DCPS, Selma and the distortion of history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maureen Dowd had an interesting column in yesterday's NY Times. She went to see Selma in Washington and the theater was filled with DCPS children. Apparently DCPS has obtained funds to send school kids to see the film. She described the kids' reaction to the Lyndon Johnson scenes and character as quite negative. Why should DCPS be sending school kids to see a film -- under the guise of history, no less -- that significantly departs from the true historical record and slanders the president who did more for civil rights and African-Americans than any other president besides Lincoln??

GET A LIFE. Really, is any book, movie, novel or materials that any school district uses 100% unbiased. No. Is this move the only things DC students will learn about civil rights, be grateful that the children are out of the classroom and learning something about American history. Have you scrutinized all the materials in the DCPS curriculum and all the movies that were watched in the last few years, or do you just have a particular objection to this one. Do something constructive and positive in the community and celebrate MLK day.

[Anonymous]

Thank you 15:24.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

I don't think that DCPS will be sending school children to see American Sniper, as their history lesson or otherwise.

DCPS is not "sending" school children to see Selma. The Washington Film Festival is providing funding for students who want to see the movie. DCPS simply announced the opportunity. This is part of a nationwide effort and not something dreamed up by Kaya Henderson. Before describing Henderson as "ignorant", you may want to have a better grasp of the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maureen Dowd had an interesting column in yesterday's NY Times. She went to see Selma in Washington and the theater was filled with DCPS children. Apparently DCPS has obtained funds to send school kids to see the film. She described the kids' reaction to the Lyndon Johnson scenes and character as quite negative. Why should DCPS be sending school kids to see a film -- under the guise of history, no less -- that significantly departs from the true historical record and slanders the president who did more for civil rights and African-Americans than any other president besides Lincoln??

Is it a exact depiction, no, is it accurate enough to want DCPS kids to see it, YES. I am a huge Johnson fan. It DOES NOT slander President Johnson in any way. Clearly, you have not seen the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maureen Dowd had an interesting column in yesterday's NY Times. She went to see Selma in Washington and the theater was filled with DCPS children. Apparently DCPS has obtained funds to send school kids to see the film. She described the kids' reaction to the Lyndon Johnson scenes and character as quite negative. Why should DCPS be sending school kids to see a film -- under the guise of history, no less -- that significantly departs from the true historical record and slanders the president who did more for civil rights and African-Americans than any other president besides Lincoln??

GET A LIFE. Really, is any book, movie, novel or materials that any school district uses 100% unbiased. No. Is this move the only things DC students will learn about civil rights, be grateful that the children are out of the classroom and learning something about American history. Have you scrutinized all the materials in the DCPS curriculum and all the movies that were watched in the last few years, or do you just have a particular objection to this one. Do something constructive and positive in the community and celebrate MLK day.

Maybe DCPS can find 10 min to talk about LBJ during Black History Month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea about what OP saw (my DCPS kids did not see the movie). But, typically in any history class a very big part of reviewing materials, including textbooks, is to address the issue of who the author is and whether the point of view they portray is fair, fact-based, total fiction, propaganda, etc. It is also typical to review materials on a subject that show many points of view and many methods of communicating a message (e.g. a poem, a work of historic fiction, a newspaper article, a text book, and yes, a movie, all on the same subject). This is valuable, and my children's teachers, even in early elementary school, do this over and over, even with the midnight ride of Paul Revere. I would be shocked if this movie was the only resource these students explored on the subject and find it highly unlikely that there will not be vigorous discussion in class on the film's POV and accuracy.

wow - that sounds great. what school are your kids at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

The director should not have been nominated for an Oscar because she did a mediocre job of directing. I'm sure lots of directors who distorted the truth have been nominated for Oscars -- OLIVER STONE, anyone? I'm sorry, I'm glad to see the Selma struggle being portrayed on the silver screen (I used to teach the Civil Rights movement and I think it's important that more people learn about the key struggles in the movement) but I think DuVernay is overrated.

Oliver Stone is considered a conspiracy wacko who makes stuff up and tries to pass it off as history. Too bad for DuVernay that she has put herself in the position of being lumped together with Stone.

[Anonymous]

The movie is about those who put themselves on the FRONT LINE. We tend to make "white people" the Savior of Blacks when that is not historically accurate. No body did more for the civil right movement than BLACK PEOPLE themselves. It wasn't some white SAVIOR it was our community facing our fears and challenging the establishment. It had nothing to do with some mythical white figure coming in to save us. Black are tired of that FALSE narrative...as they SHOULD BE. Give credit to those who deserve it.

[Anonymous]

I'm a historian (African-American history, but not Civil Rights Movement) and I'm perplexed about the complaints over the portrayal of LBJ in Selma. The movie portrays LBJ as very sympathetic to the aims of the Movement, but not wanting to waste his political chits on a direct action in Selma when he had a bigger legislative agenda. Seems right to me. And accurate according to Nick Kotz's Judgement Days, which I consider a really solid scholarly book about LBJ and MLK (Kotz provides extensive notes for anyone who wants to go back and do some primary research on the subject). My only quibble with the movie was that if they wanted to be true to LBJ, they should have made his language even saltier.

http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Days-Johnson-Changed-America/dp/B001KZHGPQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The movie is about those who put themselves on the FRONT LINE. We tend to make "white people" the Savior of Blacks when that is not historically accurate. No body did more for the civil right movement than BLACK PEOPLE themselves. It wasn't some white SAVIOR it was our community facing our fears and challenging the establishment. It had nothing to do with some mythical white figure coming in to save us. Black are tired of that FALSE narrative...as they SHOULD BE. Give credit to those who deserve it.

That gives no one license to invent history. It's a false choice to say that crediting LBJ takes anything away from King and others. But without LBJ, civil rights would have taken much longer. After all, JFK did basically Jack...Kennedy for civil rights when he was president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea about what OP saw (my DCPS kids did not see the movie). But, typically in any history class a very big part of reviewing materials, including textbooks, is to address the issue of who the author is and whether the point of view they portray is fair, fact-based, total fiction, propaganda, etc. It is also typical to review materials on a subject that show many points of view and many methods of communicating a message (e.g. a poem, a work of historic fiction, a newspaper article, a text book, and yes, a movie, all on the same subject). This is valuable, and my children's teachers, even in early elementary school, do this over and over, even with the midnight ride of Paul Revere. I would be shocked if this movie was the only resource these students explored on the subject and find it highly unlikely that there will not be vigorous discussion in class on the film's POV and accuracy.

A fanciful, if admirable view of what happens in DCPS. However, I recall when my child spent what seemed like two months studying South Africa in elementary school. The teacher taught a very simplistic narrative about the heroism and struggles of the ANC and how Mandela basically walked out of his jail cell into the presidency. We had a discussions at dinner about the broader history, including international pressure and de Klerk's role. in the transformation to majority rule. My child went in and asked questions about this and her teacher drew a complete blank, as if she didn't even know who de Klerk was.

[Anonymous]

Were any of King's hookers or mistresses portrayed accurately in the film?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

I don't think that DCPS will be sending school children to see American Sniper, as their history lesson or otherwise.

+1000. The amount of BS is DCPS, and DCUM, is scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie is about those who put themselves on the FRONT LINE. We tend to make "white people" the Savior of Blacks when that is not historically accurate. No body did more for the civil right movement than BLACK PEOPLE themselves. It wasn't some white SAVIOR it was our community facing our fears and challenging the establishment. It had nothing to do with some mythical white figure coming in to save us. Black are tired of that FALSE narrative...as they SHOULD BE. Give credit to those who deserve it.

That gives no one license to invent history. It's a false choice to say that crediting LBJ takes anything away from King and others. But without LBJ, civil rights would have taken much longer. After all, JFK did basically Jack...Kennedy for civil rights when he was president.

Invent what history. It is not invented to know that LBJ did not want to pass the voting rights act at that time. What is there to dispute. He wanted to pass other bills first. Ok and?? So it didn't show them as besties? That doesn't take that much away.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

I don't think that DCPS will be sending school children to see American Sniper, as their history lesson or otherwise.

+1000. The amount of BS is DCPS, and DCUM, is scary.

I'm sorry, the only significant BS is being spread by the OP who apparently was grossly uninformed about the the topic. But, let's be clear. If "the director was blackballed for the Oscars" as the OP suggests, then let's assume that Clint Eastwood was similarly blackballed for the same reason. That's in addition to the OP blaming Kaya Henderson for a national program.