Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 07:46 am
@BillW,
Okay, i'll try and watch "Birth of a Nation", out of curiosity. You know that the history of literature is full of prejudice, too, right? One could tear down Shakespeare as an antisemite, Twain as anti-Indian, etc. I'm not in the business of 'cancelling' any artist out of political disagreement. I've read the whole work of Céline, and yet he was a Nazi collaborator...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 08:01 am
@snood,
Quote:
These arguments about things or people not being racist “for the times” are specious.

That's not what I am saying. On the contrary, I'm saying that racism abound in movies and books, old and new, but that we shouldn't try and 'purify' our bookshelves from such books and cancel Gone With the Wind.

Watching an old Tarzan movie is enjoyable even though it's evidently racist. The Merchant of Venice is still being played in spite if its antisemitism, etc. I don't want to 'cancel' 90% of the world's writers and film makers just because prejudice crept in their work. Otherwise the only books left to read are going to be boringly normative and wishy-washy.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 08:02 am
@blatham,
Quote:
It would be foolish to say that anti-Semitism in Europe in the first half of the last century ...

Or in Canada, for that matter... :-)
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 08:14 am
@Olivier5,
Definitely more of a problem in Europe but here too, sure. Our guilt is related to the indigenous populations and what we did to them. That's a very ugly story.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 08:47 am
@Olivier5,
Gone With The Wind was racist (in my own outlook) just by the way they portrayed the "house slaves."

But here in the following is a better piece which explains what I mean. Bear in mind, I am talking about a movie I absolutely loved, in fact it was first full length romance I have read growing up; was so mad when Rhett told her he didn't give a ** .

Quote:
Romance for the world of slavery is the book's setting as well as its philosophy:

"There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind..."

This is only the worst of the film's politically incorrect sins. Gone with the Wind contains the single most romantic vision of marital rape ever put onscreen:

The film more or less invented the concept of the sassy black friend, in Hattie McDaniel as Mammy, who was the first African-American to win an Oscar. The film explicitly talks about reparations, the famous 40 acres and a mule, as a vote-buying scam put about by Yankee carpetbaggers. There are good blacks and insolent blacks. There are house blacks and there are field blacks. Whenever African-American characters are articulate, it is always meant as a comic surprise. These are still the prejudices that bedevil representations of African-Americans onscreen.

But what is most fascinating about Gone with the Wind is the capacity for the story not to be about race. One would think that a story about the Civil War, about the liberation of the slaves, would naturally involve the discussion of the nature of enslavement, the nature of rebellion. But there is really almost none of it. Even after the war is lost, Mammy remains Mammy. The good blacks remain the good blacks. The carpetbaggers only appear in a tiny fragment of a scene, and they are not really given enough personhood to count as villains. That honor goes to white trash and the Yankees. The details of the material life of the Southerners is the key, and in that drama the black people amount to furniture. During a nap before the war, white girls sleep while black girls fan them with peacock feather fans. Whether those black girls have any feelings whatsoever is a matter of the strictest irrelevance to this movie.



esquire

It wasn't until after I grew up and was more aware of racism that I actually realized just how racist a movie it was. When I was kid, like the above paragraphs explain, it was all about the southern way of life. My cousins and my siblings and I played Gone With The Wind as kids, enacting running away from the "Yankees" on vines in my granny's woods a long time ago. The only thought we had about the way the blacks were portrayed was to repeat the scene "I know nothing about birthing babies." Of course it was said differently in the movie. So yes, Oliver, that movie and book was one of the worst movies and books with blatant racism around that I know of. Does it mean we should stay away from the book and movie now that we are enlightened? I don't know, my instinct says yes, but, I am not sure. In my mothers room, she is dead now, there is still a very big picture of the iconic scene of Rett and Scarlett hanging on the wall. There is no way I would even want to take it down.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 09:12 am
@blatham,
You need to reflect upon your own history a bit better. Canada did "not to have much of an antisemitism problem" because it systematically discriminated against Jewish emigration... E.g. Canada refused to accept German Jewish refugees during the 30s, just like the US did, even though it was quite obvious that Germany wasn't safe for them. Many of these refugees not allowed to settle in North America returned to Western Europe and later on died in the camps.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 09:23 am
@revelette3,
Yes sure, but 1) Mammy as a character rises above the cliche of the good household black; she's witty and smart; and 2) there is value in understanding how past generations thought very little of their casual racism, if only because it gives us a sense of care and self-doubt. You write "now that we are enlightened", but that's not the lesson I draw from such movies. Instead, I get a sense that our current times may well display their own forms of prejudice that future generations will condemn but that we barely see right now... E.g many present-day North Americans come across as anglocentric, a form of prejudice that is totally casual for them i.e. they don't see it as a problem to think less of, say, a francophone writer than of an anglophone one.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 10:07 am
@Olivier5,
I don't wave Canadian flags. I know this history you reference. But it would be dim to equate anti-Semitism here to the thing in Europe. One particularly relevant aspect of Shirer's history is the detailing of the anti-Semitic tracts that were washing over Europe in the 20s and 30s. Nothing remotely comparable in scale was happening here. Europe has a different and much longer history re the scapegoating of Jews.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 10:15 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Europe has a different and much longer history re the scapegoating of Jews.
The general sense of anti-Semitism in the 14th century, for instance, led to the Black Death persecutions and massacres.
But there was nothing unique about these massacres - even afterwards it was done, e.g. the Brussels massacre wiped out the complete Belgian Jewish community.

In Palatine, persecutions of Jews started with the first crusade (1096) and only ended in 1534 - then the formerly flourishing Jewish life in this region was almost completely extinguished.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 10:16 am
@blatham,
You don't need to wave Canadian flags in order to be biased about Canada. People generally are not conscious about their own biases, and I doubt you're an exception to that rule.

Europe has a much longer history in WELCOMING Jews, reasons for which there actually WERE a large number of Jews in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, more than anywhere else in the world. Something like 80% of the world Jewish population lived in Europe prior to WW2. Canada's emigration policies long discriminated against Jews, so the argument that it had less antisemitism going around than in Europe is moot.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 02:10 pm
@Olivier5,
I believe the obvious fact here is that peoples of all countries have at various times in their histories exhibited the full range of human reactions to "alien minorities" . It is merely unfortunate that contemporary political correctitude demands eternal guilt for past faults and errors.

The United States was very welcoming to early 18th century settlements by European Jews, while at the same time both the U.S. and Canada resisted the mass movement of Jews to our shores in the years leading up to WWII . Hard now to understand, but I expect that few then appreciated the horrors that were ahead. Germany in particular was, prior to Hitler, the most welcoming of European powers to Jewish settlement and integration into their society. The absurd ideas of Aryan superiority and virulent anti Semitism took flower only in an unusual post WWI milieu involving (1) resentment of the treaty ending WWI ( Germany signed an armistice, which their former enemies turned into a surrender in the midst of the post war collapse of the German government and economy); (2) fear of the spread of Bolshevik revolution , and (3) unresolved political and economic issues among Germans which led to the rise of the NSP and Hitler.

I believe more detailed understanding of the real issues that attended such acts of intolerance in various countries and less preemptive, uninformed moral judgement are appropriate here.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 02:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 02:22 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Hard now to understand, but I expect that few then appreciated the horrors that were ahead.
Good point. It's certain that even most Jews didn't appreciate that. And what did follow gave "anti-Semitism" its present heft and seriousness.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 02:41 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Germany in particular was, prior to Hitler, the most welcoming of European powers to Jewish settlement and integration into their society.
In Germany the integration of the Jews took place essentially as a process of integrating into the educated German middle class.
Others had struggle for social integration. In the late medieval period, mainly those emigrated to Italian countries, in the 19th century to Palestine.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 03:20 pm
@georgeob1,
No disputing the thrust of what you say but I have a few 'details' to add. One is that both Catholics and Protestants had a history of "medieval antisemism"; fertile ground that the Nazis and other European antisemites built upon.

Another is that revolutionary France pioneered Jewish emancipation in Europe and Napoleon spread it through the continent.

Yet another is that both in France and Germany, desegregation of trades and industry led over time (two or three generations) to the emergence of a wealthy Jewish class together with other signals of Jewish social success, in the arts, the letters, the press, even the military état major with Dreyfus in France at the turn of the century. This evolution - together with the factors you mentioned - fulled a backslash in the form of a new type of antiselitism, based on nationalism rather than religion, in Europeans countries with significant Jewish populations during the 20th century.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 03:47 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
fulled a backslash in the form of a new type of antiselitism, based on nationalism rather than religion, in Europeans countries with significant Jewish populations during the 20th century.

Are you claiming that France with a large Muslim population has nothing to do with the rise in antisemitism? You are fooling yourself.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 04:40 pm
@Olivier5,
Were they really "welcomed?"
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 04:44 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Hard now to understand, but I expect that few then appreciated the horrors that were ahead.
Good point. It's certain that even most Jews didn't appreciate that. And what did follow gave "anti-Semitism" its present heft and seriousness.


Because before then when Jews were being slaughtered by Cossacks in Russian programs and savaged all around Europe it was just fun & games?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192512104038166
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 05:04 pm
@Olivier5,
I agree with what you described in France & Germany and other areas in Europe. My underlying point is that episodic and systematic intolerance or exploitation of perceived alien minorities is a detectable part of the history of every nation that I know of. It's a part of the human condition and all should strive to find acceptable ways to overcome it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2020 05:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
pograms of course
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.36 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 08:14:29