DCPS, Selma and the distortion of history

[Anonymous]

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

I'm assuming that's supposed to be an inflammatory statement (let me guess-you're a staff writer for the Manchester Union Leader who has travelled forward in time from the 1960s). The movie does cover MLK's infidelity, and the FBI's attempts to bring him down with evidence of those moral failings. I thought those scenes were some of the strongest in the film-showing the pressures on King to be the great man of history while he was still a human being with human weaknesses.

[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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry you had that experience. But of course, talking about it at home is a part of the process too.

[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??

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.

I actually found the political back and forth informative, nothing of significance ever gets passed without some back and forth and real cajoling about whose agenda comes first. There really was a lot happening during that time, Vietnam anyone... Kids, hell Americans, need to learn that it takes something for legislation to pass and if you want it you better be willing to go out for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

Pity that King isn't here to educate you on the realities of systemic change making. In any case, please quit smoking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

Hell fucking yes.

I also still think that this movie has a lot of value to impart to students particularly in explaining how much courage it took to be a non violent protester. often the students want to ask "why didn't they fight back?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

Hell fucking yes.

I also still think that this movie has a lot of value to impart to students particularly in explaining how much courage it took to be a non violent protester. often the students want to ask "why didn't they fight back?"

Today's thug culture is about as far from King's non-violent resistance as you can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

Pity that King isn't here to educate you on the realities of systemic change making. In any case, please quit smoking.

not the prior poster but I think it's fair to say that while you could have you could make an argument the Brown vs Board of Education ended schoolsegregation effectively it could (and often did ) go on for years afterwards if not for the courage and efforts of children like Ruby Bridges in the Little Rock Nine. I think it's fair to say that legislation and protests both needed to bring about change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

Pity that King isn't here to educate you on the realities of systemic change making. In any case, please quit smoking.

not the prior poster but I think it's fair to say that while you could have you could make an argument the Brown vs Board of Education ended schoolsegregation effectively it could (and often did ) go on for years afterwards if not for the courage and efforts of children like Ruby Bridges in the Little Rock Nine. I think it's fair to say that legislation and protests both needed to bring about change

You must mean Ruby Bridges OR the Little Rock Nine. That individual and the group involve two separate historical events in different cities (New Orleans and Little Rock).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

Hell fucking yes.

I also still think that this movie has a lot of value to impart to students particularly in explaining how much courage it took to be a non violent protester. often the students want to ask "why didn't they fight back?"

Today's thug culture is about as far from King's non-violent resistance as you can get.

What does thug culture have to do with this thread? Clearly, you are a Fox News devotee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

Hell fucking yes.

I also still think that this movie has a lot of value to impart to students particularly in explaining how much courage it took to be a non violent protester. often the students want to ask "why didn't they fight back?"

Today's thug culture is about as far from King's non-violent resistance as you can get.

What does thug culture have to do with this thread? Clearly, you are a Fox News devotee.

PP said the reaction of today's kids is why protesters didn't act violently in response.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

Hell fucking yes.

I also still think that this movie has a lot of value to impart to students particularly in explaining how much courage it took to be a non violent protester. often the students want to ask "why didn't they fight back?"

Today's thug culture is about as far from King's non-violent resistance as you can get.

What does thug culture have to do with this thread? Clearly, you are a Fox News devotee.

PP said the reaction of today's kids is why protesters didn't act violently in response.

DC has just recently gone through almost nightly protests against police brutality. Those protests were dominated by young black people. They had a much closer resemblance to King's type of non-violent protest than to any "thug culture".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What PP describes - they do this at Deal extensively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

Pity that King isn't here to educate you on the realities of systemic change making. In any case, please quit smoking.

King doesn't have to BE MY GRAND PARENTS and THEIR FRIENDS were here to EDUCATE me on the Realities of the time....as they participated and were involved daily in the struggle. Take your ignorant white entitlement attitude else where its beyond annoying and offensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WRONG!!! It annoys me that white people think this. Legislation had NOTHING to do with the success and freedom of blacks in the SOUTH....it was KING going to town after town inspiring the people to stand up for themselves and take the "beating" for freedom that they have been avoiding for generations. Blacks were scared to fight, scared to March, scared to do anything. King made blacks in the south face there fears and confront them. Once they confronted their fears of the "white man" and stared to demand equality and stand up for rights the ball started rolling in southern blacks favor. It had little to do with LBJ. It the mentality and mindset of the southern blacks that need to be changed..and King did just that.

Pity that King isn't here to educate you on the realities of systemic change making. In any case, please quit smoking.

King doesn't have to BE MY GRAND PARENTS and THEIR FRIENDS were here to EDUCATE me on the Realities of the time....as they participated and were involved daily in the struggle. Take your ignorant white entitlement attitude else where its beyond annoying and offensive

You sound like a RACIST.