DCPS, Selma and the distortion of history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

I think a lot of people commenting about the movie and the perceived negative portrayal of LBJ have not seen the movie. They are merely passing on gossip as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

[Anonymous]

The film is otherwise very good. It's too bad that the director, with her angry historical revisionism, took herself out of Oscar consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

Come on, that's the oldest trick in the snake oil business...only people who have actually tried can comment on it, right?

I trust recognized historians and respected books way more than random chatter by an anonymous poster...or than a debunked movie.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

Come on, that's the oldest trick in the snake oil business...only people who have actually tried can comment on it, right?

I trust recognized historians and respected books way more than random chatter by an anonymous poster...or than a debunked movie.

I trust movies that are debunked by anonymous posters that haven't seen the movie.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

Come on, that's the oldest trick in the snake oil business...only people who have actually tried can comment on it, right?

I trust recognized historians and respected books way more than random chatter by an anonymous poster...or than a debunked movie.

I trust movies that are debunked by anonymous posters that haven't seen the movie.

It is called "research." I know it is not easy to grasp.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

Come on, that's the oldest trick in the snake oil business...only people who have actually tried can comment on it, right?

I trust recognized historians and respected books way more than random chatter by an anonymous poster...or than a debunked movie.

I trust movies that are debunked by anonymous posters that haven't seen the movie.

It is called "research." I know it is not easy to grasp.

It's actually called "confirmation bias" and you have grasped it superbly.

[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.

This is absurd. Whites had all the power and, in a long, drawn-out process, finally chose (under some external and moral pressure from anglo and jewish religious figures!) to share it. They could have chosen to clamp down harder, to shoot protestors, to drive non-whites from these shores. The whites who made the decision to share power, rather than stamp out a domestic problem, were co-saviors with mlk etc. To ignore this fact and them is a FALSE narrative. Give credit to those who deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Certainly there have been objections by LBJ historians and the head of the LBJ Library, but within the larger field of (respected) historians there are a much wider range of opinions. Check out Peniel Joseph's piece on Selma for CodeSwitch. He is very respected historian-his book "Waiting 'til the Midnight Hour" is an excellent read.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/01/10/376081786/selma-backlash-misses-the-point

[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.

That might be the case in the case of advanced students, but it's more likely that many students watching Selma will accept its version of history lock, stock and barrel. Their teachers will be glad that they learned something, and won't bother to engage in the type of meta-criticism that you suggest is the rule of thumb.

As for Jeff's comparison to American Sniper, it's willfully obtuse. What major historical figure is Jeff contending was inaccurately portrayed on the screen in that movie, recognizing that the title character was not such an individual?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

To see through the movie propaganda, you need to first of all understand what took place. Have you read the multiple objections by recognized historians? Have you at the very least read Caro's amazing books on LBJ?

Have you seen the movie???? When you have let's talk... until then you are just as blind.

Come on, that's the oldest trick in the snake oil business...only people who have actually tried can comment on it, right?

I trust recognized historians and respected books way more than random chatter by an anonymous poster...or than a debunked movie.

I trust movies that are debunked by anonymous posters that haven't seen the movie.

It is called "research." I know it is not easy to grasp.

It's actually called "confirmation bias" and you have grasped it superbly.

You talk about what you have no idea. I had in fact already suggested watching the movie with my family, before changing my mind given the multiple reported historical innacuracies. It is called research, or even just learning.

Something you seem incapable of, immersed as you seem to be in your supernatural powers to read the minds of every poster here. Having said that, congrats on using big words. Now go learn what they truly mean.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You talk about what you have no idea. I had in fact already suggested watching the movie with my family, before changing my mind given the multiple reported historical innacuracies. It is called research, or even just learning.

Something you seem incapable of, immersed as you seem to be in your supernatural powers to read the minds of every poster here. Having said that, congrats on using big words. Now go learn what they truly mean.

The "research" that you conducted contradicts what multiple posters who actually saw the movie report, as well as the evaluation of many experts on the topic. Forgive me for not having much faith in the quality of your research.

[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.

That might be the case in the case of advanced students, but it's more likely that many students watching Selma will accept its version of history lock, stock and barrel. Their teachers will be glad that they learned something, and won't bother to engage in the type of meta-criticism that you suggest is the rule of thumb.

As for Jeff's comparison to American Sniper, it's willfully obtuse. What major historical figure is Jeff contending was inaccurately portrayed on the screen in that movie, recognizing that the title character was not such an individual?

Well, if you think your child's teacher isn't going to address it, then be sure that you talk to your child (if you let your child see the movie.) Ultimately it is always up to the adults to check and double check. Text books are often wrong too (adn far more important thing to get up in arms about), not to mention the amount of interpretation and inaccuracy in "classic" children's books ("Johnny Tremain" has stirred some controversy, let alone the story of the First Thanksgiving or lessons about Columbus Day for that matter). And maybe some people who see the movie will not accurately understand all parts of history, maybe not -- as posters here, and apparently respected historians, disagree on the matter. Why should children old enough to see the film be kept from the debate? We've all seen documentaries that take great liberties, and at least this one doesn't purport to be a documentary. People who have better information should call it out and put their own facts out there to set the record straight. But I don't see that as an argument for burning books or banning films (or news stations notorious for taking a slant). Let the kids see the movie, and talk to them about it. Why do you get to be their censor?

[Anonymous]

Here's a roundup of articles about the film and the history on the History News Network site-this a site that is by historian for historians:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/tag/7610