Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

These are the 18 'problematic' classic films TCM will examine in a new series


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

I have.

And txfilm fan said "They (slaves) weren't considered people" is incorrect. Let's please stop categorizing people by skin tone. 

Scarlett & her family speak  lovingly towards Mammy & Polk, skilled house servants they had relationships with & respected for their skills. Field hands were considered unskilled laborers that no high falootin' lady would interact with. Remember Scarlett's disdain for white Wilkerson, the field manager?

Ashley says (cringe) "We (the Wilkes) never treated our dark-ees that way." 

People are upset over the history depicted, rightly so. But we can't change the past.

I say it's a good thing people continue being shocked by the injustices illustrated by these movies & hopefully fuel changes going forward.

 

 

 

Weeping over Mammy doesn't change anything. Wake up and smell the fascism.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

And txfilm fan said "They (slaves) weren't considered people" is incorrect.

To consider it possible to own someone is to not consider that individual a person.

25 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

Ashley says (cringe) "We (the Wilkes) never treated our dark-ees that way." 

An example of the white-washing of plantation system by southern apologists.

1 hour ago, UMO1982 said:

How ironic that people today are so upset about our history (you know, that thing in the past) as it is portrayed in old films, yet sit and watch states like Georgia pass laws aimed at suppressing the vote (you know, making it harder to register and actually cast a ballot), laws that mostly impact Black voters. Gee, anyone would think this sort of voter suppression is a relic of the old slave days (you know, those days of yore we get so upset about when they're shown in old movies).

It's hard to follow your point.  Perhaps you're trying to say people are being hypocritical.  That they are not justified in criticizing racism in movies if they don't criticize voter suppression.  How do you know they don't?  Or perhaps you are trying to distract the argument by introducing elements outside the focus of this forum.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, slaytonf said:

To consider it possible to own someone is to not consider that individual a person.

An example of the white-washing of plantation system by southern apologists.

It's hard to follow your point.  Perhaps you're trying to say people are being hypocritical.  That they are not justified in criticizing racism in movies if they don't criticize voter suppression.  How do you know they don't?  Or perhaps you are trying to distract the argument by introducing elements outside the focus of this forum.

Let me make it simple for you.  Worry more about what's happening now WHICH YOU CAN CHANGE and not so much about old movies WHICH YOU CAN'T CHANGE. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TikiSoo said:

Scarlett & her family speak  lovingly towards Mammy & Polk, skilled house servants they had relationships with & respected for their skills. Field hands were considered unskilled laborers that no high falootin' lady would interact with. Remember Scarlett's disdain for white Wilkerson, the field manager?

Ashley says (cringe) "We (the Wilkes) never treated our dark-ees that way." 

As someone else said this is an example of southern apologists trying to suggest slavery wasn't all that bad. Quoting these things only suggests that people are still trying to find ways to defend the movie and say the historic abuse presented in it is okay.

That's like thinking Hitler probably wasn't all that bad if he was nice to the cook that made his favorite strudel.

The truth is that no sugar-coating or romanticizing of historic abuse is ever going to make any of it acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

And txfilm fan said "They (slaves) weren't considered people" is incorrect. Let's please stop categorizing people by skin tone. 

Guess I should clarify...what I had attempted to say is that not all people of one skin tone looked at all people of other tones the same way. People can be influenced by others, but still are variants. Scarlett seemed to consider Mammy & Polk extended family members.

I do agree with the point that many comments in GWTW (and even some people today) are apologetic, attempting justification for bad/incorrect/abhorrant behaviour. 

Are any of you aware Irish Immigrants were considered lower than slaves? I recently read a historical piece about a Philadelphia project where that is clearly stated:

The work was back-breaking and so brutal that slave owners would not allow their slaves to participate. Irish Catholics were considered the lowest of the low on the socioeconomic totem pole at the time, and they were willing to do the work out of desperation.

https://hiddencityphila.org/2020/10/uncovering-murder-on-the-main-line-and-the-victims-of-duffys-cut/

I realize the slave owners would be paid, not the slaves, but I was also not aware slaves could be even be hired in the North to work as laborers. Northerners just couldn't OWN slaves. So slaves were considered similar to horses, you owned them, kept them and they worked for you?

OK, I get it, txfilmfan, your statement above is correct. Even if Scarlett felt affection for Mammy & Polk, they were considered more as livestock than people. I love my horse, but I don't consider her a family member.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

...The truth is that no sugar-coating or romanticizing of historic abuse is ever going to make any of it acceptable.

A clarification for me here please, TB.

In what way do you mean "acceptable" here? And, I certainly hope you DON'T mean not "acceptable" in regards to even watching the film or any film with these "problematic" issues contained within them.

(...although I have to say from how I've understood some of your postings in this thread, I'm sorry to say that that DOES seem to be what your implication has been, although I hope I'm wrong about this)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

Guess I should clarify...what I had attempted to say is that not all people of one skin tone looked at all people of other tones the same way. People can be influenced by others, but still are variants. Scarlett seemed to consider Mammy & Polk extended family members.

I do agree with the point that many comments in GWTW (and even some people today) are apologetic, attempting justification for bad/incorrect/abhorrant behaviour. 

Are any of you aware Irish Immigrants were considered lower than slaves? I recently read a historical piece about a Philadelphia project where that is clearly stated:

The work was back-breaking and so brutal that slave owners would not allow their slaves to participate. Irish Catholics were considered the lowest of the low on the socioeconomic totem pole at the time, and they were willing to do the work out of desperation.

https://hiddencityphila.org/2020/10/uncovering-murder-on-the-main-line-and-the-victims-of-duffys-cut/

I realize the slave owners would be paid, not the slaves, but I was also not aware slaves could be even be hired in the North to work as laborers. Northerners just couldn't OWN slaves. So slaves were considered similar to horses, you owned them, kept them and they worked for you?

OK, I get it, txfilmfan, your statement above is correct. Even if Scarlett felt affection for Mammy & Polk, they were considered more as livestock than people. I love my horse, but I don't consider her a family member.

 

 

 

NEWSFLASH: SCARLETT IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN A FICTIONAL THING CALLED A MOVIE, BASED ON A FICTIONAL THING CALLED A NOVEL. WHO CARES WHAT SHE "THOUGHT" or "SAID"?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dargo said:

A clarification for me here please, TB.

In what way do you mean "acceptable" here? And, I certainly hope you DON'T mean not "acceptable" in regards to even watching the film or any film with these "problematic" issues contained within them.

(...although I have to say from how I've understood some of your postings in this thread, I'm sorry to say that that DOES seem to be what your implication has been, although I hope I'm wrong about this)

I have to wonder this as well Dargo... I have to also ask if TB means that no film should ever be glorified or even deemed acceptable if a problematic part of the film is shown or explored, or does he just seem to suggest that ANY film that deals with the kinds of issues that GWTW shows should never ever be shown again or that if a film like GWTW was shown again that by all means some sort of warning should be shown before the movie is broadcast, telling viewers that the images shown in the movie is not acceptable by today's standards?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Just read the introductory to Gone With the Wind (1939).  You won't find any movie set in the slave-era that condemned the plantation system.  At the least they tacitly endorsed its sanitized portrayal, at worst lauded it.

It had everything to do with the story.  Just like it had everything to do with the Civil War.  It was the basis for the southern way of life.  The entire socio-economic system was based on it.  It was not discussed directly because that is the dictum of the apologists of the southern culture.  To maintain its legitimacy, they obscure it bestiality.

Ah, now you're being facetious.  It's unworthy of you, and shows you know the weakness of your position.

 

 

 

1.   Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end?  And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery?  Look.  By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was.  And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery.  And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations?  

2.  Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco.  Maybe a few other crops.  Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply.  That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war,  that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens).  One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery.   And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it.  Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. 

But then it's only one example of "problematic"  film history.  What about westerns?  and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans?  

Why no outrage about that?  Too small of a BANDWAGON?   That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both)  .  And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive?   Or else become brood mares for their menfolk?  It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about.  But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK?   And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous  native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps.  And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"?   Who, in reality, were the real savages?   But you know...

Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man .  But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work.  

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I guess you also believe the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

 

3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

As someone else said this is an example of southern apologists trying to suggest slavery wasn't all that bad. Quoting these things only suggests that people are still trying to find ways to defend the movie and say the historic abuse presented in it is okay.

That's like thinking Hitler probably wasn't all that bad if he was nice to the cook that made his favorite strudel.

The truth is that no sugar-coating or romanticizing of historic abuse is ever going to make any of it acceptable.

Again TOP....  Make up your mind.

I thought the issue was that the "historic abuse"  wasn't presented in the movie.   And wasn't it the lifestyle the plantation owners lived what was being romanticized?   And NOT the "historic abuse"? 

 

To answer JAMES;

Of course the civil war had to do with slavery.  But the movie had nothing to do with the cause of the civil war,  but the affect it had on the lives of the story's principals.  

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving away from GWTW for a moment, I watched the TCM commentary (before and after the film) about "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner."  I was fine with a lot of the insights but the interpretation of the "real meaning" of Spencer Tracy's final speech to the young couple I completely take issue with.  It was suggested that Spencer Tracy's speech giving "approval" to the marriage of his daughter to a black man was akin to the "white master" having the final say in the matter.  Wow. Never, ever got that.  I find that interpretation completely over the top.  In truth, Dr. Prentice (aka Sidney Poitier) dictates HIS terms to the parents:  "Either you give whole-hearted approval to this marriage or I won't marry your daughter."  So, Tracy giving this speech (in addition to the fact that Stanley Kramer  wanted to give Spencer Tracy his last great screen moment) essentially states his feeling that:  "Love must triumph over any 'societal BS' an interracial couple may have to deal with" and is completely in response to Prentice's demand.   Poitier's character literally says:  "I want you to state, in the clearest possible terms, what your attitude is going to be" which is  exactly what Tracy does. This is a flawed film in many ways -- my biggest gripe is the patronizing reference to the character Tillie --  "Been a member of this family for over 22 years"   --  No, she has worked for you for 22 years . . . but I have never, ever seen Tracy's character as a "white master."  Realistically and legally (and it is said a few times in the film) Tracy (and Hepburn) don't have to give "permission" to their daughter to get married but, from a plot standpoint, if there wasn't some "conflict" set up at the beginning of the film (Dr. Prentice says he won't marry Joanna if they don't approve) there would pretty much be no reason for us to sit there for nearly 2 hours. Much has been made of the Joanna character being painted as clueless regarding there being any "problems" with an interracial marriage.  I've listened to Katharine Houghton discuss how much she wanted Joanna to have at least one speech in the film where she acknowledged that she "got it."  But, Kramer clearly wanted the character to be somewhat of an "innocent," untainted by the prejudices of the people around her.  I've always liked the character and I also never had a problem with Dr. Prentice being "too perfect," either. "  Joanna was college-educated, obviously, from an extremely well-to-do, influential family and it made sense to me that she would be attracted to and marry a successful,  professional man.  Poor Spencer Tracy.  Bet he had no idea that 50+ years after his very last film, folks would be insinuating that the character of  Matt Drayton was a closet bigot. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, UMO1982 said:

Let me make it simple for you.  Worry more about what's happening now WHICH YOU CAN CHANGE and not so much about old movies WHICH YOU CAN'T CHANGE. 

Who says I don't? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lydecker said:

Moving away from GWTW for a moment, I watched the TCM commentary (before and after the film) about "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner."  I was fine with a lot of the insights but the interpretation of the "real meaning" of Spencer Tracy's final speech to the young couple I completely take issue with.  It was suggested that Spencer Tracy's speech giving "approval" to the marriage of his daughter to a black man was akin to the "white master" having the final say in the matter.  Wow. Never, ever got that.  I find that interpretation completely over the top.  In truth, Dr. Prentice (aka Sidney Poitier) dictates HIS terms to the parents:  "Either you give whole-hearted approval to this marriage or I won't marry your daughter."  So, Tracy giving this speech (in addition to the fact that Stanley Kramer  wanted to give Spencer Tracy his last great screen moment) essentially states his feeling that:  "Love must triumph over any 'societal BS' an interracial couple may have to deal with" and is completely in response to Prentice's demand.   Poitier's character literally says:  "I want you to state, in the clearest possible terms, what your attitude is going to be" which is  exactly what Tracy does. This is a flawed film in many ways -- my biggest gripe is the patronizing reference to the character Tillie --  "Been a member of this family for over 22 years"   --  No, she has worked for you for 22 years . . . but I have never, ever seen Tracy's character as a "white master."  Realistically and legally (and it is said a few times in the film) Tracy (and Hepburn) don't have to give "permission" to their daughter to get married but, from a plot standpoint, if there wasn't some "conflict" set up at the beginning of the film (Dr. Prentice says he won't marry Joanna if they don't approve) there would pretty much be no reason for us to sit there for nearly 2 hours. Much has been made of the Joanna character being painted as clueless regarding there being any "problems" with an interracial marriage.  I've listened to Katharine Houghton discuss how much she wanted Joanna to have at least one speech in the film where she acknowledged that she "got it."  But, Kramer clearly wanted the character to be somewhat of an "innocent," untainted by the prejudices of the people around her.  I've always liked the character and I also never had a problem with Dr. Prentice being "too perfect," either. "  Joanna was, college-educated, obviously, from an extremely well-to-do, influential family and it made sense to me that she would be attracted to and marry a successful,  professional man.  Poor Spencer Tracy.  Bet he had no idea that 50+ years after his very last film, folks would be insinuating that the character of  Matt Drayton was a closet bigot. 

I realize this film was made in 1967, but even then there are lots of other problems with this marriage that have nothing to do with race:

1.  Age difference. She is 23 and he is a 37 year old man who travels a lot for his job. Maybe to places she cannot go safely. She may have to be home alone quite a bit.

2. He is a widower she has known for exactly 10 days. When a spouse dies it doesn't matter what problems they had, the dead spouse becomes enshrined in the widow/widower's mind as somebody who did no wrong when they were alive. And as the live spouse this is the standard by which you are measured.

3. More on the ten days issue - They are still in the honeymoon phase of their relationship. What happens when all of those hormones calm down? 

4.  At age 23 Joanna didn't legally require her parents' consent, but women in the USA at the time (1967)  were still  treated as so delicate that they had to move from their father's care to their husband's care.  That was changing rapidly in the 60s, but it was still a norm.  This is probably at least part of what is going on with the permission issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

3. More on the ten days issue - They are still in the honeymoon phase of their relationship. What happens when all of those hormones calm down? 

4.  At age 23 Joanna didn't legally require her parents' consent, but women in the USA at the time (1967)  were still  treated as so delicate that they had to move from their father's care to their husband's care.  That was changing rapidly in the 60s, but it was still a norm.  This is probably at least part of what is going on with the permission issue. 

I agree that being the notion of this couple being committed to getting married after knowing each other for only 10 days (no matter what races they were) was totally ridiculous.  In the "real world" (even in 1967) Joanna & Dr. Prentice would have jetted off to Geneva (and beyond) and lived together for a while  before deciding whether or not they wanted to get married.  But, hey, this was a movie made in 1967 and Stanley Kramer was not going to have his young heroes go off and "live in sin. "  A lot of this was just standard movie convention. OK.  We want to set up this situation where a young white woman meets and falls in love with a  man who her parents have never met and surprise, surprise, he is African-American.  Obviously, the only way she is going to do this is to either have a job out of town (she doesn't) or go on a vacation alone.  To make it even more urgent (to put more pressure on the situation) he is only going to be in the USA briefly so the parents (both sets) must meet and approve of the couple in a matter of hours. (Very, very unrealistic scenario, but, again, this is a movie.) I laugh when people say John Prentice's CV is unrealistically "perfect."  Hell, the whole movie has "fairy tale" written all over it. She's rich and beautiful, he's handsome and accomplished.  They fly back from Hawaii, no less, to her parents' McMansion and, after a brief bit of drama, literally fly off into the sunset and live happily ever after.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There were very few slaves left in Pennsylvania by the early 1830s, so I don't know if they were even

considered. However bad conditions were for Irish and other immigrants at that time, they were not

as bad as they were for slaves. I was watching a short bit of Newsmax last night while channel surfing

and one of the guests said that the Founders weren't that bad in relation to slavery. He mentioned that

G. Washington, although a slaveholder, was personally against slavery. That must have been a great

source of comfort to his slaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

...I was watching a short bit of Newsmax last night while channel surfing

and one of the guests said that the Founders weren't that bad in relation to slavery. He mentioned that

G. Washington, although a slaveholder, was personally against slavery. That must have been a great

source of comfort to his slaves.

Hmmm..."Newsmax", eh?!

Wait, lemme guess here...the dude who said that was part of some ongoing segment they're runnin' about how our country's founders were "infallible", and so why "Strict Constitutionalism" makes so much "sense", RIGHT?!  ;)

(...AND of course, a thought that their usual viewership would accept without question)

LOL

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Hmmm..."Newsmax", eh?!

Wait, lemme guess here...the dude who said that was part of some ongoing segment they're runnin' about how our country's founders were "infallible", and so why "Strict Constitutionalism" makes so much "sense", RIGHT?!  ;)

(...AND of course, a thought that their usual viewership would accept without question)

LOL

When you want the purest wingnut outlet around you go to Newsmax. I think the topic was cancel culture

and this guy, who is an author, also brought in the Founding Fathers. Washington and Jefferson were against

slavery but they owned slaves. Yeah, brings up the old chestnut Pay attention to what I do, not what I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn.  Not the first time I've seen this movie.  Sidney Poitier is fabulous, and I'll mention his line in a minute.  But afterwards, the three hosts discussed the "white man" and "white father" 'theme dominating the whole film.  They ridicule the lines that Tracy's character delivers at the end of the movie, and chide about him telling the black father how things were going to be.  I have always had an entirely different take on the entire theme of this movie.  The black father is not a main character in this movie, yet no one acknowledged that, and of course it wouldn't be from his perspective mainly.  But the thing that got me was the NO ONE mentioned Poitier's line towards the end of the film where the son is discussing the difference between generations.  What surprised me even more that no one brought attention to this, was that the host asked the question, about what part of the film or line did they think was critical.  No one mentions the line referencing that the dad thought of himself as a black man, and the son thinks of himself as a man.  That is so key, so critical...and yet no one wanted to acknowledge that line, and instead were stuck on the whole 'white father domination'.  Seriously...I wondered how they could ignore that!!!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shana Krenz said:

The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn.  Not the first time I've seen this movie.  Sidney Poitier is fabulous, and I'll mention his line in a minute.  But afterwards, the three hosts discussed the "white man" and "white father" 'theme dominating the whole film.  They ridicule the lines that Tracy's character delivers at the end of the movie, and chide about him telling the black father how things were going to be.  I have always had an entirely different take on the entire theme of this movie.  The black father is not a main character in this movie, yet no one acknowledged that, and of course it wouldn't be from his perspective mainly.  But the thing that got me was the NO ONE mentioned Poitier's line towards the end of the film where the son is discussing the difference between generations.  What surprised me even more that no one brought attention to this, was that the host asked the question, about what part of the film or line did they think was critical.  No one mentions the line referencing that the dad thought of himself as a black man, and the son thinks of himself as a man.  That is so key, so critical...and yet no one wanted to acknowledge that line, and instead were stuck on the whole 'white father domination'.  Seriously...I wondered how they could ignore that!!!

I saw GWCTD a couple of weeks ago when it was on, not part of this program. I thought that Poitier's line was the defining one of the film. Very interesting that NOBODY would pick up on that. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shana Krenz said:

No one mentions the line referencing that the dad thought of himself as a black man, and the son thinks of himself as a man.  That is so key, so critical...and yet no one wanted to acknowledge that line, and instead were stuck on the whole 'white father domination'.  Seriously...I wondered how they could ignore that!!!

That line isn't in harmony with today's racial views. We are race-conscious. So many people today choose to define themselves by the race, or their gender. Then there's the whole idea of a man being proud to be a man. Some might say that's toxic. They didn't touch on it because they don't know how to handle it. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

I saw GWCTD a couple of weeks ago when it was on, not part of this program. I thought that Poitier's line was the defining one of the film. Very interesting that NOBODY would pick up on that. 

Yes, that IS a terrific point that the newbie here brought up, Ls. I agree...ABSOLUTELY!

Same as yourself, I too missed the little "history lesson" the hosts imparted upon us during this last showing of this film, as I also last watched this film when TCM presented it just a week ago or so. 

And so now to attempt an explanation to the newbie Shana's incredulousness to our hosts failing to bring this point up, I'll now offer the following.

I have a tendency to believe the reason they didn't bring this issue up was because the concept of "reverse-discrimination" or "reverse-racism" (and make no mistake here, Poitier's father's world view is presented as just THAT) has become viewed within our culture as a more "acceptable" form of racism than that which holds to the idea of white supremacy.

Yep! I'll betcha the reason our TCM hosts didn't bother to mention nor examine one of THE most defining moment in this film was because they, first, didn't think it important enough for some reason, and secondly because and as I mentioned above, the concept of "reverse-discrimination"/"reverse-racism" is one that it seems is not nearly as "controversial" in today's America as is your general form of racism.

And from what I understandand and have seen firsthand in my life, incredulously, many people in this country do not even accept nor acknowledge the existence of it and/or will attempt to give you rationalizations as to why it is "acceptable".

(...okay, and NOW let the fireworks begin)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jameselliot said:

History can't be rewritten and the 'outraged' Twitter crowd is not as large as the media plays  it up.

Actually here James, history CAN be "rewritten" and often is, and not ALWAYS to the detriment of truthfulness. 

Gotta say, you're kind'a sounding like that newspaper editor in John Ford's Liberty Valance movie.

(...however, your second point here is probably true or at least I HOPE that it's true, and even though a certain fat-butted ex-President certainly used Twitter in order to stir up a lot of "outrage" among the populace for four freakin' years, didn't he!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jameselliot said:

History can't be rewritten and the 'outraged' Twitter crowd is not as large as the media plays  it up.

History is always rewritten - over and over and over.  It is one thing that keeps the historical research and book industry in business.  The history of the Civil War and the periods before and after have been rewritten many times in past few decades.  Just one example is the views of Robert E. Lee.

The victors write the history is a very old and very accurate adage.  The victories may be in war, but are also in politics and popular culture shifts as we are having today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lydecker said:

Much has been made of the Joanna character being painted as clueless regarding there being any "problems" with an interracial marriage.

I can tell you from experience....in 1980, at 19 years old, I wanted to get my first apartment rooming with my best friend. My Mother forbade it! I was completely clueless as to why and she tried discouraging me, saying it wasn't "safe" for 2 young girls to live alone "in the City". Pressing her further,  she revealed fears of others attacking us because one of us was black. Huh? I could not FATHOM the idea.

About a decade later when traveling with my business manager, we could barely book (separate) rooms in hotels or get seated together in restaurants. He finally explained this was happening because he's black, I'm white and this was typical treatment in the south towards interracial couples. I was flabbergasted.

So I can completely buy Joanna, brought up in an upper class sheltered situation not really believing anyone would be "prejudice", since I was the same.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...