No, I have not seen #Selma yet. Am I going to see the movie? I haven't decided. As someone who lived through those dark difficult days I'm not anxious to relive them. Yes, I know it's fiction based on factual history, but I don't know If I can relive the horror, the fear, the terrorism, the injustice, and the brutality all over again. It's just to painful, and I don't want to be bitter, for lack of a better word.
Evidently some (not to be confused with all) white Alabamians are finding the movie hard to watch too. Poor George Wallace Jr., and Cecil Williamson, Selma City Council Vice-President are in a state of denial and can't separate fact from fiction. According them the movie is full of inaccuracies and Oprah Winfrey and Brad Pitt needlessly changed history in order to tell what was an already compelling story in "Selma."
What inaccuracies are they talking about? They are the ones, enabled by the white male dominated media, trying to rewrite history.
Here is a reminder of the shock and shame of Alabama history for those who were there, and a lesson for those who weren't there. Watch, read, listen, and learn.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it" Edmund Burke
7 comments:
I have not seen the movie either. What is the complaints about? Are they complaining about the stuff left out that would portray MLK in a bad light? We know some of his closest friends/advisers (Ralph David Abernathy) have stated that he was doing many of the things that we want to sweep under the rug ie women plagiarism etc!If that is what they are mad about oh well film makers can make it what they want. It is up to the movie goer to do their own research and not just believe everything they see on the big screen!
They may also be mad that if this was not in the movie.
--- In 1991 a Boston University investigatory committee concluded that King had plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation but did not recommend the revocation of his degree:
---Oliver Stone dropped out of writing and directing the much anticipated MLK film because the King people in Atlanta rejected his script. They refused to permit the truth being told since Stone planned to deal with “issues of adultery, conflicts within the movement, and King’s spiritual transformation.” It is incredible that honest people do not demand the truth, however unpleasant, about their heroes.
---King’s friendly biographer, David J. Garrow revealed to USA Today King’s justification for his sexual immorality: “He [King] explained it as someone on the road 27 days a month and needing sex as a form of anxiety reduction and for emotional solace.” Oh, well, that makes his adultery and betrayal of his marriage vows and ordination vows acceptable–maybe even commendable!
--King was a pervert: Black columnist Carl Rowan reported that the FBI tapes suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between King and his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy! Black talk show host and columnist Tony Brown added more light on this possibility when he reported on King’s banter to Abernathy in one of their hotel rooms. However, it was so vulgar, I will not even disguise King’s request to his “best friend.”
Fist Dap Upset Resident for giving me the idea for this post and explaining why some white Alabamians are having a hard time separating fact from fiction in the movie #Selma. Normally I would delete comments that don't provide links and are off topic.
I posted where I found the information but yet you deleted it. Why? There are many prominent newspapers, writers, etc that have several writings going in depth on true events not depicted in the movie and those same events people like you want to act like they never happened. It does not take away from what he did!! It is however part of his history that should be told in a movie that "supposedly" shows the true MLK! We know there are those who will watch movies and believe it and never pick up a book or look for the truth! One example is Tina Fey on SNL saying she can see Alaska from her porch as Palin yet many think Palin said it...lol and yet she did not!! I said the same thing about the Lincoln movie when it came out, that all the truth should be told!
Classic attack the messenger when you can't attack the message.
Classic discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message.
Let's talk about Dr. Martin Luther King so we won't have to talk about Dr. King's message.
Classic weapon of mass distraction from the substance of the issues.
Carry on.
I never attacked. He did some GREAT work!!! I just said if they tell the story why not tell ALL the story!!
You did so attack. You attacked his reputation and his character in an attempt to discredit him and his GREAT work.
Carry on.
Post a Comment