fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3220 ]

[ SECRET POST #3220 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3220 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 031 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

04. http://abload.de/img/lbjqexso.png

Yeah, I agree with you. Changing historical events to fit a film's narrative is a crummy thing to do. (Especially when you then pass it off as a true accounting of events.)

I agree.

At the same time, though, let's remember that this happens to a lot of POC in Hollywood movies. Two wrongs don't make a right, but remember the emotions you felt at what was done to LBJ and realize that that is how POC feel every time Hollywood fucks them over for a white protagonist.

You're conflating two issues. Changing history for drama and presenting it as factual is never right.

...I'm not sure where we disagree?

I was just reminding OP that POC get fucked by Hollywood all the time so it's good to remember the feelings regarding what was done to LBJ to realize how others consistently feel about getting fucked over by Hollywood's lies.

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right and it's wrong to lie about LBJ.

Really? Can you name some examples where Hollywood said, "This historical figure is black, so let's make him more antagonistic to our heroes"?

I don't think it's something done to PoC specifically. So that's a weird defense.

Yeah, Hollywood is usually more, "This historical figure is 'insert minority here' so let's erase them and give their story to a white dude."

(no subject)

philippos42 - 2015-11-03 05:21 (UTC) - Expand

LBJ was kinda scum, though.

Eh, everyone is kind of scum though, if you look deeply enough.

MLK cheated on his wife.

Gandhi was super racist and sexist.

It's much better, IMO, to look at their individual actions and how they impacted the world.

When evaluating the person, I guess we have to ask if he did more harm than good.

+1. All people are a mix of good and bad. It's mildly disturbing how some people will write someone off when they find a single fault.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-29 04:58 (UTC) - Expand

Mother Theresa let women die in squalor because it was better for their souls, but made sure she only got the best Western care for herself.

Don't forget Nelson Mandela was an abusive husband. Admitted it as well. His first wife really struggles with him being portrayed as such a saint.

I think that bad things of one sort or another are often in the background with anyone who has the ego and drive to become famous, especially in politics.

But by all accounts he was decent to the help and that included black staffers. The film changed that.

But for all the years he was in the Senate he consistently voted against Civil Rights legislation. When you're in an actual position to change lives and don't take that step, being nice to people isn't much to hang your hat on.

(And obviously he was responding to what his constituency wanted and he was very strategic in how he voted, but his congressional record just shows nay votes, and not the logic behind them.)

LBJ could be a dick, granted, but Joe Califano, one of LBJ's aides in the 1960s, saw many private sides to the man, and one time, LBJ was arguing with a Senator, nearly moved to tears as he described the grinding poverty of the black people he'd seen in Texas, and all the Senator could keep doing was go on about how he just ~knew~ all black people popped out ten babies a family and were totally irresponsible, based on one family he'd known of back when he was young.

He also emphasized in many ways his very real sensitivity to the fact that being poor and broke doesn't make a person a totally inhuman object. He used to say that the difference between him and a bum he saw on the street was (holds thumb and finger very close together) "that much".

He was also the one to convince J Edgar Hoover to go after the KKK, which was no small feat.

I will say, regardless of the inaccuracies, it boggles the mind that no one involved with the film saw this attack coming. They should have had several historians on the payroll to back up the film's assertions. I think if they had come out with a strong defense of "yes, we might have changed some things around, but see this speech and this legislative comment and this letter showing that he felt this way", the controversy would have died down very quickly.

oh for the love of crap. I don't even know what film this is, but deliberately falsifying things in a supposed historical film just for the sake of seeming (for lack of better term) politically correct is EXACTLY the kind of thing that people who want to be offensive and gross will jump on to "prove" that anyone who wants to be racially sensitive is just a lying ~SJW~

you don't know much about this situation, and it's apparent

http://www.themarysue.com/selma-director-context/

What is this film? The two actors I recognize (in that, 'i've seen you in something!) way, but i don't remember seeing anything about a movie lately about LBJ....

I'm pretty sure it's Selma.

Ah, okay. Thanks!

I was just SO happy to see a movie about black people/civil rights that didn't have a godamn white savior in it that I wasn't too worried about LBJ's portrayal (which I don't think was all that negative anyway).

Its interesting to me to see how up in arms people got over it though, much more then then most of them ever do over Hollywood's whitewashing/white savior obsession.

No, I didn't think it was that unfair to LBJ, either, tbh. Johnson's aide remembers the meeting going differently, but it more or less tallies with with how MLK recounted it, and the film is, after all, told from MLK's perspective.

My take on the way LBJ was portrayed is that it showed him as having good intentions to help those in poverty and for the extension of civil rights, but that he was also convinced that he knew better than anyone else how that could be achieved - and that he was irritated by people disrupting the strategy he'd worked out. It doesn't show him as a monster. It shows him as an astute, pragmatic politician who liked wheeler-dealering and working the system, and who wasn't comfortable with direct action tactics. The film disagrees with him, but it doesn't, IMO, suggest that he's a terrible person, just very divorced from the reality the activists face.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only