DCPS, Selma and the distortion of history

[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.

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, I think when you look in the mirror that's what you see.

[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??

This problem really started with Spielberg. After Schindler's List they marketed Amistad with study guides and encouraged schools to send kids to see (and BUY) their commercial product, which was presenting history as melodrama through fiction. Historians wrote editorials to protest. Many high school history teachers were grateful that they didn't have to write lesson plans. And local theaters appreciated the cash. The question is not how accurate Selma is as a feature film. The question is whether we are educating students to think about how history is made or are we training them to be consumers?

Seriously, if you want to teach about civil rights, why not reach out to the hundreds of living witnesses living right here in our neighborhoods? They all have stories to tell and students can learn how oral history interviews can be cross-referenced with other sources....But it's easier to get a foundation to send kids to the movies I guess....part of the privatization of schools....

[Anonymous]

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Murch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Yes that was a typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

Did you see the movie? I don't see how this smears Johnson. Politics is complicated, lots of issues must be juggled at the same time, you want yours at the front, you must do the work to make it so. Johnson was not wrong in saying he had a lot on his plate, he needed the work that went into the marches to persuade the rest of the country. You cannot live in Washington and not realize this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The good news is that the director will probably not eat lunch in Hollywood again. Her portrayal of Johnson was mendacious and then her response to criticism was arrogant and defensive.

I learned a new word today on DCUM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

What actions were lied about? I'm curious to know this.

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you inferring that white children and AA's are now part of a "thug culture." You're ignorant - When I grew up we asked the same questions and this was before the "thug culture."

[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.

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

Are you race baiting? The director is not 'uppity' -- whatever that means -- but she does appear to be both ignorant and arrogant which is not a good combination. She reacted badly to legitmate criticism of the portrayal of Johnson's role, and badly misjudged the resulting backlash to her film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

What actions were lied about? I'm curious to know this.

Like this conversation:

http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/lbj-wh6501.04-6736

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

What actions were lied about? I'm curious to know this.

Like this conversation:

http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/lbj-wh6501.04-6736

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

What actions were lied about? I'm curious to know this.

Like this conversation:

http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/lbj-wh6501.04-6736

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.
President Johnson: And number two, I think that we don't want special privilege for anybody. We want equality for all, and we can stand on that principle. But I think that you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders and you yourself, taking very simple examples of discrimination where a man's got to memorize [Henry Wadsworth] Longfellow or whether he's got to quote the first 10 Amendments or he's got to tell you what amendment 15 and 16 and 17 is, and then ask them if they know and show what happens. And some people don't have to do that. But when a Negro comes in, he's got to do it. And we can just repeat and repeat and repeat. I don't want to follow [Adolph] Hitler, but he had a--he had a[n] idea--
King: Yeah.
President Johnson: --that if you just take a simple thing and repeat it often enough, even if it wasn't true, why, people accept it. Well, now, this is true, and if you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana, or South Carolina, where--well, I think one of the worst I ever heard of is the president of the school at Tuskegee or the head of the government department there or something being denied the right to a cast a vote. And if you just take that one illustration and get it on radio and get it on television and get it in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it every place you can, pretty soon the fellow that didn't do anything but follow--drive a tractor, he's say, "Well, that's not right. That's not fair."
King: Yes.
President Johnson: And then that will help us on what we're going to shove through in the end.
King: Yes. You're exactly right about that.
President Johnson: And if we do that, we'll break through as--it'll be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting this [19]64 [Civil Rights] Act. I think the greatest achievement of my administration, I think the great achievement in foreign policy, I said to a group yesterday, was the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But I think this will be bigger because it'll do things that even that '64 Act couldn't do.
King: That's right. That's right. Yes, that's right.
Well, Mr. President, I certainly appreciate your giving me this time and I certainly appreciate getting your ideas on these things, but that I just wanted to share it with you, and I wanted you to know we have thisfeeling but we have not set on any particular person.We felt that Bob Weaver, Whitney Young, or Ralph Bunche, somebody like that [unclear]--
President Johnson: Every one of those people have my respect. And what you do is this: you just say to them that I'm not going to send a message to the Congress. And say that if you will give me this power, I will do this as a trade, because I think that would do us all damage. But if I can get my urban and housing affair[s] [bill], you know what my intentions are.
King: Yes.
President Johnson: And I've got a pretty good Cabinet. As far as I know, I'm going to keep them all, probably, except maybe the Secretary of the Treasury, perhaps. I don't know what's going to happen to the Attorney General. I've given a good deal of thought to folks like Abe Fortas, a good deal of thought to folks like Clark Clifford, a good deal thought to [Nicholas] Katzenbach, a good deal of thought to . . . all those folks are pretty liberal and they're right on our question. I've appointed John Doar in charge of the problem over there.5 But I think most of the others are planning to stay, and I need them on these big programs--health and education and defense and state. But the one thing we want to do is shove through our housing reorganization and put them in charge of the cities.
King: Yes.
President Johnson: Then New York City has got to come, sit down, and talk to these people. Chicago has got to come. New Orleans has got to come. Atlanta has got to come. If they don't, they just can't move.
King: Yes.
President Johnson: And then I think we'll have a good man who's trained that's come up through the ranks, that's married, that's not on account of color, not on account of anything else, but he'll be there.
King: Yes. Yes. Well, this is wonderful, and I certainly appreciate your--
President Johnson: The two things you do for us, now. You find the most ridiculous illustration you can on voting and point it up and repeat it and get everybody else to do it. Second thing is please look at that labor committee in the House and Senate. Please look at that health committee. Please look at that immigration committee. And let us try to get health and education and poverty through the first 90 days.
King: Yes. Well, we're going to be doing that. You can depend on our absolute support.
President Johnson: Whitney's group can go to talking to them and Roy's group can and your group can and they ought to tell [William F.] Ryan of New York and they ought to tell so-and-so in Philadelphia and they ought to tell so-and-so from Atlanta, "Please get this bill reported."
King: Yes.
President Johnson: Because I don't think you have any conception of the proportion of assistance that comes to your people in these bills. I haven't pointed that out. I haven't stressed it.
King: Right. Well, I know they will be--they have been and will be even more tremendous help and--
President Johnson: You can figure out though what $8 billion in education, what $1 billion in health, and what $1.5 billion in poverty will do if it goes to people who earn less than $2,000 a year.
King: Um-hmm.
President Johnson: Now, you know who earns less than 2,000, don't you? [chuckles]
King: That's right. Yes, sir. Well, it will certainly be a great movement. We've just got to work hard at it. [Unclear.]
President Johnson: And I'm part of this administration, but we talked about what we're going to do [for] three years and we had to do it the fourth. We passed 51 bills last year. Now, I've got those messages up there. [It is the] first time by January 15 any President has ever had a half a dozen messages before the Congress. Most of them don't even have their State of the Union until after the inauguration.
King: Yeah, that's right.
President Johnson: But they're there and they're ready for them to go to work, and we're not just going to talk. If they'll vote, I'm ready. We've got our recommendations. And we talked the first three years of our administration. We promised, and we held it up and people were getting to be pretty disillusioned, I think, when I finally beat the Rules Committee and got [the] Civil Rights [Act of 1964] out.
King: Yeah. Well, I know.
President Johnson: I think you might had a lot more revolution in this country than you could handle if we had had that Civil Rights [bill] stay in the Rules Committee under Judge Smith.
King: That's right. Oh, that's--that's such a disillusion [unclear].
President Johnson: Well, we talked about it [for] three years, you know. [Unclear comment by King] But we just did something about it. So that's what we got to do now, and you get in there and help us.
King: Well, I certainly will, and you know you can always count on that.
President Johnson: Thank you so much.
King: All right. God bless you. Thank you, Mr. President.
President Johnson: Bye. Bye.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?