Fatal shooting Charleston SC

[IrishJayhawk]

Gone with the Wind is definitely not the most accurate depiction of the South during the Civil War but it's a movie! Let's give it credit for placing black actors and actresses in fairly prominent roles in 1939.

It is just a movie. And it shouldn't be banned. But it can certainly be thought of as a remnant of a time gone by or, at minimum, mildly racist.

 

[BGIF]

Gone with the Wind is definitely not the most accurate depiction of the South during the Civil War but it's a movie! Let's give it credit for placing black actors and actresses in fairly prominent roles in 1939.

"Fairly prominent roles" ... house slaves and field slaves.

Yeah they had lots of memorable stereotype lines like:

I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!

So did Amos and Andy and Beulah, black shows in the early 50's. Butterfly McQueen got to reprise her scatterbrain maid role on Beulah.

Both Amos and Andy and Beulah were shutdown because of protests by the black community as demeaning. But they were prominent! Amos and Andy was the 13th most popular show.

 

[gkIrish]

"Fairly prominent roles" ... house slaves and field slaves.

Yeah they had lots of memorable stereotype lines like:



So did Amos and Andy and Beulah, black shows in the early 50's. Butterfly McQueen got to reprise her scatterbrain maid role on Beulah.

Both Amos and Andy and Beulah were shutdown because of protests by the black community as demeaning. But they were prominent! Amos and Andy was the 13th most popular show.

They were prominent roles because they actually were featured in the dialogue. Something that wasn't too common in that era. Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for her role. (first black woman to do so)

So your opinion is that house slaves and field slaves should not be depicted in film? You want to talk about stereotypes in the 1950s? You don't have to look past 2015. There's a highly successful show on ABC called "Blackish" that is built on stereotypes. If we are going to ban film and television shows that stereotype blacks (or any other race) 95% of comedies in the last 20 years are going to have to be erased from the annals of history.

 

[gkIrish]

This afternoon there were a number of articles calling for it... By time gk asked, the nyt one was the only one I could easily find,... Just sayin

Washington Post published another this morning

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Washington Post published another this morning

Why I’m done watching ‘Gone With the Wind’ - The Washington Post

Huge distinction here...

Here's what the author writes:

So I’ll never get to see it on the big screen. I won’t be staying up late to watch it on TNT for the zillionth time. I’m done silently rooting for Melanie to just give Scarlett one good smack. I’m not saying “Gone With the Wind” should be banned any more than I think the Confederate flag should be; I’m not even saying it’s unimportant (the long take revealing the casualties of the Battle of Atlanta ranks among the most powerful shots of any war movie, regardless of the fact that the Stars and Bars waves prominently when it ends). It’s just now I consider “Gone With the Wind” not as entertainment, but as representative of and a relic from times when what was acceptable is now rightfully judged as abhorrent.

That's utterly reasonable.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

How about having an open debate or discussion with someone who isn't racist, but whose views differ from yours or someone who has a different opinion on what works? Throughout this thread you've made a number of assertions and posited facts which were anything but accurate, then defined what is and isn't racist, and then labeled everyone who questioned your assertions or facts, or didn't completely agree with your opinion about all of it as a racist. Hardly a step towards an open dialogue or an open mind.

I myself attempted several months ago to open an honest, civil discussion about the issue but it went nowhere. You made no attempt to participate, discuss anything, or hear my views (or anyone else's), yet you're quite quick to assume you know my mind and heart and label me or anyone else who doesn't fall into lockstep with your opinions as clearly an evil bigot and racist.

There's a very common (and quite accurate) joke among Conservatives: What's the definition of a racist? Anyone who disagrees with a liberal.

You and Jughead have exemplified the truth of that joke all too well. Jughead can't help it, doesn't have the intelligence to refute a differing opinion, and is incapable of doing more than just immediately falling back on such tactics. You are, though. I expected better of you.

Bishop, a chara,

Speaking of an honest debate : My first hypothesis is that everyone has enough "racist" tendencies to qualify as a racist, including me. To go into an honest conversation we have to be honest about our own shortcomings.

I don't give a damned about conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, so you understand. Just as much as I don't give a damned about black and white. In my experience anyone who joins a cause or labels themselves based upon such overall like-mindedness reminds me of the quote :

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.

George S. Patton

I live it. I carry (CCW), profess my faith(s), and yet I rarely side with conservative convention.

As to the bolded and underlined text, I have called people names, been temporarily banned for suggesting to some how to alter their sex lives, and been about as beastly on this site as I can muster. But, I think I have followed my guide of criticizing a persons words or actions and not making an overarching judgment about the person as a whole.

For someone to make the kind of assertion that you have made neither does justice to Jughead, myself, or you!

Jughead may or may not be a lot of things, but unintelligent he ain't!

You give me far too much credit, I am pretty average at hitting the mark (in my eyes), and almost feel uncomfortable (in a patronized sort of way,) by your complement.

And from everything I see, you show a willingness to judge and categorize in a rather tight pattern, and show evidence of losing your temper when facing overwhelming disagreement. C'est ne pas?

In fact, I never called you a racist or a bigot, or so labeled any other individual here (save maybe one). I hope I have always made it clear that I don't have that right to judge. (That is why I had hoped someone would step forward admitting it.)

As far as having an open and honest debate. With many of these issues like the state of affairs of African descendants in the United States, there is nothing open and honest about them. Take slavery for instance. The Catholic Church sanctioned it, made a fortune off of it, and even remained in control of it after Europeans by the millions fled the Church for what they saw as the freedom of a reformed church(es). Which was another whole set of untruths. And until forced by secular pressure, refused to denounce the practice!

When the founding fathers created this country, they totally sacrificed their moral justification for breaking from England, to insure tranquility among colonies, as the only way to protect the fledgling nation from itself. This ultimate hypocrisy was identified by enlightened thinkers such as Abigail Adams (and many others) 80 years before the open hostilities about slavery led to the civil war.

Fundamentally, you have a situation where a whole population was kidnapped, relocated, stripped of any rights, forced to work under threat of death at someone else's behest, and then in a fit of righteousness ripped from that and told to be contributing members of society with few tools and given zero chance to succeed. One hundred and fifty years later, we are still expecting seamlessly integration, we ignore their and our own collective cultural experience, and society expects them to perform at a rate consistent with those who's ancestors had not suffered four centuries of depravation.

I am not sure an honest, open discourse can be had on such an issue.

Have you ever met anyone with a death camp tattoo? I have. Jew and non-Jew. Have you seen what happens to them psychologically when closely reminded of that time? Or a combatant who is thrust into the horrors of his past, due to "innocent" reminders? And people want to debate the meaning of a war banner, or the difference between a trinket, and memorability!

Please outline exactly what you would like to discuss, and add an adequate frame of reference. But I can pretty much tell you that I don't care to rehash anecdotal evidence, or the same old persuasion that the Southern way may have been racist, but that is all fixed now.

Hell, you and I probably don't agree about what the word race means.

Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used in a taxonomic sense to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications. While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.

What you and I have been calling race, I see as a social construct based upon folk taxonomy. For example actual intelligence across a population, ability to play a sport, and even ability to spit watermelon seeds is all based upon folk taxonomy, nothing scientific, repeatable, or real (true).

So once you admit there is no real reason for any insurmountable difference, you have to ascribe them to where they truly belong, each individuals responsibility. But here is the trick. Since this was never a possibility before, there is no system, convention, social constraint, rule, law, or attitude that is adequate for moving forward to this new, untested relationship. Because it is a relationship, and it does require exploring new territory in human interaction, It all has to be developed.

So yes I would love an open and honest (as well as intelligent and meaningful) discourse. I just think with the scope of the task we all have a lot to do to get there!

Beir bua agus beannacht,

Bogs

 

[gkIrish]

Why I’m done watching ‘Gone With the Wind’ - The Washington Post

Huge distinction here...

Here's what the author writes:



That's utterly reasonable.

Yea I guess it's not the same but I still don't agree with her.

 

[BGIF]

They were prominent roles because they actually were featured in the dialogue. Something that wasn't too common in that era. Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for her role. (first black woman to do so)

So your opinion is that house slaves and field slaves should not be depicted in film? You want to talk about stereotypes in the 1950s? You don't have to look past 2015. There's a highly successful show on ABC called "Blackish" that is built on stereotypes. If we are going to ban film and television shows that stereotype blacks (or any other race) 95% of comedies in the last 20 years are going to have to be erased from the annals of history.

I'm aware Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar. I'm also aware that she had to stay backstage until it was time to receive it and then leave after getting it. I'm also aware NONE of the black "prominent" actors were allowed to attend the premier.

Your second paragraph is pure BS. I have two GWTW posts, the first responded to uluk's question about GWTW promoting slavery. Then I responded to your "prominent roles". In neither did I call for a ban of film or television, did I? Feel free to quote where I did.

As a 7 or 8 year old I laughed at Kingfish and Beulah each week. Andy and Oriole were always the butt of the jokes. The actors didn't enjoy being made to look stupid each week but it was the only acting they could get. I know that because I met Butterfly McQueen at a 50th Anniversary Showing of GWTW. She was very nice but very embittered as she told us what it was like be black and work in Hollywood. She played Prissy in GWTW and she played Oriole on Beulah, a character 90 years later than GWTW but she was still required to be dumb as shit Negro.

Neither of the TV shows I mentioned were banned. They were cancelled by the network because of racial stereotyping objections raised. Our Gang and Charlie Chan went the same route. Buckwheat was the stupid kid who coincidentally was black. Benjamin, Charlie Chan's driver eyes bulged out of his head with fear with every dead body.

The two truly prominent roles I first recall on film and TV were Poitier in 1955's Blackboard Jungle and Cosby in 1965's I Spy.

 

[Emcee77]

It is definitely a difficult movie to watch, from a modern perspective. My wife and I watched it recently, and of course the production is amazing, but the antiquated depiction of blacks and women made us pretty uncomfortable. We had a number of smdh moments.

Honestly, I think the depiction of Scarlett made me more uncomfortable than the depiction of the African-Americans (way too much of the hysterical-woman stereotype in her). And that's saying something.

 

[gkIrish]

It is definitely a difficult movie to watch, from a modern perspective. My wife and I watched it recently, and of course the production is amazing, but the antiquated depiction of blacks and women made us pretty uncomfortable. We had a number of smdh moments.

Honestly, I think the depiction of Scarlett made me more uncomfortable than the depiction of the African-Americans (way too much of the hysterical-woman stereotype in her). And that's saying something.

It's antiquated because it was made in 1939. I'm not excusing racism in that era, I just don't think we should be trying to eliminate a movie or other references to historical events or eras because of what certain symbols mean in today's world. Next thing you know people are going to call for the Ten Commandments to be banned because Christian beliefs are quickly becoming at odds with the populist opinion. I'm just generally against things that could open up a Pandora's box.

I'm aware Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar. I'm also aware that she had to stay backstage until it was time to receive it and then leave after getting it. I'm also aware NONE of the black "prominent" actors were allowed to attend the premier.

Your second paragraph is pure BS. I have two GWTW posts, the first responded to uluk's question about GWTW promoting slavery. Then I responded to your "prominent roles". In neither did I call for a ban of film or television, did I? Feel free to quote where I did.

As a 7 or 8 year old I laughed at Kingfish and Beulah each week. Andy and Oriole were always the butt of the jokes. The actors didn't enjoy being made to look stupid each week but it was the only acting they could get. I know that because I met Butterfly McQueen at a 50th Anniversary Showing of GWTW. She was very nice but very embittered as she told us what it was like be black and work in Hollywood. She played Prissy in GWTW and she played Oriole on Beulah, a character 90 years later than GWTW but she was still required to be dumb as shit Negro.

Neither of the TV shows I mentioned were banned. They were cancelled by the network because of racial stereotyping objections raised. Our Gang and Charlie Chan went the same route. Buckwheat was the stupid kid who coincidentally was black. Benjamin, Charlie Chan's driver eyes bulged out of his head with fear with every dead body.

The two truly prominent roles I first recall on film and TV were Poitier in 1955's Blackboard Jungle and Cosby in 1965's I Spy.

I didn't accuse you of calling for a ban. I asked you what your opinion was regarding the depiction of slaves. And then I opined that banning films is unreasonable. Perhaps I should have started a new paragraph or worded it more clearly.

As for her Oscar, my argument is that the filmmakers put her in a position to win an Oscar and they should get some credit for that. The fact that the Academy behaved in a racist manner is irrelevant to my point.

 

[connor_in]

For those GWTW pearl clutchers, please do not read Shakespeare, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mark Twain, etc. Incredible number of micro-aggressions in their stories. Also would be best to steer clear of Bugs Bunny, Tom & Jerry, Mickey Mouse, Popeye, etc cartoons as well.

 

[Emcee77]

It's antiquated because it was made in 1939. I'm not excusing racism in that era, I just don't think we should be trying to eliminate a movie or other references to historical events or eras because of what certain symbols mean in today's world. Next thing you know people are going to call for the Ten Commandments to be banned because Christian beliefs are quickly becoming at odds with the populist opinion. I'm just generally against things that could open up a Pandora's box.
.

Oh, me neither. I hope it didn't seem like I was saying it should be banned. Clearly not. I'm offended that anyone would even bring that up. That's an outrageous position to take. The First Amendment protects the thought that we hate.

All I was saying is that GWTW is offensive. Lots of stuff is offensive. Doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It's antiquated because it was made in 1939. I'm not excusing racism in that era, I just don't think we should be trying to eliminate a movie or other references to historical events or eras because of what certain symbols mean in today's world. Next thing you know people are going to call for the Ten Commandments to be banned because Christian beliefs are quickly becoming at odds with the populist opinion. I'm just generally against things that could open up a Pandora's box.



I didn't accuse you of calling for a ban. I asked you what your opinion was regarding the depiction of slaves. And then I opined that banning films is unreasonable. Perhaps I should have started a new paragraph or worded it more clearly.

As for her Oscar, my argument is that the filmmakers put her in a position to win an Oscar and they should get some credit for that. The fact that the Academy behaved in a racist manner is irrelevant to my point.

Actually, wasn't that the same year that The Wizard of Oz was filmed?

Kids still love it, and other than the munchkins, there are not too many uncomfortable stereotypes that I can remember . . .

 

[gkIrish]

Actually, wasn't that the same year that The Wizard of Oz was filmed?

Kids still love it, and other than the munchkins, there are not too many uncomfortable stereotypes that I can remember . . .

You mean other than the flying monkeys being the villains? (The author of the book has been accused of being racist, too IIRC)

Either way, the Wizard of Oz isn't based on history and I don't think there are even any black actors in the movie so not sure what the point is.

 

[GoIrish41]

You mean other than the flying monkeys being the villains? (The author of the book has been accused of being racist, too IIRC)

Either way, the Wizard of Oz isn't based on history and I don't think there are even any black actors in the movie so not sure what the point is.

ban it!

 

[dshans]

But at least Dorothy was surrounded by:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7JnkHYTWxCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

for a portion of the film.

 

[pkt77242]

Did anyone watch Obama's eulogy of Pinckney? Or when he sang amazing grace?

 

[dshans]

Did anyone watch Obama's eulogy of Pinckney? Or when he sang amazing grace?

I did. Very moving, driven by a tragic and horrific act.


I cut him a shitload of slack for his lack of vocal quality. Extreme emotion is hell on the vocal cords.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I did. Very moving, driven by a tragic and horrific act.


I cut him a shitload of slack for his lack of vocal quality. Extreme emotion is hell on the vocal cords.

It was just fine. Everyone should sing...regardless of the perceived quality. It was powerful.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

You mean other than the flying monkeys being the villains? (The author of the book has been accused of being racist, too IIRC)

Either way, the Wizard of Oz isn't based on history and I don't think there are even any black actors in the movie so not sure what the point is.

Serious, Clark?

• Gone with the Wind isn't based upon history (a whole big part of the point.)
• There is no overt connection with comparing flying monkeys and African-Americans.
• The Wizard of Oz was greatly changed from the book to the movie; In the book Dorothy wore Silver Slippers, a comment by the author on McKinley's policy of removing the US from the gold standard.
• Though there was incredibly political commentary in the Wizard of Oz, none of it represents the same kind of blatant racism as depicted and found in GWTW.

In the 1930's there were few if any black people in any movies, except to cast them in a demeaning role, (See BGIF and other's quotes.) So there was no demeaning role in the book, or even written into the movie. I rest my case.

For me, I could never watch Gone with the Wind. I found it like watching paint dry. Just not my cup of tea.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I did. Very moving, driven by a tragic and horrific act.


I cut him a shitload of slack for his lack of vocal quality. Extreme emotion is hell on the vocal cords.

I am with you on that one! Reps, sir!

 

[kmoose]

• There is no overt connection with comparing flying monkeys and African-Americans.

Just to be clear:

Flying monkeys = No problem

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fmlFCNb9Yqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Running monkeys = You're fired, ya racist bastard!

Does that sound about right?

 

[BGIF]

Activist becomes hero for taking down Confederate flag - CNNPolitics.com

By Greg Botelho and Emanuella Grinberg, CNN
Updated 3:53 PM ET, Sat June 27, 2015

 

[connor_in]

Found on ebaum site

13 Things To Buy Now That Amazon Has Banned Confederate Flags - Gallery

 

[phgreek]

Found on ebaum site

13 Things To Buy Now That Amazon Has Banned Confederate Flags - Gallery

Pretty funny...but then pretty hard to explain.

..and I'm sure there will be many a defender with some cool gymnastics to justify the hypocisy...

Its not about setting a decency standard for Ebay and Amazon. Its about mirroring political gestures that make us feel better about ourselves in order to promote the brand...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Just to be clear:

Flying monkeys = No problem

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fmlFCNb9Yqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Running monkeys = You're fired, ya racist bastard!

Does that sound about right?

Congratulations! Reps, sir! We now have brought Howard Cosell into the conversation. Now we can discuss the potential racism of 1960's sportscasters. Because we know the NFL had its issues worked out by then!

And draw a direct line between a 1930's movie?

Give me a break!

 

[kmoose]

Congratulations! Reps, sir! We now have brought Howard Cosell into the conversation. Now we can discuss the potential racism of 1960's sportscasters. Because we know the NFL had its issues worked out by then!

And draw a direct line between a 1930's movie?

Give me a break!

The line drawn was not between Howard Cosell and a 1930s movie. The line drawn was in regards to whether or not there was a connection between monkeys and racism towards African Americans; a point that YOU brought into the conversation.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Pretty funny...but then pretty hard to explain.

..and I'm sure there will be many a defender with some cool gymnastics to justify the hypocisy...

Its not about setting a decency standard for Ebay and Amazon. Its about mirroring political gestures that make us feel better about ourselves in order to promote the brand...

I agree with you except for a deflection in your last paragraph.

I can state to you unequivocally that the US Flag flew over the Wounded Knee and Me Lai Massacre (As well as many other lesser know incidents.) But each of these black episodes were an act on the part of an individual or group without the support of the entire population. And at times did the act spread wider because of the fear or greed of the people? Yes. Were reparations made, responsibilities taken? Yes, also!

It wasn't unknown to the German citizenry, particularly those that surrounded the death camps that mass murder was going on. From the highest officials down to the common citizenry, the horrors of the death camps were denied, until Dwight Eisenhower took matters into his own hands. I always found the film of German citizens being forced by the Allied military to provide mortuary patrols to police and clean up the piles of bodies at the camps were particularly fitting, and offered some consolation.

Like that, when an imperfect but free society attempts to change (for the better) itself, a specific symbol can be picked, identified, and ostracized to achieve the same sort of healing. Is it "fair" for buffs or proponents of those symbols? No. But is it "hypocritical" of a society attempting to heal some old wounds? Not hardly.

The entire purpose for that battle flag was to fly as a symbol of traitorous rebels who were attacking a country that decided to do the right thing, take the moral high ground, and denounce slavery. I defy anyone who has defended that confederate flag to state that the meaning of Old Glory is so one dimensional! Any takers?

So in my opinion the hypocrisy lies in denying all the other things Old Glory stands for, and forgetting the true meaning of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Va.

As far as the rising sun (my dad always kept the head band a dead Zero pilot wore and a big chunk of the meatball from his fighter); few would find any redeeming quality with that symbol, other that imperial aggression and racism. I asked my father why he kept it. He replied to never forget.

My question would be, who would want that shit, anyway? We could go through all the other symbols that were brought up, but I guess you get the idea.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The line drawn was not between Howard Cosell and a 1930s movie. The line drawn was in regards to whether or not there was a connection between monkeys and racism towards African Americans; a point that YOU brought into the conversation.

In a court of law your point would not be allowed to stand, because, as I attempted to point out, you cannot speak to the mind or motivation of any producing or otherwise involved in the Wizard of Oz.

In fact the book version of the winged monkeys were much different. They were neither good nor bad, but only slaves of the "golden cap." A pretty clear reference to one of the main themes found in the book, commentary on eliminating the gold standard.

As far as the movie, they were made to be minions of the witch and dressed in purple and red for the sake of the brevity of a two hour movie, and the stunning cinematic effect the colors provide.

 

[kmoose]

In a court of law your point would not be allowed to stand, because, as I attempted to point out, you cannot speak to the mind or motivation of any producing or otherwise involved in the Wizard of Oz.

My point was never that there was racist symbolism in the Wizard of Oz. I was merely refuting the idea that monkeys (flying or otherwise) were not used in a racist manner, in regards to African Americans. If your comment was limited strictly to the context of the movie, then I have no opinion on that. But you didn't specify "only in regards to the movie". You merely said that there was no connection between flying monkeys and racism towards African-Americans. I responded by pointing out where monkey was used in reference to an African American and it was absolutely interpreted to be a racist remark. It was deemed to be so racist that it cost arguably the greatest sports announcer of his era his job. And this is a discussion, not a court of law.