for historical context,” Klein told RT. “The movie itself was made in the 1930s, so historically that movie was not only acceptable but very well received in the 30s. And the movie itself takes place in the 1860s".
Refusing to show such a historically significant film is an example of trying to rewrite America’s history: it should be shown and talked about and not called insensitive, says writer and political activist Jeffrey Mark Klein.
After targeting monuments commemorating the lives of Confederate leaders, the split in US society is now moving to the world of the big screen.
[...]
Canceling the showing after 34 consecutive years of being featured at The Orpheum fired up social media. Some tweets were accompanied with the hashtag #HattieMcDaniel after the actress, who played the house maid Mammy. For her role in the film, McDaniel became the first African American to win an Academy Award.
The film's producer, Daniel O. Selznick, reportedly collaborated closely with the black community to avoid any accusations of racism.
[...]
“It is funny that they say it is insensitive only because we are talking about two different time periods for historical context,” Klein told RT. “The movie itself was made in the 1930s, so historically that movie was not only acceptable but very well received in the 30s. And the movie itself takes place in the 1860s".
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
If we'd ever managed to have a more comprehensive national reckoning of these issues on the front end, I wonder if we'd have the same backlash/reaction feedback loop now.
I'm fairly ambivalent to the idea that I'm supposed to be outraged about these putative abuses against history and speech as part of a conversation where folks are unable to stipulate some pretty elementary stuff about American history. It bugs me more that there are monuments to the perpetrators of the Colfax "riot" but not to its primary victims. It bugs me more that people want to defend the Confederacy and its Jim Crow-concurrent rehabilitation but don't turn out to be such great history buffs when the subject is lynching or the denial of basic human rights.
But, on the topic, I'm not sure how dude gets here:
Refusing to show such a historically significant film is an example of trying to rewrite America’s history: it should be shown and talked about and not called insensitive, says writer and political activist Jeffrey Mark Klein.
Rewrite history? I mean, how so? Is the film being erased from the Library of Congress archives because a theater has decided not to screen it? And though I think its insensitivity is largely irrelevant, it's silly to say that the film isn't insensitive, even in the context of 1939.
I'm fairly ambivalent to the idea that I'm supposed to be outraged about these putative abuses against history and speech as part of a conversation where folks are unable to stipulate some pretty elementary stuff about American history. It bugs me more that there are monuments to the perpetrators of the Colfax "riot" but not to its primary victims. It bugs me more that people want to defend the Confederacy and its Jim Crow-concurrent rehabilitation but don't turn out to be such great history buffs when the subject is lynching or the denial of basic human rights.
But, on the topic, I'm not sure how dude gets here:
Refusing to show such a historically significant film is an example of trying to rewrite America’s history: it should be shown and talked about and not called insensitive, says writer and political activist Jeffrey Mark Klein.
Rewrite history? I mean, how so? Is the film being erased from the Library of Congress archives because a theater has decided not to screen it? And though I think its insensitivity is largely irrelevant, it's silly to say that the film isn't insensitive, even in the context of 1939.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So you keep saying. Meanwhile, the Washington Monument is standing, for now.
57Brave
Well-known member
I for one and a Golden Age of Movies buff always thought as a film GWTW highly overrated
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
You've never done a particularly convincing job of showing me how protest about thing Y or Z is qualitatively different as constitutionally protected speech than advocacy of same. You've thrown around some words about intimidation and boycotts without ever really showing your work. You've never really explained how protest (short of violence) is not simply another exercise of a freedom that you claim to cherish.
sturg33
I
Protest is a great use of freedom.
I'm not sure of your question.
You guys seem to equate "being allowed to protest" = "agreeing with the protest" a lot
I often make fun of idiots for protesting something based on the reason they are protesting. Like when women were marching for equal right when in fact they have equal rights already. Y'all then think you "got me" with "AREN'T THEY ALLOWED TO??? DONT YOU SUPPORT FREEDOM??!"
sturg33
I
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok. So, having seen, again,
the idea in the post about the historical context of Gone With the Wind, the following occurs.
So. One can argue that attitudes on race were distinctly different in 1939, and in 1865. But "historical context" is not a catchall excuse for racism, or for the defense of slavery and white supremacy.
Let's all stipulate, shall we, that the moral evil of slavery and, in fact, the radical idea of equality among all of humankind existed prior to the Civil War. Is that reasonable?
Huckleberry Finn, in which a white author portrayed a black slave as a fully realized and sympathetic human being, predates GWTW by 50 years.
At the same time that we're trying to excuse the leading lights of the Confederacy for being, inescapably, products of their times, were there not powerful and passionate voices for equality extant at the same time?
During Jim Crow, when white supremacy was rampant (and sometimes lived in the White House), W.E.B. duBois and A. Phillip Randolph existed. The NAACP existed. Before that, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce existed.
If you want to give folks a pass for historical context, those people are also on the scales.
the idea in the post about the historical context of Gone With the Wind, the following occurs.
So. One can argue that attitudes on race were distinctly different in 1939, and in 1865. But "historical context" is not a catchall excuse for racism, or for the defense of slavery and white supremacy.
Let's all stipulate, shall we, that the moral evil of slavery and, in fact, the radical idea of equality among all of humankind existed prior to the Civil War. Is that reasonable?
Huckleberry Finn, in which a white author portrayed a black slave as a fully realized and sympathetic human being, predates GWTW by 50 years.
At the same time that we're trying to excuse the leading lights of the Confederacy for being, inescapably, products of their times, were there not powerful and passionate voices for equality extant at the same time?
During Jim Crow, when white supremacy was rampant (and sometimes lived in the White House), W.E.B. duBois and A. Phillip Randolph existed. The NAACP existed. Before that, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce existed.
If you want to give folks a pass for historical context, those people are also on the scales.