| This is just stuff I've read and stuff you could read if you wish. |
Well too bad you didn't read my original post. At least not carefully. At least not with comprehension.
You are debating a
different topic. That's a common logical fallacy, and I can only hope you're not doing it on purpose.
Let's go back and look carefully at what was said.
Joe said "If this is just a straight historical account of the way things were back in the days of the Reconstruction"
Now, Joe did say
if. But his if was about the historically accurate portrayal of "rebellious black population was during the Reconstruction Period".
This is what I was reacting to. This was NOT a debate about whether Lillian Gish was a racist. This was a debate about whehter or not the portrayal of the black characters in the latter half of the film was (to quote Joe again) "is this historical truth?"
Now, perhaps I misunderstood some of what Joe was saying, but to me, it was rather surprising that someone could even entertain the possibility that the portrayal of blacks in the latter half of the film was historically accurate.
Of course, if Joe had talked to someone ahead of time, who, in trying to defend the film cause he likes it, had put that idea forth as a fact, ridiculous as it is, then that would explain some of that.
Then, Michael came in and said "these are the folks you need to do more studying about Griffith and the events in the film. There were three stages of the Klan with this film showing the first half. Those with a little less knowledge attribute this group to what we've all seen during the 1960's." Now, this is the debate. But it's wrong, and so I continued to discuss it by pointing out that even the Klan portrayed in the film, was a clearly racist organization, as a perusal of the documents they wrote themselves at their 1867 convention would make clear. Indeed,
someone does need to do more studying, not about Griffith, but about the "events in the film", as they relate to historical reality.
Of course, Michael also went off-topic, and started talking about whether BoaN was a racist film, and bringing up other films. Since that wasn't germane to the debate we were having (which wasn't about the racism of the film, but simply whether or not BoaN was historically accurate in it's second half), I chose not to respond.
Now, Michael has attacked me anew on this front. So, now I will respond.
There are a number of distinctions that one has to make, or at least be able to understand in order to have such a debate however. So, I am going to describe those. If you don't understand those, then there is no point in actually having the debate, and I won't continue at that point. If you do get it, then perhaps we can have a meaningful debate for a change.
1 - There is a difference between a film that is racist in it's core message, and a film that is a product of a society with racist aspects.
2 - I love many films. None of the ones I love have core racist messages. A very small percentage (less than one half of one percent) have uncomfortable moments due to reflection of society at that time.
3 - I hate many films. Each of the small number of films I've seen with core racist messages is among the ones I hate. However, almost all of the films I hate having nothing remotely racist about them, they're just badly made, melodramatic, or boring as all hell.
4 - Whether or not a film is trying to send a racist message is of course a matter of opinion. This can be debated about BoaN, The Searchers, Safety Last, Holiday Inn, Do the Right Thing, Breakfast at Tiffany's, etc. I see three of those films as promoting a racist message, and three as only having unfortunate moments that reflect an unenlightened society. There is no right answer, however, and this is a key point Michael, and if you don't get it, then there's no point in continuing -
If one has made that determination for themselves, and therefore, watch the films in one category, and not in the other, and is tolerant of films in one category, and not in the other, then, given that person's subjective evaluation of the membership of those films into the two categories, that is a perfectly consistent, and reasonable thing to do.
If you wish to continue this discussion, and understand the basic points I've laid out, let me know. If not, well, then fine.
!
