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

Warning gone with the wind is being attack


28Silent

Recommended Posts

And, I'm sorry if you are offended like I am singling out a single group of people- at least I am looking at history honestly. 

 

I am not offended. I was born and raised in Charlottesville, Virginia and lived the first ten years of my life in and around that area. My uncle owned a motel in Afton Virginia, where I stayed during my summers off from school. I met many different people during those summers from all over the country so I learned early on that many people had different takes on things, especially history.

 

And because I grew up in that area, I visited Monticello every year from the time I was five years old. When I was eight years old I really started to appreciate what I started to see there. And even though we moved to upstate New York in 1970, I maintained a keen sense to continue to learn as much as I could about that time period and American history in general.

 

As far as looking at history honestly, you may be doing that. But being accurate is another story. You need to be able to see and understand both sides of an historical issue.

 

Using the atomic bomb story as part of an overall larger context of the killing of civilians, one must also understand that the dropping of those bombs was probably the main reason Japan decided to surrender later that August in 1945. And because of that decision by Truman to bomb Japan with those two atomic bombs, it has often been bandied about that if we had not used the atomic bombs, anywhere from 200,000 to almost one million allied soldiers would have been killed had we gone ahead and invaded Japan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not offended. I was born and raised in Charlottesville, Virginia and lived the first ten years of my life in and around that area. My uncle owned a motel in Afton Virginia, where I stayed during my summers off from school. I met many different people during those summers from all over the country so I learned early on that many people had different takes on things, especially history.

 

And because I grew up in that area, I visited Monticello every year from the time I was five years old. When I was eight years old I really started to appreciate what I started to see there. And even though we moved to upstate New York in 1970, I maintained a keen sense to continue to learn as much as I could about that time period and American history in general.

 

As far as looking at history honestly, you may be doing that. But being accurate is another story. You need to be able to see and understand both sides of an historical issue.

 

Using the atomic bomb story as part of an overall larger context of the killing of civilians, one must also understand that the dropping of those bombs was probably the main reason Japan decided to surrender later that August in 1945. And because of that decision by Truman to bomb Japan with those two atomic bombs, it has often been bandied about that if we had not used the atomic bombs, anywhere from 200,000 to almost one million allied soldiers would have been killed had we gone ahead and invaded Japan.

Not to derail another thread, but I'm of the understanding that history has proven that the Japanese did want to surrender and were rebuffed because Truman wanted to try out his new fangled bomb!

That's another reason not to believe Tom Hanks' view of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I heard on the grapevine:

 

     Barack Obama wants to ban the Confederate flag in all 57 states, including Kenya and Prince Edward Island (I know, I know.  It's in Canada and our Navy corpse-men are buried there).  Continuing on . . . George W. Bush says he's happy to know there's 57 states now so he can go rustle hisself up some cattle and feed the illegal migrants who've been installing a Cheyne-link fence around his nucular swamp site in Texas, USA.  (No one knows what a "nucular swamp site" actually is, but so what?  There's minion onions to be fed!).  Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is licking his pervy chops after reading this joke ▬ What kind of guy has 2,000 girlfriends?  A shepherd!  ▬  Ewe've got to be kidding me!  No, Bill, we're not.  Dem sheeple's is waitin'!   Says Bill:  "After Monica blew me off in '98 I've been lookin' again for alternatives to Hillary.  I'm so happy right now I could dry hump a sand dune!!"  

this is a problem that Rush Limbaugh has been talking about for years in relation to liberalism. he calls it 'symbolism over substance'. for example, how does the lowering of the confederate battle flag affect the nightly murder rate in Chicago of young black American men by other young black Americans? it will not. which is the greater evil? the historic negative impression generated by the confederate flag or Chicago's nightly mayhem rate? why does contemporary liberalism choose the bugaboo of the confederate flag over nightly mayhem in Chicago? Answer: because what has been demonstrated over the course of the past four decades is that liberalism's real-world solutions do not work in the real world. in the face of Chicago's nightly murder rate all anybody gets is the same old rhetoric of the past forty years about improving education for black kids. that crap ain't gonna lower an out of control murder rate.  this is why liberalism will always detract with symbolic victories that will have little effect in the real world. :D

 

yippee, the confederate battle flag is down...

 

how many black kids lives in Chicago will that save?

 

symbolism over substance. pitiful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an outsider what looks pitiful to me is how mainstream America turned the recent events into a debate about a piece of cloth instead of taking a serious look at gun control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GWTW does have that evil confederate battle flag in it so GWTW should never be shown on tcm ever again!  it would be insensitive.

what then to replace it with?...

 

 

***HOT SPELL***

 

:D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an outsider what looks pitiful to me is how mainstream America turned the recent events into a debate about a piece of cloth instead of taking a serious look at gun control.

I agree but it was not mainstream America that shaped and highlighted that context but rather it was CNN. erin burnett, ashleigh banfield, wolf blitzer, jake tapper, anderson cooper and don lemon are not America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but it was not mainstream America that shaped and highlighted that context but rather it was CNN. erin burnett, ashleigh banfield, wolf blitzer, jake tapper, anderson cooper and don lemon are not America.

Apologies.  Mainstream Corporate America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an outsider what looks pitiful to me is how mainstream America turned the recent events into a debate about a piece of cloth instead of taking a serious look at gun control.

 

Oh well Bogie, I'll bet even YOU "as an outsider" knows that those "infallible" Founders of ours down here wrote the Second Amendment SO vaguely so as to give the impression that ANY thought of or movement toward the idea of rational gun control in this day and age is a "NO go" from the GET go, AND "of course" all our freedoms down here ALL stem and are preserved by that ONE Amendment "especially". ;)

 

(...I mean dude...I gotta wonder how you "poor enslaved" Canucks up there are EVER gonna resist the advances of that "tyrannical" government you guys have when they come for YOU???!!!) LOL

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well Bogie, I'll bet even YOU "as an outsider" knows that those "infallible" Founders of ours down here wrote the Second Amendment SO vaguely so as to give the impression that ANY thought of or movement toward the idea of rationale gun control is a "NO go" from the GET go, and "of course" all our freedoms down here ALL stem from THAT Amendment "especially".

 

(...I mean dude...I gotta wonder how you "poor enslaved" Canucks up there are EVER gonna resist the advances of that "tyrannical" government you "poor" folks have when they come for YOU???!!!) LOL

 

;)

Hey, we are already enslaved but just doan know about it.  Canada was created as a Police State by the RCMP.  We have more draconian anti-freedom laws than you can shake a stick at.

I was 21 before they passed a law that allowed you to stand up with a drink in your hand in a bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, we are already enslaved but just doan know about it.  Canada was created as a Police State by the RCMP.  We have more draconian anti-freedom laws than you can shake a stick at.

I was 21 before they passed a law that allowed you to stand up with a drink in your hand in a bar.

 

LOL

 

Why...the B*STARDS!!!

 

I mean you'd think they'd allowed even the CHILDREN up there to drink!

 

(...if for no other reason then to warm their innards during those cold as hell freakin' winters you guys get for 5 months out of every year, RIGHT???!!!) ;)

 

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Why...the B*STARDS!!!

 

I mean you'd think they'd allowed even the CHILDREN up there to drink!

 

(...if for no other reason then to warm their innards during those cold as hell freakin' winters you guys get for 5 months out of every year, RIGHT???!!!) ;)

 

LOL

When I go to England and France and see young people having a picnic and a glass of wine on a hot summer day in a public park ... well, thank goodness that isn't allowed in Canada and we have pepper spray to deal with riff raft like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but it was not mainstream America that shaped and highlighted that context but rather it was CNN. erin burnett, ashleigh banfield, wolf blitzer, jake tapper, anderson cooper and don lemon are not America.

 

HEY now ND!!! Leave that little cutie Erin Burnett outta this here, would YA?!

 

I mean, HERE ya have a little lady who gives people some very wise suggestions on how to make money, and dude, WHAT could be more American than THAT???!!! 

 

(..."not America" he says,...pshaw!) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were people NOT coming to South Carolina before the flag came down? Am I to assume that the general tourist industry had suffered because a few Americans chose not to come to the The Palmetto State for a vacation only because of the Confederate battle flag?

Actually the boycott probably was not all that successful, but now the NCAA can approve tournaments here.  Regardless, we need all the tourism money we can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but it was not mainstream America that shaped and highlighted that context but rather it was CNN. erin burnett, ashleigh banfield, wolf blitzer, jake tapper, anderson cooper and don lemon are not America.

You're right -- that lot are not mainstream. Maintream America is represented by Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jefferson's original passage on slavery appears below.



 

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another".

 

 

Yet at the same time, he personally owned hundreds of slaves.  He fathered children with a slave.  He freed a few slaves, but still owned 130 when he died, whom he did not free through his will.  He owned slaves while he was President!

The above passage is in regards to international slave trade.  It did not relate at all to slave trade within the colonies or the US, nor did Jefferson actually do anything to stop the internal slave trade.

I am not defending this, but it shows how complex an issue it was and far beyond the scope of what can be rationally discussed here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the atomic bomb story as part of an overall larger context of the killing of civilians, one must also understand that the dropping of those bombs was probably the main reason Japan decided to surrender later that August in 1945. And because of that decision by Truman to bomb Japan with those two atomic bombs, it has often been bandied about that if we had not used the atomic bombs, anywhere from 200,000 to almost one million allied soldiers would have been killed had we gone ahead and invaded Japan.

There is also a strong belief that Japan had little fear of the atomic bomb, but rather feared the Soviet Union which had just declared war on them.  They feared the Soviets would invade Japan, conquer it and then seize large parts of it.  They knew 200,000-1,000,000 soldiers lifes would not matter to Uncle Joe if he got a big piece of Japan.

Surrendering to the US would eliminate the Soviet threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet at the same time, he personally owned hundreds of slaves.  He fathered children with a slave.  He freed a few slaves, but still owned 130 when he died, whom he did not free through his will.  He owned slaves while he was President!

The above passage is in regards to international slave trade.  It did not relate at all to slave trade within the colonies or the US, nor did Jefferson actually do anything to stop the internal slave trade.

I am not defending this, but it shows how complex an issue it was and far beyond the scope of what can be rationally discussed here.

People did things in earlier times that they just stopped doin'. Over the centuries, there is a trajectory towards becoming more civilized. Sometimes it seems like one step forward, two steps back, but there does tend to be progress. What was once accepted as common practice, is now eschewed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but it was not mainstream America that shaped and highlighted that context but rather it was CNN. erin burnett, ashleigh banfield, wolf blitzer, jake tapper, anderson cooper and don lemon are not America.

Actually it was the people of South Carolina who did it.  While the African-Americans and Democrats initiated it and worked hard, it was the other people of S.C. and the Republicans who made it happen.  You would have to live here to understand what a big chance they took.  

For those who don't know, S.C. is very heavily dominated by the Republican Party at all levels.

The media merely reported on what they were doing and publicized it.

It was "mainstream S.C." that made it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it was the people of South Carolina who did it.  While the African-Americans and Democrats initiated it and worked hard, it was the other people of S.C. and the Republicans who made it happen.  You would have to live here to understand what a big chance they took.  

For those who don't know, S.C. is very heavily dominated by the Republican Party at all levels.

The media merely reported on what they were doing and publicized it.

It was "mainstream S.C." that made it happen.

They had no choice. The South is dominated by Republicans because the Southern public reacted against the Democratic-inspired Civil Rights laws. Democrats are not in the mainstream down there, it is true. Governor Haley (quite rightly desperate to attract business to SC) was smart enough to see the massive boycotts looming on the horizon. Now let's see if the Southern Republicans can move beyond symbolism and quit pushing for laws that restrict people's rights to vote.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/will-demographics-transform-southern-politics.html?_r=0

Link to post
Share on other sites

They had no choice. The South is dominated by Republicans because the Southern public reacted against the Democratic-inspired Civil Rights laws. Democrats are not in the mainstream down there, it is true. Governor Haley (quite rightly desperate to attract business to SC) was smart enough to see the massive boycotts looming on the horizon. Now let's see if the Southern Republicans can move beyond symbolism and quit pushing for laws that restrict people's rights to vote.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/will-demographics-transform-southern-politics.html?_r=0

I read the editorial.  Partially true, but then again one man's opinion as they say.  Only 49% of SC residents were born in South Carolina.  A lot of people who move here adapt the majority political opinions. The major weakness in his column is that you have to get the minorities to register and then to actually vote.  Even before current voter suppression, it was a serious problem.

I do agree somewhat with what you said above.  However, Republicans did have a choice.  Every Republican could have voted against taking the flag down and continued to win elections for years or decades.  The districts are drawn that way and will not change.  Some stand a good chance of losing their seats because of their vote to take it down.

As for what makes up the Republican Party in the South, you can say the same for the Republican Party nationally.  And don't forget the corporation executives and owners and the very wealthy.

I seldom agree with Gov. Haley and no doubt she is looking to burnish her national image for what happens when she leaves office in three years.  The two US Senate seats are pretty much locked up and doubt she would do well in a Congressional race.  

As for attracting business, the improving national economy has been a blessing for S.C.  Lots of businesses moving here.  Volvo has announced a plant with a goal of 4,000 employees.  Amazon has more than one facility in state and Boeing and BMW are expanding.

I don't believe there would have been "massive boycotts" by businesses and corporations.  Bottom line for them, SC and rest of South are anti-union, pro-corporation, limited government regulation and taxes and expansive government financial assistance.  Of course, now NY state is advertising the same thing (except for the union issue).

I agree 100% that something needs to be done about voter suppression, but that will not happen until Congress does something.  Not likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against banning almost any film, but now that you mention it, I might make an exception in the case of NBNW!

 

Thanks for not putting up a winkie. I agree, quips are often funnier without them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooner or later GONE WITH THE WIND will be banned from TV. Not necessairly by law, but by various kinds of corporate boycots, and Turner, Time-Warner will have to cave in, just as Fox Films caved in with the Charlie Chan boycotts.

 

We haven't seen BIRTH OF A NATION on TCM in a long time. We haven't seen TRIUMPH OF THE WILL on TCM in nearly 20 years.

 

Soon all the films that contain blackface scenes will be gone. (When have we ever seen MAMMY on TCM?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet at the same time, he personally owned hundreds of slaves.  He fathered children with a slave.  He freed a few slaves, but still owned 130 when he died, whom he did not free through his will.  He owned slaves while he was President!

The above passage is in regards to international slave trade.  It did not relate at all to slave trade within the colonies or the US, nor did Jefferson actually do anything to stop the internal slave trade.

I am not defending this, but it shows how complex an issue it was and far beyond the scope of what can be rationally discussed here.

For the record, the claim Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings is disputed by some scholars and others.

Have a great evening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the claim Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings is disputed by some scholars and others.

Have a great evening.

Latest is that it is 99% DNA certain that Jefferson fathered all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...